Ben Craig and Kenneth Crane are two very effective leaders. Ben is the chief operations officer (COO) for a computer hardware manufacturing company. No important piece of information flows through the organization without Ben seeing it and acting on it. Ben is a critical thinker who is able to hold many different issues in his mind at one time. He is level-headed, and he makes decisions rationally and confidently. Ben inspires trust and loyalty very quickly. Ben possesses an incredible depth of technical knowledge, and he effectively uses it to make sure the work gets done in the best way possible. Everyone who works for Ben praises his leadership.

Kenneth Craig is the chief executive officer (CEO) of a computer software development firm. It is Ken's job to make sure that creativity, quality, and performance come together in a very tight window of time. For some decisions, Ken acts quickly and alone; but for the most part, he works with teams of people — usually two to four on any given project. He helps them learn the process so that they can offer responsible leadership. Ken works to build consensus, shares and encourages learning, and makes certain that others in the organization know as much as he does in key areas. Ken holds all the power in his company, but he uses it less for control than for creating a collaborative work environment. His employees respect Ken, and they feel that he respects them.

Both companies are thriving. Both companies are stable, and the employees feel privileged to work for them. Both Ken and Ben offer excellent leadership to get the tasks finished and to fulfill the respective missions. However, the question is, "Which is the most appropriate leadership style?"

Note the question is not, "Which one is right?" Right and wrong don't necessarily figure in. Currently, in both computer software and hardware industries, the length of tenure for upper and middle management is just over two years. Buy-outs, takeovers, industry shifts, and all the rest make these two businesses quite fluid. Speculate on what might happen to the two companies when Ben and Ken move on.

Ben is indispensable. No one knows what Ben knows, either technically or about the working processes. The company's current success rests in large part firmly centered on Ben's shoulders. The company will suffer greatly and will effectively start from square one when Ben leaves.

The same is not true of Ken. Even though the success of Ken's company is due in major part to his leadership, that success is founded on mutual empowerment and corporate learning. No one person possesses all the knowledge that Ken does, but collectively there is nothing that Ken does that the company can not do as well. When Ken leaves, he will be missed; but his company will be able to continue on its current trajectory.

What are the implications for The United Methodist Church? We have many capable men and women providing high quality leadership to the church, but is it the most appropriate leadership style for the context? Do our churches have to start over with each pastoral reappointment, or do they build upon each successive pastorate? Many of our premier model churches — those we lift up as examples of what all strong churches should look like — are "pastor-dependent." A number of leaders of these congregations — both clergy and laity — confess that much of their current vitality rests upon the vision and leadership of one person. What will happen when that person moves on?

There is no single right answer. It is not always a bad thing to have to begin again. Often, the greatest creativity emerges when a community or organization has to redefine itself. Yet, in the church, many people lament that so much good work, so much momentum, is lost when they receive a new pastor. It doesn't have to be this way.

Our times and cultural context are calling us away from the strong, singular leadership styles (dictators, generals, conductors) to empowering styles (directors, coaches, captains), collaborative styles (partners, teams), and modeling styles (servants, examples). The shift moves us from leadership that is fixed and static to leadership that is adaptive and flexible. For many, the shift is somewhat frightening. In times of uncertainty, people tend to look to leaders for stability, direction, and answers. The last thing some of them want to hear is, "I don't know. What do you think we should do?" Especially as we emerge from an era where the dominant leadership style was top-down, there is significant stress that accompanies the shift.

Yet we all know that short-term discomfiture is often necessary for long-term health and vitality. The discomfort we feel now is necessary as we explore alternative styles of leadership. This is particularly important for clergy to understand. A large number of clergy feel threatened by concepts of shared or collaborative leadership. An empowered laity calls into question the role and responsibility of the clergy. However, clergy are not an endangered species. They are not becoming expendable, but are being given the opportunity to clarify their sense of call to ministry as they are freed from the tiresome burden of having to be all things to all people. They can step boldly into a shared leadership that honors their unique gifts as well as the gifts of the laity. Once the shock of not being indispensable wears off, many clergy find the sense of liberation overwhelming.

So what might collaborative leadership look like? In answer, let's turn to the Hebrew scriptures and remember the story of Moses leading the chosen people through the wilderness of the Sinai desert.

The Sunday school version of the story usually casts Moses as a superman of faith, rising above his limitations, firmly focusing his attention on God, and leading the people — sometimes kicking and screaming — through the desert. Moses is the advocate-general for the people, serving as intermediary between the Hebrews and their God. But this isn't the whole story. Moses didn't do it alone.

There is no question that Moses is a visionary leader. He models an openness to the strange and bizarre (the burning bush), a willingness to listen, a forthrightness to ask questions, and a willingness to trust that he is capable of more than he believes. Once God places the vision firmly in Moses's heart and mind, Moses becomes a force to be reckoned with. But Moses isn't that good with people. A re-reading of the story shows that Moses was not a great people-person, and that much of the personnel issues fell to his brother, Aaron. While Moses fulfilled the role of visionary leader, Aaron excelled as the manager-administrator of the expedition. Throughout the story, there is a tension between the pull to move forward (Moses) and the desire to settle (Aaron). Moses has no patience for the details, and he often tries to push the people too hard. Aaron, on the other hand, does not hold the vision; and when Moses retreats to Mt. Sinai, Aaron allows the people to create their golden calf — a symbol for settling in rather than pursuing the vision.

Even Moses and Aaron are not the entire story. In any organization, morale is a critical issue. Morale does not simply take care of itself. In many top-flight organizations, people are given a critical leadership responsibility for the emotional health and well-being of the people. When the Hebrew people embarked on their journey into unknown territory, Miriam took up a tambourine, began singing and dancing, and offered encouragement along the way. Miriam set a tone for the pilgrimage. They were not a people running away, but a community moving toward a better life. Theirs would not be an environment of despair, but one of joy. Certainly the spirit ebbed and flowed throughout their travels, but the leadership attended to the spiritual dimension of the group.

Moses, as powerfully connected as he was to God, lacked perspective on what he was called to do. Significantly, his father-in-law, Jethro, comes to him to give counsel and advice. Jethro saw what Moses could not see. As Moses looked faithfully to fulfilling the work that God called him to, Jethro looked at the process and identified a fatal flaw: Moses was just one man, and the demands were too great. Jethro counseled Moses to move from a dictatorial leadership style to a style of coaching and directing.

As Moses adopted a new style, he began to groom a successor, Joshua. The mantle of leadership was not passed as one departed and another was selected (as in our current appointment process!); rather, leadership was shared in a mentoring relationship. Moses provided leadership by example, partnering, and coaching. Joshua was entrusted with the vision and guidance aspect of the journey through the wilderness. When Moses was no longer able to continue as leader, the mission of the people to reach the promised land continued unabated. Success did not rest upon the shoulders of a single leader, but was guaranteed by shared leadership.

Leaders need to be able to stay focused on the "vision horizon," that new place that draws us forward. To reach the promised land, however, we need to travel through the wilderness — the "growth field." The demands of the growth field are so great that we must deal with them. If the leader takes his or her eye off the vision horizon to deal with the details, he or she loses momentum. Therefore, effective leadership requires sound management. While the leader stays focused on the desired reality, the managers contend with the current reality. Together, and in concert with other gifted people, the process for moving from current reality to desired reality is developed. Everyone plays a role in moving people through the "growth field": visionaries stay focused on the future, administrators stay focused on the present, encouragers stay focused on the people and morale, and advisors stay focused on the process, all the while new leaders are being nurtured and developed.

Similar shared leadership is called for in our churches today. There may be other roles — decision makers, fund raisers, resource developers, and so on — that are adopted by the group, but the model is the same. Effective leadership embraces and employs a variety of styles and gifts appropriate to the context. Adaptive leadership is flexible and change ready. It positions the organization to be most effective in the widest range of settings. Blending all the elements together is a synergistic process, melding art and science.

Ultimately, effective leadership depends upon four key elements, regardless of the styles adopted. Summarizing the Moses illustration, these four elements are:

1. Have a clear focus on the vision horizon (desired reality).
2. Have a comprehensive knowledge of the growth field (current reality).
3. Develop appropriate bridges to move through the growth field toward the vision horizon (design systems).
4. Monitor the entire process objectively and continuously (systems thinking and continuous improvement).

It almost defies reason to believe that any one individual is so gifted as to fulfill all the critical leadership roles. From time to time, a hero emerges who seems to "have it all." More often, an individual plays to his or her strengths as a way of compensating for areas of weakness. Thus, we have visionaries who never arrive anywhere, managers who get stuck in the status quo, idea people who think great thoughts and yield few tangible results, and teachers who offer information with no hope of transformation.

Our Christian heritage reminds us repeatedly that we are a body — an organic, interrelated system whose health and vitality depends upon interdependence with one another and on Christ, the head. Leadership follows this body imagery closely. Visionaries cannot say to administrators, "I have no use for you," nor can managers say to advisors, "Keep it to yourself. We can do just fine without you." The church requires collaborative leaderships, just as the body requires the mutual workings of various organs. What a glorious opportunity lies before the church at the dawn of the twenty-first century! We might take the lead in modeling new styles of leadership as clergy and laity together and truly become the Body of Christ.

Download the PDF version of this article.

See also "Leaderships" by Dan Dick.

Dan R. Dick is a former staff member of the General Board of Discipleship.

(Posted 10-16-00)