Rethink Leadership: Searching for a Christian Theology of Leadership for African Contexts

Rethink Leadership:

Searching for a Christian Theology of Leadership for African Contexts

Shelley A. Chapman and Patricia L. Ali
July 1, 2019

The Problem

                        For decades, Christian leadership authors, teachers, and speakers have promoted a paradigm about “leaders” and “leadership” that has come from the positivist, modern, Western, (and often) business framework. This framework is reductionist, often characterized by focusing on certain characteristics, traits, and competencies of the “leader” who is supposed to cast the vision for the followers, who then seeks “buy-in” from the followers, often by creating a sense of urgency or by influencing them in some other way to see the future as they see it. At times, those who espouse this paradigm have offered pithy proclamations such as, “A leader knows the way, shows the way, and goes the way”[1] and “leadership is influence—nothing more, nothing less” (Maxwell, 2018, p. 3). This perspective can create a gulf between leaders and followers, many times implying a posture of superiority over the followers who presumably do not know the way and who must be influenced. An entire “leadership industry” developed throughout the past 40 years with an enormous proliferation of books, blogs, academic degree programs, training workshops, institutes, seminars, podcasts, experts, consultants, etc., along with the monetization of it all, and yet, it has not produced the type of leadership that has greatly improved the human condition around the world (Kellerman, 2012).

            This paper seeks to show the way in which many leadership scholars and practitioners in the postmodern era have moved away from the hierarchical, leader-centric (or hero-centric), entity-based and reductionist model, while at the same time, some theologians are also discovering a different way of conceptualizing the work of “leadership.” Particularly, our position is that many Christians, throughout the past 40 years, unwittingly put on the lenses of the modern era—valuing positivism—certainty, empiricism, and linear ways of being, along with the Western business or management paradigm, to look at the Bible in order to shape their understanding of leadership. This paper argues for a timeout whereby Christians can step back, reconsider the ontology (our way of being) and epistemology (our way of knowing) of past ways of seeing the constructs of “leader” and “leadership,” consider new ways of being and thinking about the phenomenon of the leadership, hunt out and critique our own hidden assumptions (Brookfield, 1995), and take on the courage to be transformed in our thinking by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2) on this particular issue. Four key distinctions are presented below to facilitate our consideration of shifting the paradigm.

Distinction #1: Management Versus Leadership

            Before laying out the argument for moving away from the leader-centric hierarchical leadership model, an important clarification must be made. While some practitioners conflate the ideas of leadership and management (see, for example, Blanchard, Hodges, & Hendry, 2016), this is a misdirected approach because the two functions are vastly different. Management requires certain functions of planning and controlling in order to “do things right,” but leadership has to do with “doing the right things” (Bennis, 2003). Coming largely from the Western business model, management is needed in any organization to keep the organization running. Efficiency, effectiveness, economies of scale, organization, etc. are all needed. “Management is the equivalent of déjà vu (seen this before), whereas leadership is the equivalent of vu jàdé (never seen this before) (Grint, 2010). Management is maintaining the status quo; leadership is breaking free from the status quo (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001). When managerial tasks (such as maintaining the status quo, controlling, etc.) seep into leadership practice, problems can occur. While there is an important place for management, the focus of this paper is the work of leadership.

Distinction #2: From Hierarchy to Mutuality

            The leader-centric model has one or a few leaders at the top with followers occupying varying levels within the organizational structure. Most often, power is used over the people to persuade them to do the bidding of the leader(s). That power could be negative and overt (“do what I say, or else”), or it could at times be subtle and pleasant, but insidious. In either case, the “power over” structure can lead to hegemony. It is the leader or leaders who are deemed to be the ones who have the solutions to problems for the people. For example, it could be said that throughout the past 40 years, many African leaders viewed the masses as “children” who needed parental guidance. “It was paternalism on steroids” (Cohen, 2015, p. 183).

            However, people support what they help create, and therefore, some people in leadership positions began to see that “followers” needed to be more than just those being acted upon—or influenced—in the leadership process. Rather than influencing them to do what they wanted, or merely asking for the opinions of the followers (sometimes even as a pretense), power needed to be genuinely shifted to the people. The actual work of leadership needs to be given to the people (Heifetz, 1994). The world is far more complex today than when the linear, top-down processes were crafted to get key results. With rich diversity and interconnectivity—we know more than ever before—and the rapid exchange of information and ideas that are ever changing—we learn faster than ever before—the world moves at a much more unpredictable pace and manner. The top leader(s) cannot be expected to have all the answers to such a complex and fast paced world.

Rost (1991) was one of the first leadership theorists who called for a shift from hierarchy to mutuality. Since that time, a genuine pivot has occurred in how many researchers and practitioners view the construct of leadership. Some alternative approaches to thinking about leadership that require mutuality are adaptive (Heifetz, 1994), relational (Cunliffe & Eriksen, 2011; Uhl-Bien & Ospina, 2012), complexity (Lichtenstein et al., 2006), collective (Cullen, Wilburn, Chrobot-Mason, & Palus, 2014), humble (Schein & Schein, 2018), and leadership-as-practice (Raelin, 2014, 2016b, 2016a). Henri Nouwen (1989) argues for Christian leadership to be communal and mutual, and Parker Palmer (2000) proposes that the path of a leader must be an inward, downward journey of self-discovery rather than the typical upward trajectory people usually associate with ascending to leadership positions.

As Christians, we value the mutuality expressed by the relationality of the holy Trinity (Grenz, 2004), and we believe it calls us to reciprocal participation in communication and communion. Trinitarian perichoresis describes the three persons of the Trinity as not merely existing equally and living in one another, but also “bringing one another mutually to manifestation in the divine glory” (Moltmann, 1993). As Africans, we also value the positive, communal spirit of Ubuntu (Booysen, 2016), where we express and extend ourselves in the “other.” Trinitarian theology and Ubuntu, together, lead us to a mutual and egalitarian “power with” paradigm, away from hierarchical “power over.”

“Give us a King”

            However, despite the potential of shifting to a greater sense of mutuality, many times, people wish for a hero leader—one who will come and solve their problems. The Israelites pleaded with God to give them a king to rule over them, despite the fact that God, himself, wanted to be their leader. Instead, they rejected God as king (I Samuel 8:6-7). At Jesus’s trial, Pilate proclaims to the Jews, “Behold your King.” However, the Jews did not want a bloody, beaten, Savior with a crown of thorns to be their king. The next words they uttered are some of the saddest in all of Scripture, “We have no king [leader] but Caesar” (John 19:15).

            The point is that God, Christ, the Spirit—the Three Persons of the Trinity—is to be our Leader. Theologian Scot McKnight pointedly notes that there is one leader—Jesus. “Instead of seeing myself as a leader, I see myself as a follower. Instead of plotting how to lead, I plot how to follow Jesus with others” (2010). Jesus is the leader who led through suffering and death of the cross and who sent the Holy Spirit to inhabit and guide all those who seek to follow Jesus. He said to his followers, “Do not let yourselves be called leaders or teachers; for one is your Leader (Teacher), the Christ” (Matthew 23:10 Amp). This is a “colossal reversal” (McKnight, 2018) of the hierarchical, modern paradigm of leadership.

Some Christians operate from the hierarchical paradigm but attempt to baptize it or sanctify it by calling it “Servant Leadership” (see for example, Blanchard et al., 2016; Wilkes, 1998). In truth, “servant leadership” is not a Biblical term. It was coined by Robert Greenleaf who was a business and management expert. He developed this idea after reading Herman Hesse’s novel Journey to the East. On the contrary, Jesus never told us to be servant leaders. He told us to be servants and slaves (Matthew 20:26-27). Jesus, himself, was never called a Servant Leader. He was called a servant who would suffer (Isaiah 53).

Distinction #3: Technical Problems Versus Adaptive Challenges

Ronald Heifetz’s (1994) distinction between technical problems and adaptive challenges is a critically important distinction to understanding the work of leadership. Technical problems are those problems for which we have answers. We can define the problems and we can solve them (e.g., a flat tire). Adaptive challenges are far messier, gray, complex, and in some ways even undefinable. Root causes are not fully understood. Examples are poverty, the lack of development for “developing countries,” ethnic conflict, etc. Interpreting an adaptive challenge as a technical problem can be a very serious mistake. “Indeed, the single most common source of leadership failure we’ve been able to identify—in politics, community life, business, or the nonprofit sector—is that people, especially those in positions of authority, treat adaptive challenges like technical problems” (Heifetz & Linksky, 2002, p. 14). When we do this, we actually make it worse. Dambisa Moyo (2009) describes an example of this phenomenon, that of pouring aid into countries in Africa that either goes to corrupt leaders or that creates a culture of dependence.

Similar to technical problems versus adaptive challenges are tame and wicked categories (Rittell and Webber as discussed by Grint, 2010). Tame problems are resolvable through unilinear acts. They have probably happened before. These types of problems are more likely to be associated with management than with leadership, as are technical problems. Wicked problems, like adaptive challenges, cannot be removed from their environment, solved and then returned without affecting the environment. These types of problems are intractable, and there does not seem to be a clear cause-effect relationship. “Wicked problems require the transfer of authority from individual to collective because only collective engagement can hope to address the problem” (Grint, 2010, p. 18).

Understanding this key distinction argues for the paradigm shift because one person or a few people at the top cannot possibly deal with the complex, adaptive challenges or wicked problems by themselves. They need to work with many people to begin to imagine and construct new ways forward. If the “leader” maintains a posture of knowing the way to go, without giving the work to the people to create a new way forward, the organization, community, or group will likely suffer the results of having technical solutions applied to adaptive challenges. Adaptive challenges require the people to do the work; it requires them to challenge their habits, beliefs, and values, to challenge the status quo (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001).

Distinction #4: Leadership as People/Positions versus Leadership as Processes/Practices

            As noted above in describing the hierarchical paradigm, leadership is most often conceived of being the people or positions within an organization that are tasked with influencing the rest of the organization toward a particular goal. In recent years, there still tends to be primacy given to the idea of the “single, heroic, masculine, leader as a norm for modern and effective leadership” (Crevani & Endrissat, 2016, p. 24). Shifting the focus from leader to leadership can foster a concept that decentralizes the work, giving it back to the people (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001). Leadership-as-practice (Raelin, 2016b) is a democratic, co-constructed, relational activity in which power and processes are shared so that people can grapple with the adaptive challenges and complex contexts with diverse perspectives. In recent years, Christian theologians are tapping into the idea of including people throughout an organization for leadership processes because of the theological principle that all followers of Jesus can be filled with the Holy Spirit who leads us, and they are all blessed with the gifts of the Spirit (Fitch, 2011, 2016; Hirsch & Catchim, 2012; Kinnison, 2016). Indeed, if we stop Spirit-filled followers of Jesus from participating in leadership work, we do them a disservice and we cheat ourselves from the contributions they could make.

Two important ways to think about leadership as a process are relational leadership and the “leadership moment.”

Relational Leadership

            The literature describes two different types of relational leadership—entity-based and constructionist. The distinction is this: a leader bringing one perspective, his or her own individual reality to the leadership setting (“entity perspective”) versus a group of people who bring multiple perspectives to the leadership work (“relational perspective”) through which leadership is co-constructed (Uhl-Bien, 2006). The key difference is that relationships are not simply the conduits to transfer knowledge or influence (I will develop good relationships with people so that they will follow me). Rather, there should be an ontological shift (to a new way of being), understanding that through dialogue (Isaacs, 1999), new meaning can emerge—which is an epistemological shift (a new way of knowing)—in the space between leadership agents (Lichtenstein et al., 2006). The positional leader admits he or she does not have the answers but trusts the process of conversations that matter (Hurley & Brown, 2009). As democratic conversation takes place, new meanings can be co-constructed, finding novel ways forward into complex domains. Therefore, leadership depends on the process of various people relating to one another through meaningful dialogue to discover new and emergent ways to progress.

           

The Leadership Moment

            Ladkin (2010) describes the process of leading as a “moment,” not as a time related concept, but rather as a phenomenon. Leadership, in the positivist paradigm, is an entity in and of itself, with characteristics, competencies, and traits. It becomes a thing—an object, much like a college course with a syllabus, a set of skills to implement, or the blueprint for a building. However, the leadership moment incorporates all the dimensions of what happens in the phenomenon of leadership experience, which is very difficult to completely define or describe, much like transformation, development, or even love. The leadership moment has multiple components that all interact together, as noted in Figure 1 below. Rather than the linear trajectory of the traditional paradigm, with the leader imposing a vision onto the organization, here all four elements of leader (who can be from any part of an organization at various times (Raelin, 2010), followers (Kellerman, 2007; Wambu, 2007), the unique context, and the purpose of the leadership experience are all fluid, influencing each other with various perceptions, interacting with each other. In this way, “leadership” is harder to define or describe, but more mutual, nimble, powerful, inclusive, and promising.

Figure 1 The Leadership Moment (Adapted from Ladkin, 2018)

Conclusion

            This white paper sought to describe the common and traditional paradigm of leadership and its deficiency for 21^st Century sub-Saharan Africa. Recent publications point to a shift toward more mutual, relational, and process-oriented ways of being in doing leadership work for Africa (Chinouya, 2007; Kiguli & Kiguli, 2007; Njogu, 2007; Wambu, 2007). We invite more organizations, churches, and communities throughout sub-Saharan Africa to consider a new way of conceiving of leadership. This paradigm shift includes distinguishing leadership clearly from management, moving from hierarchy to mutuality, understanding the difference between adaptive challenges and technical problems, and shifting from persons or positions to processes in relationship through dialogue. Rather than seeing leadership as an entity (from the leader’s one perspective), it can be viewed as emergent from the fluidity of the interaction between leaders, followers, the context, and the purpose. Therefore, leadership becomes co-constructed toward a common purpose. In so doing, we believe we will move closer to how leadership was taught by Jesus and is demonstrated through the holy Trinity.

References

Bennis, W. (2003). On becoming a leader (Updated an). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Blanchard, K., Hodges, P., & Hendry, P. (2016). Lead like Jesus revisited: Lessons from the greatest leadership role model of all time. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Booysen, L. A. E. (2016). The two faces of ubuntu. In M. N. Roberts, Laura Morgan, Wooten, Lynn Perry, Davidson (Ed.), Positive organizing in a global society:understanding and engaging differences for capacity building and inclusion. New York: Routledge.

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chinouya, M. (2007). Ubuntu and the helping hands for AIDS. In O. Wambu (Ed.), Under the tree of talking: Leadership for change in Africa (pp. 101–111). London, England: Counterpoint.

Cohen, H. J. (2015). The mind of the African strongman: Conversations with dictators, statesmen, and father figures. Washington, DC, USA: New Academia.

Crevani, L., & Endrissat, N. (2016). Mapping the leadership-as-practice terrain: Comparative elements. In Leadership-as-practice: Theory and application. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cullen, K., Wilburn, P., Chrobot-Mason, D., & Palus, C. (2014). Networks: How collective leadership really works. Greensboro, NC. Retrieved from www.ccl.org

Cunliffe, A. L., & Eriksen, M. (2011). Relational leadership. Human Relations, 64(11), 1425–1449.

Fitch, D. E. (2011, January). Is “leadership” biblical? Five reasons to say no. Christianity Today. Retrieved June 7, 2019 from http://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2011/january-online-only/is-leadership-biblical.html

Fitch, D. E. (2016). Faithful presence: Seven disciplines that shape the church for mission. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.

Grenz, S. J. (2004). Rediscovering the triune God: The Trinity in contemporary theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Grint, K. (2010). Leadership: A very short introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (2001). The Work of Leadership. Harvard Business Review, 131–140.

Heifetz, R. A., & Linksky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the danagers of leading. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Hirsch, A., & Catchim, T. (2012). The permanent revolution: Apostolic imagination and the practice for the 21st century church. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hurley, T. J., & Brown, J. (2009). Converational leadership: Thinking together for a change. Systems Thinker, 20(9).

Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together: A pioneering approach to communicating in business and in life. New York, NY: Currency.

Kellerman, B. (2007). What every leader needs to know about followers. Harvard Business Review, December.

Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Kiguli, S., & Kiguli, J. (2007). Empowering and engendering the future. In O. Wambu (Ed.), Under the Tree of talking: Leadership for change in Africa. London, England: Counterpoint.

Kinnison, Q. (2016). Transforming pastoral leadership: Reimagining congregational relationships for changing contexts. Eugene, OR: Pickwick.

Ladkin, D. (2010). Rethinking leadership: A new look at old leadership questions. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Ladkin, D. (2018). Leading Change Symposium. Post Conference for the International Leadership Association Global Conference. West Palm Beach, FL.

Lichtenstein, B. B., Uhl-bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Douglas, J., & Schreiber, C. (2006). Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems. Emergence: Complexity and Organzation, 8(4), 2–12.

Maxwell, J. (2018). Developing the leader within you 2.0. Nashville, TN: HarperCollins.

McKnight, S. (2010). Leadership rant. Retrieved June 7, 2019, from https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2010/12/07/a-leadership-rant/

McKnight, S. (2018). Open to the Spirit: God in us, God transforming us. New York, NY: WaterBrook.

Moltmann, J. (1993). The Trinity and the kingdom. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Moyo, D. (2009). Dead aid: Why aid is not working and how there is a better way for Africa. New York, NY: Allen Lane.

Njogu, K. (2007). Reflections on Naivasha cultures leadership and development. In O. Wambu (Ed.), Under the Tree of Talking: Leadership for Change in Africa (pp. 82–93). London: Counterpoint.

Nouwen, H. J. M. (1989). In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian leadership. New York, NY: Crossroad.

Palmer, P. (2000). Let your life speak. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Raelin, J. A. (2010). The leaderful fieldbook: Strategies and activities for developing leadership in everyone. Boston, MA: Davies-Black.

Raelin, J. A. (2014). Imagine there are no leaders: Reframing leadership as collaborative agency. Online First, (25 November).

Raelin, J. A. (2016a). Introduction to leadership-as-practice: Theory and application. In J. A. Raelin (Ed.), Leadership-as-practice: Theory and application. New York, NY: Routledge.

Raelin, J. A. (2016b). It’s not about the leaders: It’s about the practice of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 45(2), 124–131.

Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CN: Praeger.

Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. A. (2018). Humble leadership: The power of relationships, openness, and trust. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Ospina, S. M. (Eds.). (2012). Advancing relational leadership research: A dialogue among perspectives. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Wambu, O. (2007). Leadership and “followership” in an African village. In O. Wambu (Ed.)Under the tree of talking: Leadership for change in Africa. London, England: Counterpoint.

Wilkes, C. G. (1998). Jesus on leadership: Timeless wisdom. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House.

---

[1] While this quote is widely attributed to John Maxwell in the public domain, no citation could be found.