The conventional image of the leader is the person ‘out front’, leading the way; someone with the ideas, the capability, the vision, the understanding and the will to achieve something and that actually achieves it, or gets out of the way so that others can and moves on to some other activity where they can make a difference.
It is an image of an isolated and remote figure, detached from others. It is an image that has been formed from fictional portrayals of military leaders or explorers. It is wrong.
In church circles it seems that there has been a recent recognition of a lot of contemporary business discussion about leadership; but the recognition seems to be picking up the early discussions in the business literature, and not the more recent material which puts the leader more and more into the picture in terms of functional contribution, not figure-head, as one who activates and supports people rather than dominates them.
It is the functional contribution of leadership that is of more importance, and functional contributions are always situational and occur in the context of a community of interest. Like a church, for example.
One of the most useful approaches to the idea of leadership, in my view, comes from Ronald Heifetz of the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government. An article that gives a helpful summary of his view is here.
Heifetz characterises leadership as an activity, that is, it is doing something, rather than being something. Thus it is situational not organisational. It is not (necessarily) a title on an organisation chart, but it is the nature of an individual’s particular actions in a particular circumstance, with conjoined motivations of other individuals:
“Leadership is what individuals do in mobilizing other people, in organizations or communities, to do what I call "adaptive work." Adaptive work can mean clarifying a conflict in values, or bridging the gap between the values that we stand for and the current conditions under which we operate. When you have a problem or a challenge for which there is no technical remedy, a problem for which it won't help to look to an authority for answers - the answers aren't there - that problem calls for adaptive work.”
Adaptive work is required more broadly when there is a disjunct of some sort between desired outcomes and current performance.
In church activities, this can occur at many points, but none of them require the attachment of a title to a person or even a role. That destroys the situational dynamic through which leadership emerges, passes from person to person from time to time, and dissolves when the adaptive work is completed. This may be one reason we are warned against calling ourselves ‘leaders’ (‘teachers’ or ‘masters’) as formal appellations in church community (Matt 23:10), and instead told to regard our role with respect to others as fundamentally service: thus the word ‘minister’. And we all have a ministry of some sort!
There are two basic organisational functions: maintenance and change; those we anoint as ‘leaders’ in our mistaken echoing of worldly proclivities are often maintenance people; true leadership is required where there is change of some sort required. These are not titled people but people who’ve made an observation, seen an opportunity, or seek a benefit where there is currently detriment. The need to be supported by the maintenance people and their change function given a home in the organisation by the maintenance people (church staff, for instance), who will also give the change program a context. In some cases the change will be such that it should be separated from the mother organisation for the sustenance of both the mother organisation and the daughter initiative; a church plant is possibly an example of this.
What is referred to, inaccurately from a biblical basis, as a leadership team or role is better characterised as a maintenance team or role. Terms to refer to such people might be convenor, organiser or co-ordinator. Facilitator would do in a pinch, as would even the older title of secretary. More traditionally, ‘minister’ would be fine, as in the church all we have is ministries, and we all have a ministry. Just title the ministry: small group minister (convenor), children’s minister (the one who organises it would be the children’s ministry coordinator) (In fact, such terms could well be used in all organisations designed for Christian or church purposes, such as missionary organisations, and so on. The use of hubristic corporate titles such as director, chief executive officer and the like are in opposition to the operation of a community of Christian purpose).
The Bible has provided us with the perfect model for organisational life under the auspices of the Holy Spirit: that is of ministry. Note the consistent emphasis in the NT on this as the basic function within the church; and we all have a ministry. The idea of one ‘minister’ or an isolated ‘ministry team’ is not biblical; nor is the idea of a ‘leader’ or ‘leadership team’. If a person is truly leading in Heifetz’s terms, then no title or label to the effect is necessary.
