“This church just does not
respond to leadership.” The voice on the
other end of the phone was that of a pastor whose vision for his church had
been defeated in a business meeting the night before. He had not been helped by an enthusiastic supporter
who had recommended that the plan be accepted by a two-thirds vote!
As I remember, my response was
something like, “It depends on the type of leadership.” Leadership is a complex concept. The way it is exercised and accepted is based
on context, culture, attitudes, history, and personal needs and
expectations. Leadership is a
stewardship to be handled with care and humility. To do otherwise leads to marginalization or
alienation and conflict.
One mistake my friend made was to
think that the primary measure of his leadership was a vote in a business
meeting. If a leader, especially one in
a church, thinks that getting an affirmative vote on the floor of a business
meeting validates one’s leadership, he or she has grossly miscalculated. Leadership is measured much more by the
authority conferred by the people rather than the authority assumed by the
leader.
To be a real leader requires a
connectedness to those who are a part of the group. Certainly, the leader thinks, dreams,
encourages, and cajoles, but the best leader is one who carefully cultivates a
future that the people come to desire and are eager to pursue. If the future is only the leader’s project,
people may well be reluctant to embrace it.
As the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu said, “A leader is best when people barely know the leader exists.
When the leader’s work is done, the aim fulfilled, they will say, ‘We did it
ourselves.’”
Comments