Monday, February 5, 2007

Leadership Paradigms--Part 2


Because the mechanistic model of leadership is so pervasive I have always assumed that that's just how things work. I had never questioned the paradigm. But recently I have been captured by a different paradigm of leadership, one I'll call an organic model (I know that is an overused buzzword and I'm not trying to join in the river of everything organic, but I didn't want to take the time to come up with something else right now). Instead of being akin to a machine, this model could better be thought of as a river--something fairly stable, but capable of both rapid and gradual change. In the words of Margaret Wheatley, a river doesn't care so much what it looks like as it does about flowing. A few characteristics of this leadership paradigm.

1. Leadership based in spiritual authority: Instead of having leadership that originates in a position, leadership is gained naturally as people follow someone. Thus, authority in this paradigm is based on influence. We have all been around people who were leaders whether they were officially recognized as leaders or not. There is a woman at my current church named D who has no official position but has tremendous influence. She has it because of her integrity, concern for others, spiritual maturity, honesty, and knowledge. She has spiritual authority, not institutional authority. I would contend this type of leadership is much more biblical.

2. Leadership is more about preparation than planning: The problem with strategic planning is that we plan based on the present--a present that will no longer exist by the time our plan is scheduled to bloom. A plan from today meant to transform tomorrow cannot work in a rapidly changing world. The other problem with planning is that it allows us to figure out what we will do so that our actions don't have to stem from who we are. In order to react and lead faithfully we must be people of integrity who will naturally make godly decisions, even when we can't plan what we will do. This fits with the biblical theme of actions flowing from the heart.

3. Disequilibrium and change are welcome: In most organizations it is believed that a state of equilibrium and stability is ideal. Even if we believe this has worked in the past there are significant problems with it now because of how quickly our world changes. Nothing can be counted on to remain the same from month to month or even day to day. Disequilibrium and change are a certainty in our world, so when our paradigm of leadership views them as things to be averted rather than embracing and working with them, failure of some kind will likely result. Working toward stability can also stifle creativity within a people. "When leaders strive for equilibrium and stability by imposing control, constricting people's freedom and inhibiting local change, they only create the conditions that threaten the organization's survival." (Margaret J. Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science)

To keep this from getting even longer I will just list a few other features of organic leadership without describing them--1) The more people who have access to information, the more healthy the system will be 2) Freedom is essential 3) Change doesn't have to be controlled.

I'll close with one more quote from Leadership and the New Science that made me excited about leadership. "Organizations [including the church] lack this kind of faith, faith that they can accomplish their purposes in varied ways and that they do best when they focus on intent and vision, letting forms emerge and disappear."

2 comments:

Steve said...

As you might expect from me, I'm contemplating how these perspectives would translate into a marriage/family system. I think part of my difficulty (or disagreement?) revolves around whether or not you are suggesting a dichotomous, 'either-or' position. Are these models mutually exclusive, or is there a model where one might be 'flavored' by the other? In reality, I think I can see a healthiness (and a biblical template) for such a syncretic model.

Trevor said...

The problem is that these two begin with two different ways of viewing the world. As I think about it I think it would be possible to have one "flavored" by the other, but it would be difficult (impossible?) the view the world in both an organic and mechanistic way at the same time. Good thought, I'll have to think about that some more!