#i like my men as i like my coffee. biblical and covered in sand

[arilphys]

[she-shall-conquer]

Week 2: The 4 Eras of Leadership & the Church Tag-a-long

Daft, R. (2017). The Leadership Experience (7th ed., pp. Chapter 2). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

At some point in my life, the time might come to nail my “95 Thesis” to the proverbial door of the charismatic church, however, that day is not (I repeat, not) today. Also, it wouldn’t really count for anything because I’m a woman, right? Either way, in any form of organisation, there will always be strengths and flaws. There should also be a goal of maximising strengths and minimising weaknesses. With this understanding, as well as the fact that the church is a form of organisation, for the reasons that it is a collective of people with a common goal or objective – and just like any other company, not everyone completely understands or is working towards this goal or set of goals.

The four era’s of leadership are what was covered this week in the leadership lecture and follow the cultural and societal understanding of what relationships should be in a workplace, which is all very heavily influenced by research being done at the time. I aim to briefly summarise key factors of each era and point out how the church has followed the notion (though in some cases in a delayed fashion) and how the church could benefit from moving along into the current era of leadership as it fits more within the doctrine and values of the Christian faith. As far as organisational experience goes, the church is an organisation where I have been both extremely involved and barely there in all kinds and manner of churches and therefore my experience with it is a resource I can draw upon to reflect on these theories.

Era 1: Maybe He’s Born With It, Maybe It’s Lazy Thinking.

Era 1 is rife with the kind of leadership theories that now circulate amongst the common man, theories that leaders have particular traits (a set of personality characteristics that remain stable over time) that make them good leaders, be it the magnetic personalities, the inspiring orators, the confident or gregarious socialites, the social climbers, or the accolade trophy-hunters. In our own minds, we most likely have reflected on a particular authority in our lives and deemed them a good or bad leader (and perhaps have later on become disillusioned). In terms of singular leaders that have been able to mobilise large groups of people through charismatic tendencies and emotional or moral appeals, one would call to mind the preachers of the 17th through 19th century. Charismatic leaders would include Martin Luther who pioneered the Protestant Reformation, challenging the most powerful organisation of the time (the Roman Catholic Church);  John and Charles Wesley, who traveled around preaching to the masses in the Methodist Revival as well as George Whitfield who lead the Great Revival in America; 19th century had the Third Great Awakening with the likes of D. L. Moody, William Booth, and Charles Spurgeon, all of these men are revered, well-known, and frequently quoted to this day. They lead big movements, where people’s lives were impacted and forever changed.

However in the 20th century moving forward, the dangers of charismatic leadership was evidenced and shocked the masses in cases such as Hitler in Nazi Germany, Stalin in Communist Russia, and all the other tyranny of dictatorship. Mega-churches and celebrity pastors began to spring up, more and more emulating the celebrity lifestyle of Hollywood. More information was accessible which meant that big name preachers hosting evangelist crusades were caught out for scamming their congregants, money scandals were more public, as were moral failures. And while for the most part, there are many mega-churches that are decently run, the great man theory can be traced to the smallest of churches, where the leaders are not to be questioned, but rather their vision is to be championed and followed without question, unfortunately. Another problem is that one of the characteristics believed to be particular leaders was being male, as has been the case for centuries of the Western civilisation’s belief, however as Era 2’s contingency theories so aptly highlight, there may be certain cases in a church context where a woman is the best person to lead, On the surface level, this seems contrary to biblical teachings, but once cultural factors are taken into consideration, as well as context and understanding the heart and nature of decisions made and advice was given, it is not necessarily country to Scriptural Doctrine for women to be in positions of leadership (unless of course, they really aren’t allowed to be as near to God, or hear from Him, or something of that nature). Looking at the theories of good followership, it is easy to see how charismatic leadership without a good understanding of relational  necessity can be a poison of its own – the followers are not encouraged to think critically which already puts the organisation at a disadvantage, as well as that when the leader does make a significant mistake, which will most likely happen, followers, are forced to rationalise or justify the mistake or to come to the conclusion that this pastor is not a leader because he has acted contrary to the characteristics of a leader.

Era 2: Checkboxes and Metal Cages

Era 2 of leadership is comprised of far more precise procedures, where as much as there is talk of people oriented versus task oriented, people, in this era, are a task and must be measured in distance and handled theoretically. The two main themes to emerge from this era are the behaviour theories and the contingency theories. The behaviour theories  are evidenced in such as the Leader-Member Exchange theory (LMX)  where a unique relationship should be created with each follower, where an orientation must be selected between autocratic or democratic, boss-centric or subordinate-centric, as well as the dimensions of fit, where the contingency must be managed by the appropriate style of leadership. The aim of relational engagement is to direct, control and ultimately manage behaviour. What perhaps leaders still do not completely fully comprehend is that there needs to be room for one leader to respond in different styles to different people in different situations. I grew up in a church culture where there was a great deal of encouragement for leaders to form relationships with new members in an effort to reduce church turnover. This included the then innocent “coffee” which has now become a euphemism for rebuke, berating, voicing disapproval. I grew up in an era where welcome teams were sent out and instructed to speak to new people, and as a result, I have found a million and one ways to ask teenagers about school (what are you studying? what is your favourite subject? what is your favourite part about that subject? what do you want to do after school? where have you thought about studying? what extra-murals do you do? what subjects are you going to choose in grade 10?).

Nothing good happens over forced conversation, but the mission or task was relationships, and so structures and systems were established to force relationships, which as can be imagined never became real friendships, as can be imagined. Building relationships is a good thing, but building relationships out of duty or obligation often is more damaging than helpful because there is little to no authenticity or genuine interest in the relationship. In fact, both task-oriented leadership and people oriented leadership are necessary, they’re not opposites, they’re dimensions and each serves their own role in when they are useful. There needs to be a boss-centric approach towards God, and a subordinate-centric approach towards congregants, there needs to be trust built and treatment as equal, as well as a strong focus on the mission and vision of the Christian faith, there needs to be an intentional partnership and a spirit of inclusion. With the LMX theory, there can often become in-groups and out groups, and in church one of the biggest complaints I’ve ever heard in my life is that church is “cliquey”, which is exactly that. There forms a pattern where leaders form close relationships with people that they like and obligatory hierarchical relationships with those that need to be “check on” but aren’t favourable to the leader. Not only is this a terrible leadership practice for the good of the organisation, but it’s also very contrary to what Jesus modelled, where he had the capacity for close relationships with 3 disciples but did not alienate the other 9. His relationship with each was different, but there was no ingroup or outgroup, and all were treated with dignity, respect and value.

The contingency part of Era 2 requires attention to be paid to the situations that are arising and a commitment to addressing the problems and meeting needs in the best way possible, not in the most comfortable way or in the oldest way. Sometimes organisations and even churches need to be restructured or step out in a new area to meet a need or address a problem that is new and unknown territory, such as the Pokemon Go players that went to churches to find virtual Pokemon. Some churches responded to this and offered refreshments, as well as using it as an opportunity to engage with these people that would not normally be at a church. If the chain of the command is too complicated, the bureaucracy can get in the way of necessary decisions being made and contingencies cannot be adequately addressed. The best way to be a contingency adept church is to focus on empowering congregant sand building relationships of trust where anyone can take initiative and receive necessary support because they are a part of a community. The contingency theory places a big emphasis on the situation, and too often churches don’t. Church leaders can be so convinced that their way of running a church is right because it’s the only way they know, and they don’t think to look at possible systemic or structural improvements that can be made to adjust to the environment – this often leading to detrimental situations. It could also mean that in a situation where the pastor is beyond their depth, they can call on the help of another congregant that is better equipped to handle the situation because of personal insight into strengths and weaknesses. This also allows for engagement with congregants on whatever level they are ready to engage in and at whatever maturity they are at. This can become a problem as there are no recruitment procedures or handing in of CVs. There should be a conscious effort from the leadership to find out about new people, to know their life story, and where they’re at, otherwise, the relationship becomes a task and can often lead to acting in a condescending or inappropriate manner. At first, relationships might be more transactional, but a leader should always be willing to learn, even from the least of these.

Era 3: Entropy

Like a ship, the organisation has to sail, and in a time of rapid change and movement, of international crises and disruptions in long-term strategies and understanding of the world, the company can other be viewed as a ship on calm waters where storms occasionally arise at which point steps have to be taken to get back to status quo, or the ship could be on rough and stormy seas, where the organisation has to constantly grow, learn, evolve and re-evaluate. The era saw the emergence of the team leader, or the change leader and influence theory, where it was no longer the job of a leader to manage people within an existing system, but to recreate the system and the culture to best suit the people and achieved intended goals through greater empowerment, diversity, teamwork, and expertise. I remember the drastic culture shock I got when I moved from Cape Town and had to assimilate into the church music band. I had gone from a very autocratic leadership style, where when we arrived two hours before the meeting for practice, we would be handed a list of songs we had never heard before and we would be given specific direction on how to play it. However, the new team was more team-leadership oriented, which was new for me and took a lot of readjustment to get used to. The thing is, team leadership only works when you trust your team members. It is only profitable when you can acknowledge the strengths of your team members and follow them in certain sections. I remember one particular instance where I had to run with a song and I wanted to use a particular musical rhythmic style for it, which the drummer insisted did not exist. It was a very difficult conflict, as I was the most educated musician on the team, and I knew for a fact that it did exist, but the drummer who perhaps had more experience asserted that it did not. This is a small example, but it tends to happen a lot. With a rapidly changing environment, the only way to escape domineering and authoritarian leaders is to trust each other as a team and allow people space to exercise their strengths as it will be of great benefit to everyone in the long run.

Reminiscent of the great man theories is the charismatic leadership that emerged at this point in the influence theories. which as previously discussed is wonderful for mobilising people, but can be detrimental, such as when a pastor makes quick changes between visions and never sees the previous one to completion because it doesn’t work right away, which I have seen with church mission, vision, direction, affiliation, and it means that the church as a whole always comes up short changed because they never give the ideas time to develop into practice and momentum. Team leadership is important and too often in church goes under the guise of team leadership, but in fact becomes a manipulation. With the charismatic (it’s in the name) church’s complete rejection of any of the traditional churches, they believe they have rid themselves of the hypocrisy of religion, when really, as Jesus pointed out, it is a heart issue and not a case of behaviour, but intention. These, of course, are often interrelated, but too often, the self-righteousness, the empty actions, the living behind a facade and putting on a show is still present even in charismatic churches. And the problem when there is this kind of masquerade is that the truth can never be told for what it is, because critical thinking is viewed as insubordination, and pointing out a lack of foresight in the inspiring vision of the charismatic leader results in victimisation, alienation, and excommunication. The danger of influence theories in the same boat as team leadership is that sometimes this charade can occur and practically nothing can be done that will not cause more damage than good. Where there is a team, there must be humility, and those are some of the most beautiful characteristics to see in a church body. We are assured that there will be more and more rapid change, and the only way we as a church can survive that is if we start trusting each other's abilities to contribute and add value.

Era 4: Imagine...

The age of relational leadership theory, on the mutual benefit of both leader and follower based on their relationship and influence on one other, where leadership is a function, not a status. How I long for a church that fully embraces the tenets of this fourth era that really are so in line with their doctrine. I long to see humble leaders become caught up in something greater and beyond themselves and to take others to that river of refreshment and revelation. I long for an era of no mirrors! No place for leaders to catch their own reflection so as to become proud and let power corrupt them. I long for a time where there is the openness to constant experimentation, learning and change in the building process, where rules and control are far from any relationships that take place. Where expectations are those of love, respect, and kindness, where hearts and filled with grace more and more – far beyond rational management or even team leadership. I long for a time when the church will stop breeding emotionally immature people that don’t know how to have boundaries due to the constant rules and expectations that have been set for them and with which they have been threatened. When emotionally mature adults can function, make decisions without constant supervision and conspiracy, but rather that trust is built and fostered, where young people are empowered. I long for the emotional maturity of engaging with people genuinely, of actually supporting them and being there for them when they are going through a difficult time and not just rambling off the quickest google search results for appropriate bible verse, where leaders engage because they truly are interested in building a relationship with you, not because of a formula of people management. I long for a time where there is freedom to make mistakes, confess mistakes, and have a genuine community rally around to assist and support in overtones mutual growth and learning. For a religion that follows a characteristically relational God, that is so deeply and profoundly invested and so intimately connected to our lives, we treat each other so very badly in the church – and maybe that’s because leaders “are never wrong”, or that you have to be of a certain age or status or gender to submit any theory or revelation or question or criticism that is deemed “valid”. I long for the day where I can walk into a new church and find a brother and a sister, on a different road to the same destination as I am, with unity of heart and spirit, and not have to work my way up the church ladder for 5 years before people will take my faith seriously. We need to start viewing people as people, each with their own stories, own struggles and own journeys, all of which are good and beautiful and can be a good part of the community towards a glorious hope. When will be become more inclusive of the family? Imagine a church that places all the measure of its leadership effectiveness on a “relational process that meaningfully engages all participants and enables each person to contribute to achieving the vision”…