I am drawn to complexity theory as a very useful way of understanding organizational life. For one thing, I largely reject the idea that leadership is primarily about an individual with certain traits and characteristics who leverages these in order to get people to follow the leader’s vision. The underlying premise is that followerss wouldn’t otherwise know what to do or where to go. Thus, requiring the leader to show and motivate them in the right direction. Barker makes the case that almost all current leadership models are basically some variation on this theme. I generally agree.
I’m especially interested in biblical models of leadership. Overall, a key central biblical/theological conception of leadership is that it occurs primarily as a process within the group, hence complexity. However, I run into some problems here with Old Testament models such as Moses or Joshua. Moses seems the epitome of the great man theory of leadership. The Great Man possesses certain powerful traits and comes into leadership at a crucial time. Charisma, influence, the lone leader out front alone: all are true of Moses and Joshua. This solitary picture in the Old Testament is muted somewhat by a significant element of divine calling and empowerment. But even so, the OT pictures seem anything but leadership in multiplicity and emerging from relationships.
But on further reflection, I recognize that there is a teleological principle at work. The OT is the start of a process which is coming to full maturity in the NT. Leadership in the Old Testament is still being developed. The end is yet-to-come. The biblical continuum here must inform our approach to the study of leadership theory and practice.
What is God doing and where is he taking humanity?
This foundational question is intrinsic to the biblical story. Too often, we try to produce leadership models and theories by proof-texting certain portions of Scripture and extracting the “principles” we imagine are buried deep within. Such an approach is inadequate and flawed. Every leadership event or activity finds its full expression and meaning only in the broad, comprehensive plan of divine redemption, the unfolding of which is not yet finished.
So, if we are to allow Scripture to inform our leadership, we must first recognize that we interpret the particulars of the biblical story in light of the whole — God is doing something. Second, we must understand that as leaders we are not only observers but participants in that story.
What’s God doing and where is he taking us? No matter our setting, that reality will always be the backdrop against which leadership is acted out.
So what does this mean for our leadership thinking?
There is a movement from Genesis to Revelation: that is the chief premise of biblical theology. This teleological movement reveals an unfolding picture of God’s divine restoration of human society. It is within this unfolding that biblical leadership emerges. We need to interpret the stories of single leaders in the Bible — Jesus, David, Moses, Paul — in light of the whole biblical revelation. Otherwise, we run the risk of developing a lopsided view of leadership in the Bible.
Hi Brian — I think the first question you have to answer is whether leadership serves as an ongoing, ever-present function of hierarchical position or if it serves as a finite function of emergent opportunities. For example, did the fact that Moses occupied a pinnacle position also mean that we necessarily have to equate every action he took to leadership?
I don’t know about you, but for me, in real life, I only need a leader when either of two conditions exist: when I don’t know the destination and when I don’t know how best to get there. At all other times, I might need an accountability partner (manager) to keep me on track, but I certainly don’t need someone to try to try to show me the “new” path, that I’ve traversed a hundred times before. Based on this, my theory includes that opportunities for leadership only emerge at three times: (a) when selecting the map to use, (b) when you don’t have a map, (c) and when stakeholders determine that the map you have doesn’t reflect the most efficient or effective way to get to the destination. Of course, by “map,” I mean any validated, standardized process, procedure, rule, or regulation used to manage behavior to achieve outcomes or reach destinations.
If that proves true, then the people at the top of hierarchies might do a lot of the leading, since arguably, a greater amount of unmapped terrain exists at the strategic level than anywhere else. However, that doesn’t necessarily qualify those people as leaders, anymore than the person pushing the broom in the basement. It would just all depend on what type of map they used (if any) to do their jobs.
Bud, good points. There are a couple of implications I see in what you’ve said here, both of which strike me as essential and largely missing from much of the popular conversation. First, the view that leadership is more a periodic process and less something a single person does. Second, that leadership really is more about identifying direction than anything else. Perhaps influencing others is a key part of that direction, but the notion of ‘leadership as influence’ (or related models) seems to me to assume (and require) that followers are those who don’t know where to go (missing the map, in your theory). Leaders, then, by extension, are those who have “the maps”. Their job is to convince everyone else that the map is right, that the followers don’t know where to go without it, and that the leader can interpret it for them; that is, the followers need the leaders.
At the same time, however, your concept as you’ve laid it out could be describing ‘self-leadership’ as much as anything else.