Leading With Love

The nature of our Lord’s leadership can be summed up in one word. That word is “Love”. We see this in Mark 12:30-31. Let’s look at this passage using the principles of intertextual texture analysis. In response to the scribe’s question of priority, Jesus places the emphasis on love. He also prioritizes our application of love in the order He presents the commandment.

Notice:

“Love” God with all your heart

“Love” God with all your soul

“Love” God with all your mind

“Love” God with all your strength

“Love” your neighbor

“Love” yourself

The repetition of the word “Love” shows the importance while the progression of the application shows the priority: God first…others second…me last.

Love as a leadership style is supported by Winston who declares that “Leadership is first of all love”. It is further supported by Hoyle who goes as far as to assert: “If you can’t love, you can’t lead.” Jesus used many leadership styles during His earthly ministry; however, in identifying one that can qualify as the “Nature” of our Lord’s leadership, it would have to be love. Love embodies the very essence of God’s plan and purpose. This is personified through Christ as He imparted this into His followers.

Hoyle, R. John. (2002). Leadership and the force of love. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Winston, Bruce. (2002). Be a Leader for God’s Sake. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University

The Heart of Leadership

It is impossible to consider the nature of our Lord Jesus’ leadership without the scope of its long lasting effect. Jesus imparted Himself in the lives of His followers in a way that ensured the plan of the Father would be fulfilled. David DeSilva supports this in his book (An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, and ministry Formations) with his observation: “After Jesus’ ascension his disciples, whom Luke describes as “eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Lk 1:2 NRSV) and who were clearly not limited to the twelve (see Acts 1:15,21-23), proclaimed his death and resurrection, and sought to make disciples through passing on Jesus’ teachings and example. Sayings of Jesus, parables, stories of his confrontation with members of various groups all served this catechetical purpose (that is, the task of instructing and shaping disciples and communities of disciples). Stories about Jesus’ acts of healing and miracles both enhanced the community’s appreciation of Jesus’ authority to prescribe a way of life and opened them up to the possibilities of God’s power in their midst to heal and deliver.” This progression prioritizes impartation as a major factor in understanding Jesus’ leadership and its support of the over-arching purpose of God. The nature of our Lord’s leadership style was to duplicate Himself in respect to plan and purpose. Leadership can never stop with “me”. We must place our eyes upon the horizon of others. Deep down in the center of our motivation is the God given call to multiply. My prayer is that what God has done in me will be imparted to others and will make a difference for generations beyond my earthy journey. This is the heart of leadership.

References:

DeSilva, David A. (2004). An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, and ministry Formations. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press

Finding the Right Fit

Effective leaders must make certain that they utilize a leadership style that is a good fit with the motives at play in the organization. For instance, whether the leader engages an Authoritarian Style or Participative Style depends upon the motives observed. To help us, let’s look at Bruce Winston’s classifications of motive:
1) “Me” motives rest in the desire by the leader to see his/her image enhanced or his/her vision/goals achieved.
2) “We” motives focus the efforts of all for the good of the organization and drives the persuasive behavior of the leader to gain compliance from the follower.
3) “Thee” motives are concerned with the goals and needs of the follower. Here the pattern is sometimes reversed. The leader does not set out to persuade the follower to achieve the leader’s goals but rather the follower sets out to discover the leader’s goals and works to achieve them in an altruistic manner.
4) “It” motives show that sometimes the leader’s motive is not about relationship but about task only.
These can be divided into two categories. I will call them intrinsic motive and extrinsic motive. Intrinsic has to do with motives that are developed through an inward lens and are more “self” oriented. Extrinsic, on the other hand, deals with motives that are seen through an outward lens and are more “others” oriented. . “Me” and “It” motives are intrinsic while “Thee and “We” are extrinsic in nature. Once this is discerned, the leadership style needed becomes clearer. Using Lewin and White’s distinction of leadership styles we see the Authoritarian Style as foundationally autocratic and more classical in nature. This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. The Participative Style is foundationally democratic and is more delegative in nature. This style involves the leader including one or more followers in the decision making process. An intrinsic motive would call for an Authoritarian approach while an extrinsic motive would find the Participative Style a better fit.

References:

Winston, Bruce. Leadership Style as an Outcome of Motive: A Contingency ‘State’ Rather than ‘Trait’ Concept. Regent University School of Leadership Studies

Lewin, K., LIippit, R. and White, R.K. (1939). "Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates." Journal of Social Psychology

Rajiv Mehta; Alan J Dubinsky; Rolph E Anderson. Leadership style, motivation and performance in international marketing. European Journal of Marketing; 2003; 37, 1/2; ABI/INFORM Global

Leadership Theory At Work

It is important that leaders work to function within the culture of the organization. Many leaders have failed because their leadership style was a poor fit for the organizational design in which they are engaged. One thing that will help the leader find the “right fit” is to make a distinction between Transactional and Transformational Leadership Theory at work in the organization. Transactional leadership is based on the assumption that people are motivated by reward and punishment and that systems work best with a clear chain of command. Transformational Leadership works on the assumption that people will follow a person who inspires them. Once this is considered, the leader will benefit by understanding the leadership style at play. Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. There are many but let’s consider the Authoritarian and the Participative Styles. The Authoritarian Style is foundationally autocratic and is a more classical in nature. This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. The Participative Style is foundationally democratic and is more delegative in nature. This style involves the leader including one or more followers in the decision making process; however, the leader maintains the final decision making authority. The leader may allow the followers to make the decisions while remaining responsible for the decisions that are made. Embracing the appropriate leadership style will help the leaders be productive within the confines of the Leadership Theory at work in the organization.

Organizational Values in Leadership

While in Ephesus, Timothy receives a letter from his mentor. Paul has chosen his closest spiritual child (1 Tim. 1:2) to set forth the organizational values and leadership expectations that would guide the church of Christ and cause it to grow. Timothy was, no doubt, chosen because of Paul’s confidence in him as a leader (Phil. 2:19-22). In verses 14 and 15 of 1 Timothy chapter three, we see the purpose of the passage. Paul wants to establish the organizational values and draw a picture of what a leader in this “church of the living God” is supposed to look like. Leadership selection in Paul’s day seems to indicate a new direction. The world surrounding Paul and Timothy was undergoing significant change. A shift in spiritual and Old Testament values began demanding change when Jesus developed His ministry on earth. The profound nature of this man attacked the ideals and beliefs of people throughout the Mediterranean. Paul, a Greek Jew and Roman citizen, became an apostle after the ascension of Jesus and the Pentecost event in Acts chapter two. Even Paul's selection was a radical departure from how the original twelve received their commission (Acts 22:6-10). Roman occupied Palestine became a breading ground for followers of a new faith in God through the teaching and preaching of apostles about a Jew named Jesus they came to believe was the Messiah, in Hebrew, or Christ, in Greek. Jewish lawgivers considered Jesus a threat to their law (Matthew 22:18, Mark 12:16, Luke 20:26), and these radical Jesus followers were equally threatening (Acts 8:1, 11:19). It was in this context that Paul establishes value based expectations for leaders in this newly formed church. His selection and ordination of Timothy follows this new pattern and sets a standard for subsequent leadership appointments.

Matthew 4:1-25: Jesus establishes Himself as an effective leader.

Mathew builds a progression in the text that shows a natural establishment of Jesus as a leader. First Jesus establishes credibility in verses 1-11 showing that a Christian leader is proven. Second, He strategically positions Himself in verses 12-17 presenting a Christian leader as relevant. Third, Jesus builds a coalition to fulfill God’s purpose in verses 18-25 proving that a Christian leader influences others to accomplish God’s plan. The influence progresses from one (Jesus develops credibility), to a few (Jesus builds His coalition) to many (Jesus influences the multitudes). Matthew presents Jesus as a servant leader that is transformational in His approach. Notice in Verse 19: “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.” . Jesus' call to leave profession and family was radical, the sort of demand that only the most radical teacher would make. This text provides us several examples of servant-leadership and shows His transformational style. Jesus' seeking out disciples himself represents a serious breach of custom as Jesus is seen "coming down to their level" socially. This challenging of the “status quo” process is a quality of great leadership. Notice also that Jesus relates to his followers in terms they can understand. Jesus did not call professionally trained rabbis to be his followers. He called fishermen and encouraged them that the skills they already had were serviceable in the kingdom. These disciples leave their fishing nets, but they do not stop fishing. They are now, in the service of the kingdom of heaven, fishers for people. Their lives have been transformed by Jesus' call to follow. Jesus is an effective leader because He seeks to improve His followers (from fishing for fish to fishing for people). This is transformational leadership. Transformational leaders seek to improve and influence their followers.

Traditional vs Contemporary

Leaders must work to develop a leadership style that is a “fit” with the organizational style of our church or corporation. We must understand that there is no one size fits all theoretical approach to organizational structure; however, classifying our organization as traditional or contemporary will help us in this process. Traditional organizations tend to be more bureaucratic and are identified by characteristics such as autocratic authority, adherence to a legal code, expectation of uncompromising obedience, compartmental specialization among workers, and a clearly defined hierarchy of offices. Contemporary organizations are less formal. They tend to embrace the idea that the organization is best served by adapting to its environment. The value here is to strive for a fit between the organization's structure, its size, its technology, and the requirements of its environment. The dominate thinking in the contemporary type is that organizations whose structures are not fitted to the environment (which includes other organizations, communities, governments, etc.) will not perform well and will fail. Further clarification of this distinction can be gained by seeing traditional organizations as having a rigid structure with an expectation that the environment will adjust to it. Contemporary organizations are more fluid and place a value on adapting itself to the environment.