The eCrozier

I really commend to you the April 8 commentary by David Brooks in the New York Times. Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/opinion/09brooks.html. Brooks offers you and me, without intending to, good advice about how to lead in our church today.

Brooks notes that most leaders in our culture are admired for their self-confidence and ability to project certainty about the future. But these leaders have a short shelf life. They tend to burn themselves and others out quickly. In contrast, Brooks quotes Jim Collins, author of “Good to Great” and “How the Mighty Fall.” Collins writes that excellent businesses become excellent because they celebrate a different sort of leader ; one who combines “extreme personal humility with intense professional will.”

How might such insight translate to how you and I lead in the church? I think it means that we need to spend less time in the spotlight of our parishes and more time praying and strategizing with other leaders on how we might be more faithful and effective in sharing the Gospel in our communities. Rather than “the sage on the stage” we need to be “the guide on the side,” if you’ll pardon the rhyme. Are we intensely focused on sharing the Gospel and inviting others to do the same? And, at the same time, do we do so with an extreme sense of humility where we truthfully recognize that we do not have all the answers about the next step the church should take?

The cock-sure leader, Brooks argues, gets things done and makes things happen, but such a leader is ultimately destructive to the health of the organization because eventually others are not drawn into and invested in the success of the organization. They do not share the same stake. They are just following the orders of the one who gets things done and makes them happen.

Brooks refers to Collins again when he talks about the seductions that mark failing organizations: “the belief that one magic move will change everything; the faith in perpetual restructuring; the tendency to replace questions with statements at meetings.” In contrast, if leaders can stay true to their calling and remain open to the future, then they can avoid the power of that seduction.

The humble, yet focused leader is whom Brooks is calling for. It seems to me that is the kind of leadership you and I need to practice in our congregations.

Brooks ends his commentary with this: “If this leadership style were more widely admired, the country could have spared itself a ton of grief.”

I agree.

+Scott