Leadership Paradigms--Part One

When approaching leadership it is important to start with a biblical perspective. Leaders should be servants of those they are leading. They should pursue Christ-likeness to the point they are able to say, “follow me as I follow Christ.” Christian leaders should be characterized by integrity, humility, perseverance, selflessness, servanthood, and courage. (Matt. 20:24-28; Titus 1:5-9; James 1:2-5 to name just a few)

But these biblical values can be placed, at least to some extent, on different paradigms of leadership. In the next two posts I want to focus on two in particular—the two that are most relevant for our time. In this post I will concentrate on the paradigm of leadership I have experienced most, both in the church and outside it. It is pervasive in almost every corner of our Western world where leadership is exercised. It has a number of things that characterize it.

First, this paradigm recognizes leaders through the conferring of a position. A pastor is hired by a church and immediately has authority over people and programs. You have a problem at a store so you ask for the manager. A person is given a title and the authority of leadership comes with it. We identify leaders by their positions.

Second, this paradigm of leadership is about control. This doesn’t mean there isn’t a dispersal of tasks. Leaders can allow (or command) others to do things, but notice I just had to write that they allow others do things. They decide who gets to do what, when they do it, and how they do it. They can give up some of this control if they choose to, but it is theirs if they want it.

Third, it is largely individualized. While leaders may speak to others about their plans or decision-making, the ramifications of a decision come back to them alone. Take coaching as an example. When a team does well the head coach is given credit. When they lose he loses his job. There are assistant coaches and even players who have some input into what happens (determined by how much say the head coach wants to give them), but ultimately the head coach is held responsible for failure and lauded for victory.

Finally, in this paradigm, leaders work in ways that are structured and measurable. Good leaders make long-range plans. They produce charts and reports to detail progress. In any leadership position I have had there has been an expectation of setting measurable goals for a specific period of time. These were meant to be an objective way of deciding how well I was leading.

This leadership paradigm flows out of a mechanistic worldview. Actions have predictable outcomes. If all the pieces are put together right an organization will hum. It will be a well-oiled machine. Parts are interchangeable; it is the processes and structures that determine success or failure. The whole is the sum of the parts. Roles and functions must be clearly defined so things can run properly. Organization is seen as machine and people are parts.