Chapter 15 – Planning – Moses and Knowing Your Mission
Planning – Moses and Knowing Your Mission
Understanding Mission Boundaries
Imagine being tasked with developing an exciting new travel package for your agency. You invest months meticulously designing itineraries, negotiating accommodations, and creating marketing materials. As customers begin enthusiastically purchasing these packages, you feel immense satisfaction at your creation’s success. Then suddenly, your employer announces you’re terminated and prohibited from ever participating in the tour you designed.
Most people would feel profound anger and injustice. But why? If your mission was specifically to create the tour – not to participate in it – then technically you’ve completed your assignment. This scenario parallels Moses’ experience: charged with leading the Israelites from Egypt but prevented from entering the Promised Land himself. While seemingly unfair, this raises profound questions about mission clarity, scope definition, and whether fairness should be measured against original expectations or expanded aspirations.
The Divine Commission
Exodus 3:10 Therefore, now, come; and I will send you to Pharaoh; so that you can lead my people, the descendants of Isra’el, out of Egypt.” 11 Moshe said to God, “Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh and lead the people of Isra’el out of Egypt?” 12 He replied, “I will surely be with you. Your sign that I have sent you will be that when you have led the people out of Egypt, you will worship God on this mountain.”
Numbers 20:7 ADONAI said to Moshe, 8 “Take the staff, assemble the community, you and Aharon your brother; and before their eyes, tell the rock to produce its water. You will bring them water out of the rock and thus enable the community and their livestock to drink.” 9 Moshe took the staff from the presence of ADONAI, as he had ordered him. 10 But after Moshe and Aharon had assembled the community in front of the rock, he said to them, “Listen here, you rebels! Are we supposed to bring you water from this rock?” 11 Then Moshe raised his hand and hit the rock twice with his staff. Water flowed out in abundance, and the community and their livestock drank. 12 But ADONAI said to Moshe and Aharon, “Because you did not trust in me, so as to cause me to be regarded as holy by the people of Isra’el, you will not bring this community into the land I have given them.”
Deuteronomy 4:21 “But ADONAI was angry with me on account of you and swore that I would not cross the Yarden and go into that good land, which ADONAI your God is giving you to inherit. 22 Rather, I must die in this land and not cross the Yarden; but you are to cross and take possession of that good land.
Shepherding as Management Training
Like many biblical leaders, Moses developed foundational leadership skills through shepherding. This profession’s isolation, opportunities for divine communion, and problem-solving requirements provided exceptional management training. Notable biblical shepherds include Elisha, Abel, Moses, Lot, David, and Shaul (Nachshoni, 1998).
Moses tended his father-in-law’s flocks (Exodus 3:1) before being called to shepherd a far more challenging flock – a people with complex needs and independent minds. This transition raised concerns about whether the Israelites would follow him. The Lord addressed this by providing authenticating signs and words for the elders, though ultimate success required compelling vision beyond mere credentialing.
Moses’ initial planning sequence involved:
- Securing belief among Israelite elders and slaves that divine rescue was underway
- Convincing Pharaoh to release the people
- Managing the actual exodus from Egypt
This constituted Moses’ original commission – a relatively straightforward rescue operation rather than a comprehensive forty-year development program. The question becomes whether and when this mission scope expanded.
The shepherd-to-leader transition represented a lateral move from managing Yitro’s flocks to shepherding the Lord’s people (Laufer, 2006). Moses even led the Israelites past the same mountain where he encountered the burning bush, perhaps hoping they would experience similar spiritual awakening. While Moses witnessed a single burning bush (Exodus 3:5), the Israelites later observed dramatic divine manifestation (Exodus 19:18), suggesting intentional parallelism in these experiences.
Mission Definition Analysis
Moses’ original assignment appears remarkably limited: extract the Israelites from Egypt and bring them to Mount Sinai to receive divine instruction – a journey requiring relatively brief travel after liberation. His appointment never explicitly included leading them into the Promised Land.
The rock-striking incident (Numbers 20:7-11) traditionally marks Moses’ disqualification from entering Canaan. When the people demanded water, God instructed Moses to verbally command the rock to produce water – a method differing from his previous water-producing miracle that required striking the rock. His decision to strike rather than speak to the rock violated divine instruction, prompting the pronouncement that Moses would not enter the Promised Land.
This appears straightforward – disobedience resulting in consequence. Yet several factors complicate this interpretation. Moses’ forty-year leadership record demonstrated exceptional faithfulness despite occasional frustration. Moreover, terminating a long-tenured, high-performing leader for a single procedural violation seems disproportionate unless the incident represented culmination rather than isolated transgression.
Perhaps Moses completed his original assignment at Egypt’s departure, and his continued leadership represented a separate commission entirely. His task was extracting Israel from Egypt (physically and psychologically), not establishing them in Canaan. As Wildavsky argues in Moses as Political Leader, “Moses’ first task was to root out the Egypt within Israel.” The enslaved needed liberation not just from physical bondage but from slave mentality – material, habitual, spiritual, and social conditioning developed during Egyptian captivity.
Moses functioned as revolutionary to Egyptians (challenging their system and removing vital labor resources) but employed reactive rather than proactive approaches with the Israelites – addressing issues as they emerged rather than implementing comprehensive transformation strategy.
Effective managers must understand both explicit assignments and implicit objectives that support primary goals. Moses recognized his responsibility extended beyond physical relocation to internal transformation. When the Israelites resisted his message (Exodus 6:12), this foreshadowed desert rebellions, revealing the challenge of changing unwilling minds. Without understanding these foundational objectives, achieving larger goals becomes impossible.
Planning Deficiencies
Moses’ principal planning failure may have been excessive divine reliance without developing independent contingency frameworks. The biblical account suggests inadequate preparation for leading millions through desert conditions – lacking water, supplies, and navigational planning. This unpreparedness potentially informed the divine decision that Moses was unsuitable for the Promised Land campaign, particularly since direct divine intervention would diminish once they entered Canaan. When Joshua led the people into the land, divine provision of manna ceased after the Jericho battle (Joshua 5:12), requiring self-sufficiency previously unnecessary.
The Lord potentially recognized that Moses excelled with divine backup but lacked independent strategic capacity required for Canaan conquest. Joshua’s military orientation made him better suited for this phase – shifting from miraculous provision to human-led conquest requiring conventional strategic planning.
The Israelites’ military unpreparedness appeared immediately after Egyptian departure when attacked by pursuing forces. Though Exodus 13:18 mentions that the people departed armed, no previous organizational preparation for weapons training or military coordination appears in the narrative. Only during the Amalek confrontation did Joshua receive instructions to assemble fighting forces (Exodus 17:8-9), with minimal preparation time before engagement. Without divine intervention, these hastily assembled forces would likely have failed against experienced opponents.
Moses’ Mount Sinai ascension similarly demonstrated planning inadequacy. Though appointing Aaron and Hur to handle disputes during his absence, he left the general population without direction or contingency plans for his non-return. This pattern of proceeding without comprehensive planning created crisis management situations rather than systematic development – perhaps signaling to Moses that transformation required not just Egyptian extraction but personal management evolution from reactive to proactive approaches.
True leadership requires planning beyond miracles. The traditional joke about a pious person praying to win the lottery without buying a ticket illustrates this principle – divine partnership requires human initiative rather than passive dependence.
Moses failed to develop sufficient sub-goals, objectives, and tactical approaches for desert management. The Lord commanded jewel collection from Egyptians and food preparation before departure (Exodus 12:39), but comprehensive provisions for extended desert travel – water, shelter, clothing, and supplies – went unaddressed. The Tower of Babel builders and Abraham instructing Eliezer demonstrated detailed planning absent from Moses’ approach. The only clear plan was divine rescue rather than human implementation strategy – perhaps explaining Moses’ planning passivity since he received neither planning instructions nor expected to lead beyond initial extraction.
Exit Strategy Development
Moses likewise failed to develop a clear exit strategy. Once leaving Egypt, return became impossible, yet no timeline or milestone-based progression toward the Promised Land was established. Without understanding how long the journey would require or what sequential steps would lead to Canaan, the people lacked meaningful context for their wilderness experience.
The Lord demonstrated more comprehensive planning through preparatory legislation. When manna first appeared, the Lord commanded preserving a portion in a jar beside the Ten Commandments in the Ark – anticipating future generations who might question divine provision (Exodus 16:34). Many Levitical laws applied not to desert conditions but future Promised Land occupation: “when you shall come to the land and you shall plant any food tree…” (Leviticus 19:23) and “when a proselyte dwells among you in your land” (Leviticus 19:33). This forward-looking legislation began 38 years before actual land occupation (Numbers 10:11), demonstrating divine preparatory education rather than last-minute instruction.
Leadership Transition Considerations
Moses potentially anticipated shorter mission duration than the forty-year journey that materialized. Preparation for multi-month journey differs substantially from multi-year expedition planning. When the people began complaining about water and food shortages 45 days after departure (Exodus 16:1), Moses had no contingency plans, requiring divine intervention for water procurement. Joshua’s subsequent military appointment (Exodus 17:9), followed by Jethro’s bureaucratic restructuring recommendation (Exodus 19) and the Ten Commandments presentation (Exodus 20), created progressive organization development.
The Golden Calf rebellion (Exodus 32) potentially altered leadership transition plans. Joshua had accompanied Moses partway up Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:13, 32:17), suggesting grooming for eventual leadership succession. The Lord blamed Moses for the people’s transgression – “descend – for your people that you brought up from the land of Egypt has become corrupt” (Exodus 32:7) – perhaps imposing extended leadership responsibility as Moses’ consequence for unsuccessful transformation within the initial timeframe.
Leadership versus Management Distinction
Despite frequent characterization as Israel’s great leader, Moses may have functioned primarily as divine implementation manager rather than independent strategic leader. Leviticus repeatedly attributes the exodus to divine rather than human leadership: “I am the Lord who brings you up from the land of Egypt to be a God onto you” (Leviticus 11:45) and “who takes you out of the land of Egypt to be Lord onto you” (Leviticus 22:33). Significantly, these statements use present rather than past tense – “brings” rather than “brought” and “takes” rather than “took” – suggesting ongoing liberation rather than completed action.
This framing positions the Lord as strategic leader while Moses executed divinely determined strategy as operational manager. Moses primarily functioned as liaison between divine leadership and human followers – implementing plans rather than creating them, consistent with his designation as the Lord’s servant (Numbers 12:7, Joshua 1:2).
While Moses primarily demonstrated management excellence, he occasionally exhibited transformational leadership through advocacy. Despite multiple divine threats to destroy the rebellious people and start anew with Moses, he consistently interceded for his charges rather than exploiting these opportunities for personal advancement. This advocacy demonstrated authentic leadership transcending mere implementation management.
Mission Communication Challenges
Moses’ attempts to communicate the Promised Land vision failed with exhausted slaves. Though he shared the grand vision of inheriting ancestral lands (Exodus 6:8) after describing redemption from Egyptian bondage (6:5-7), “the Children of Israel did not listen because they were short of breath and hard work” (6:9). Earlier, Moses’ initial intervention had backfired, increasing slave burdens after requesting three-day worship permission (5:6-9), leading to his complaint that the Lord had “not rescued your people” (5:23).
This illustrates the critical importance of audience-appropriate messaging. While Moses emphasized distant self-actualization (reaching ancestral homeland), the people remained focused on immediate survival concerns. This misalignment reflects Maslow’s hierarchy principles – individuals facing basic survival challenges cannot engage with higher-order motivational appeals.
The biblical narrative acknowledges this motivational challenge. After rejected future-focused appeals, the text immediately shifts to ancestral lineage recitation. By highlighting the twelve tribes and their heritage, Moses attempted to ground motivation in historical identity rather than future promise. This past-future connection created motivational bridge – using ancestral legitimacy to support future aspiration.
This approach offers contemporary managers valuable guidance for motivation across different organizational levels. When strategic vision fails to inspire, connecting organizational heritage with future direction can create more compelling engagement than either perspective alone.
Organizational Structure Development
The Lord selected Moses as intermediary because direct divine leadership proved overwhelming for the people. When receiving the Ten Commandments, the Israelites heard only the first two before requesting Moses’ mediation – “the power of the Lord was too much and they wanted Moses to convey the rest of the commandments” (Exodus 20:2-14). While previous leaders like Abraham and Joseph maintained individual divine relationships, the nation required mediated communication structure.
Moses served as divine mouthpiece – receiving precise instructions regarding plagues, travel directions, Tabernacle construction, and legal requirements. His exceptional communication effectiveness transcended his speech impediment, demonstrating that technical limitations need not impede leadership effectiveness. His designation as exclusive communicator established clear authority channels, preventing message distortion through multiple voices.
Leviticus repeatedly demonstrates this communication structure: the Lord called or spoke to Moses (Leviticus 1:1, 4:1), who then conveyed messages to Aaron and his sons (6:1, 6:17-18) or the Children of Israel (7:23). This consistent chain ensured the Israelites received “all the decrees that the Lord had spoken to them through Moses” (10:11).
Managerial Qualifications Assessment
Moses possessed limited conventional managerial qualifications – no corporate management experience and a criminal history from killing the Egyptian. His resumé showed only shepherding experience, seemingly inadequate preparation for managing millions of former slaves through desert conditions.
Yet the Lord selected Moses for temperamental qualities rather than technical credentials. Biblical scholar Steven Brams (Biblical Games: Game Theory and the Hebrew Bible) suggests Moses was chosen for level-headedness and composure – qualities complementing divine tendencies toward swift judgment. Apart from several impulsive actions (killing the Egyptian, smashing the tablets, striking the rock), Moses consistently demonstrated thoughtful decision-making, typically consulting divine authority before acting and prioritizing people’s welfare. This temperamental balance proved more valuable than conventional management experience.
Moses possessed one exceptional qualification – palace upbringing providing insider knowledge of Egyptian governance, court protocols, and power dynamics unavailable to other Israelites. This institutional understanding provided strategic advantage when confronting Pharaoh’s court.
Additionally, his shepherding experience provided ideal preparation for managing a newly-liberated people accustomed to following orders. With spirits crushed by slavery (Exodus 6:9), the Israelites required leadership that would guide rather than exploit their vulnerability—making shepherd experience particularly relevant managerial preparation.
Commitment Despite Adversity
Despite initial reluctance and potential unawareness of the forty-year journey ahead, Moses demonstrated extraordinary commitment through adversity. While his assignment potentially alienated his wife (who returned with his father-in-law after they crossed the sea – Exodus 18:2) and produced continuous complaints from his charges, Moses never requested replacement or abandonment of responsibility.
His dedication reached extraordinary levels – offering his life in exchange for the people’s forgiveness (Exodus 32:10, 32) and willingness to be removed from scriptural record unless the Israelites received divine pardon. This advocacy required balancing present-focused management with both backward historical perspective and forward aspirational vision – similar to the Roman god Janus with faces looking simultaneously backward and forward.
Independent Judgment Limitations
Moses demonstrated limited independent judgment throughout his leadership tenure. Most actions followed explicit divine instruction, with few autonomous decisions. His independent initiatives primarily involved conflict intervention – killing the Egyptian, breaking up slave fights, helping Jethro’s daughters, breaking the tablets, and striking the rock. This pattern suggests Moses functioned most comfortably as implementation manager rather than independent strategist.
His leadership style likely represented servant leadership, though with complex dual accountability – serving both divine authority and the people themselves. This dual-directional service created challenging accountability tensions when divine and human interests diverged.
Despite these challenges, Moses accomplished his primary assignment—leading the people from Egypt. Though he was not entering the Promised Land himself, he successfully transformed desert wanderers into an effective military force capable of conquest under Joshua’s leadership. By modern standards, these accomplishments would warrant exceptional recognition regardless of technical implementation approaches.
The one biblical portion (Tetzaveh, Exodus 26:20-30:10) where Moses remains unmentioned focuses on future priestly vestments. This conspicuous absence potentially communicates critical managerial principles: no leader remains perpetually central, others must be prepared for transition, and even exceptional managers remain accountable to organizational standards.
Moses’ rock-striking consequence demonstrates that even premier managers remain subject to organizational expectations. While the punishment might appear disproportionate, it established absolute accountability principles – that no positional authority exempts individuals from organizational standards compliance. This principle applies even when directives remain confidential – Moses alone knew he should speak rather than strike the rock (Numbers 20:8),
Managerial Compliance Standards
The exodus narrative presents interesting compliance dynamics regarding divine directives. When Moses first approached Pharaoh, he deviated slightly from divine messaging. Though instructed to request three-day desert worship permission (Exodus 3:18), Moses added the warning “lest he strike us dead with plague or sword” (Exodus 5:3). This unauthorized addition potentially reflected either personal fear or strategic threat insertion.
This early directive deviation went unchallenged, potentially establishing permissive boundaries that influenced Moses’ later, more consequential rock-striking deviation. Managers who receive tacit approval for minor procedural violations often develop an increasingly expansive interpretation of acceptable deviation – a pattern that can culminate in more significant compliance failures.
Control Assessment
Evaluating control effectiveness in the exodus narrative presents unique challenges. Divine intervention “hardening Pharaoh’s heart” (Exodus 7:3) artificially prolonged the confrontation, making normal persuasion effectiveness assessment impossible. Nonetheless, the mission’s primary objective – extracting the Israelites from Egypt – was ultimately accomplished.
This outcome focus raises questions about means-versus-ends evaluation. The exodus involved extreme measures including divine plagues culminating in firstborn deaths. While contemporary business ethics would condemn such approaches, the context involved systematic oppression, baby murder, and torture – creating life-or-death stakes that justified extraordinary intervention. This distinction highlights the importance of proportionate response calibration based on situation severity rather than universal tactical prescription.
The control challenge extends beyond mere outcome achievement to reproducibility assessment. Effective control systems enable results replication through identified cause-effect relationships. The exodus succeeded primarily through miraculous intervention rather than reproducible methodologies, making systematic performance evaluation nearly impossible. Moses’ success depended entirely on divine intervention availability – without which he would likely have faced execution by either Pharaoh or disillusioned Israelites.
This miracle-dependent success pattern raises important management principles about realistic resource dependency. No manager should develop strategies requiring “miraculous” intervention without confirming resource availability. Modern management equivalents include strategies requiring unrealistic market growth, improbable regulatory changes, or extraordinary competitive failures – all representing “miracle-dependent” planning that prudent managers avoid.
Deliverables
Effective mission implementation requires:
- Mission Scope Clarity: Understand specific responsibility boundaries including both explicit assignments and implicit organizational expectations.
- Directive Compliance: Follow instructions precisely rather than introducing unauthorized modifications, regardless of perceived improvements.
- Directive Comprehension: Listen attentively to every detail, ensuring complete understanding before implementation.
- Contingency Planning: Develop realistic fallback approaches for non-miraculous implementation scenarios rather than presuming external intervention.
- Mission-Appropriate Messaging: Adapt communication to audience circumstances, addressing immediate needs before aspirational visions.
- Transition Planning: Prepare for leadership succession through intentional development of replacement candidates during tenure rather than crisis response.
Discussion Questions
- Moses saw a burning bush. What visual (or other sensory means) have you seen (or felt) the Lord’s presence? Also, if the Lord was trying to get your attention, how do you think he should reach out to you?
- What is the most unusual way you have received a message?
- If you had to quickly leave your home (due to an emergency such as a fire or a revolution), what would you take and why?
- Was Moses a great leader or a great manager? Consider the following quotes in your discussion:
Numbers 11:11 Moses said to the Lord, “Why have you done evil to your servant; why have I not found favor in Your eyes, that you place the burden of this entire people upon me?”
Number 16:28 Moses said, “Through this (a miracle- the ground opening up to swallow Korach) shall you know that the Lord sent me to perform all these acts, that it was not from my heart.”
- Why does the Bible end with Moses’s death? Is it because the covenant with the Israelites was to bring them to the land and once that was accomplished the Lord did his part and the Israelites did their part? Would the conquest of the land be considered part of the covenant?
