Rethinking Leadership

[Johnnz]

I have long advocated servant leadership based on Matthew 20:25-28
Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." NIV

This quote is from a book on Management, but I see many principles here that conform with those words of Jesus. I though a group like this might have some useful comments to make.

"The need for something different partly grows out of us as individuals. There resides in each of us the desire to more fully integrate our lives. We must feel fragmented, because we talk about ourselves as if we were cats with several lives. “This is my work life,” “this is my personal life,” this is my spiritual life.”

Stewardship is accountability without control or compliance.

Authentic service is experienced when

Ø There is a balance of power. People need to act on their own choices. Acts of compliance do not serve those around us or the larger organisation. Dominance also fails. We also do a disservice to others when we make decisions for them. Even if we are right.
Ø The primary commitment is to the larger community. Focusing constant attention on the individual or a small team breeds self-centredness and entitlement.
Ø Each person joins in defining purpose and deciding what kind of culture the organisation will become. We diminish others when we define purpose and meaning for them, even if they ask us to do so.
Ø There is a balance and equitable distribution of rewards. Every level of an organisation shares in creating its wealth and expanding its resources.

Without these elements, no genuine service is performed. Most of our theories about making change are clustered around a belief in leadership. It is this pervasive and almost religious belief in leaders that slows the process of genuine reform. Stewardship springs from a set of beliefs about reforming organisations that affirms our choice for service over the pursuit of self-interest. It requires a level of trust that we are not used to holding. We cannot be stewards in an organisation and expect someone else to take care of us.

Stewardship is the choice for service.
We serve best through partnership, rather than patriarchy.
Dependency is the antitheses of stewardship and so
Empowerment becomes essential.

The governance system we have inherited and continue to create is based on sovereignty and a form of intimate colonialism. If we were not looking so hard for leadership, others would be unable to claim sovereignty over us." Peter Block. Stewardship.


John
NZ

 

[paul1149]

There is a balance of power. People need to act on their own choices. Acts of compliance do not serve those around us or the larger organisation. Dominance also fails. We also do a disservice to others when we make decisions for them. Even if we are right.

I see this in Jesus. He never forced anyone to follow Him. He spoke the truth and then let people decide for themselves whether to heed it. The clearest case might be that of the rich young ruler. Because the Lord allows us to make our own decisions, there even is a "balance of power", in a sense, in our relationship with Him.

But then, the Lord did swing the hammer at times. He was in full authoritative mode when He cleansed the temple. At that point He took messianic responsibility for its spiritual condition, and got to work. Interesting paradox between that behavior and letting people make their own choices.

The primary commitment is to the larger community. Focusing constant attention on the individual or a small team breeds self-centredness and entitlement.

This is an important point. If we would do everything for the greater good, just as the greater good was the Lord's motivation for enduring the Cross, our actions would become inherently harmonious, and we would come into peaceful and fruitful alignment with each other. This principle can be applied to every area of our activity, even posting on forums.

Each person joins in defining purpose and deciding what kind of culture the organisation will become. We diminish others when we define purpose and meaning for them, even if they ask us to do so.

I see this as a corollary of the first point. If we give each person the right to make their own choices, we also give them an influence in the direction and character of our interrelatedness, and by extension, the whole Body. This works as a strength for us, because the wisdom of God is made most fully manifest only in the manifold expression of the Body. When hierarchy closes itself to the insights and opinions of lay people, the Body stops breathing properly and ossification begins to set in.

There is a balance and equitable distribution of rewards. Every level of an organisation shares in creating its wealth and expanding its resources.

We have an advantage over secular organizations here, because each and every one of us is eligible for untold rewards. The least effort does not go unrewarded, because our Judge sees all, even to the motivation. But when a church manifestation of the Body begins to look to temporal rewards, and begins comparing one's rewards to another's, big trouble is ahead. This is the chaos that James warns against in Jas 3, where envy and selfish ambition lead to disorder and worse. This is in violation of the second point, that of looking to the welfare of the entire Body.

Thank you, John, for these interesting points.

Paul

 

[Johnnz]

One thing that I appreciated was his comments about people needing to take responsibility upon themselves:
"Stewardship springs from a set of beliefs about reforming organisations that affirms our choice for service over the pursuit of self-interest. It requires a level of trust that we are not used to holding. We cannot be stewards in an organisation and expect someone else to take care of us."

I strongly suspect that many prefer leadership to "run the ship", which is one reason why many so strongly advocate delegating far too much authority to church pastors. But when Paul saw issues in a church he did not wrote to the leaders, but to the whole church, and expected them to set things right.

John
NZ

 

[paul1149]

I agree with that, John. Wolgang Simson makes the point that church discipline, of the kind we see in 1Cor 5, is a much more communal, natural thing in the home church setting. Everyone is involved, and everyone is responsible. And that implies commitment and discipleship.