Two Heads Are Better Than One

“Two heads are better than one,” or its variation, is a saying that almost every culture around the world knows and does its best to practice. It is not only used in reference to collaboration, but in reference to governance. Most companies, enterprises, and/or systemic groupings of people need to have two heads. These are the symbolic, advisory head and the administrative, operational head. In the non-C-suite way of corporate governance, it is simple, we have a chairman of the board serving as the symbolic, advisory head and a president serving as the administrative, operational head. 

It gets a little confusing in the modern C-suite systems of corporate governance where you can have the chairman of the board, president, and chief executive officer roles. To avoid any confusion, it’s best to look at governance from the perspective of the people being governed, not the people doing the governing. If you’re a member of the executive committee, the chairman is the symbolic, advisory head and then if you’re a member of the general staff, the chief executive officer is the symbolic head. The chief operations or president is the administrative, operational head of the general staff. 

Prosperous or developed countries have a similar approach to governance, whether parliamentary or federal. The president or monarch is the symbolic, advisory head and the prime minister is the administrative, operational head. The symbolic head is a safeguard against the missteps of the administrative head, giving the people an outlet if they are not happy with the administrative head. Some countries, like the United States, have a far more complex system that requires, yet again, for things to be observed from the perspective of the people being governed. Each level has its own symbolic and administrative heads, but most citizens can get by if they see the president as a symbolic head and the state governor as the administrative head. 

Most African countries, because they follow a unitary form of governance, tend not to have true symbolic and administrative heads. In most cases, the prime ministers are not true administrative heads because there is usually some form of collusion between the president and prime minister, or monarch and prime minister. This is true whether the country is democratic or not because one of the main problems plaguing our continent is corruption. It is not the lack of democracy. We need our leaders to step up, no matter the system of governance, and lead with integrity. Do not get me wrong, there is no such thing as zero corruption, even the UN suffers from a little corruption. Our part to play is to make sure that there is no corruption in the middle, and low levels of the pyramid. We can isolate and limit corruption to the highest levels of the pyramid, that’s the billionaires and politicians, in order to unite the many against the few. This also removes the need for protests because change will make its way up the pyramid organically.  

 

Families also need to be led by two heads: the father as the symbolic, advisory head and the mother as the administrative, operational head. The Bible is clear on how the husband and wife, after leaving their parents and becoming a couple, lead with the husband as the advisory head of the family and the wife as the operational head of the household (oikos). When households do not hold to this order, this can cause strife between the married couple and resentment among the children. The husband can neglect his duty as the wife’s number one supporter and pit the children against her, or the children can pit the parents against each other. 

As the symbolic head, the husband needs to provide love, support, relief, and advice to his wife and love, direction, and discipline to the children. The wife is to provide honor and support to her husband, and love and direction to the children.  One of the reasons why I do not recommend polygamy is that it creates competition among the wives, who should be administrative heads in their own households, but end up being vice presidents in the grand scheme of the homestead. This competition is fertile ground for toxic emotions which can lead to division. In this case, the family serves as the divisive agent; rather than the foundational, adhesive structure it was created to be.

The church also needs to have symbolic and administrative heads, and its expression is wholly dependent on the chosen leadership structure of the church. If there isn’t an executive pastor, the head elder or elders serve as the symbolic head(s) and the senior or lead pastor an administrative head to the general staff and congregants. In the case where an executive pastor and executive committee exist, the head elder or elders serve as the symbolic head(s) to all, the senior or lead pastor serves as an administrative head of the executive committee and the symbolic head to the general staff and congregants. In the case where an executive pastor exists without an executive committee, the elders are the symbolic heads to all, the senior pastor a symbolic head to the general staff and congregants, and the executive pastor an administrative head to the general staff and congregants. 

 

Organizations that do not embrace the two types of heads or do not possess a clear distinction between the two can, like children of a broken home, be frustrated. They can be confused about who is in charge and how to raise their grievances. The church needs to do better in this regard because a lot of churches tend to have the senior pastor playing both the roles of symbolic and administrative head at all levels, leaving room for corruption. The elders are supposed to have the power to remove the senior or lead pastor if he does not lead according to their counsel or abuses their power. A senior pastor that cannot be removed by the elders is occupying two seats at the table.