The sociology of leadership and the nature of authority
The book, The Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, edited by Nohria and Khurana is an encyclopedic text that is dense and daunting. But for those that are willing and able to plumb the contents there is much of value for those of us that seek to be leaders in the church.
Of particular interest to me was the section on the sociology of leadership. In the essay, Classical Sociological Approaches to the Study of Leadership, by Mauro Gullien, the four main schools of thought in the sociological study of leadership are summarized, compared, and discussed. The four schools are, Weberian, institutional, neo-Marxist, and relational. (Nohria, Kindle Location 2751)
Max Weber, a giant of the field of sociology whose influence is still widely felt today, viewed leadership in terms of dominion and subjugation. Because of this, perhaps it isn’t surprising that his most notable contribution to – and possibly the single most important sociological insight into – the study of leadership deals with the nature of authority. That is, the way in which leaders secure the legitimacy of their ‘rule’ or justify and secure their leadership (Nohria, Kindle Location 2754)
Weber’s three categories for authority are as follows: Personal authority (including charismatic), which is the way in which founders or empire builders justify their claim to be the leaders; traditional authority, or the way in which heirs assert their claims; and legal-rational authority, or the way in which professional managers establish their legitimacy (Nohria, Kindle Locations 2757-2758).
As I read this – and my memory was refreshed, having studied Weber’s categories for authority as an undergrad – It struck me that many of our churches are set up under one of these styles of authority. We all know of and have experienced churches – usually, but not always, non-denominational church plants that are built almost exclusively on the personal (often charismatic) authority of the pastor.
We also all know of or participate in churches that work under a traditional concept of authority, where the ‘next generation’ of pastoral leadership is groomed in such a way as they can be understood to be ‘heirs’ to the position – sometimes there is a familial connection but it isn’t required. Churches that operate under this model tend to be either congregational in nature, but the churches with an episcopal form of governance (bishops, etc.) could also be understood to derive their authority in this way (If you have ever seen or participated in an ordination ceremony in either the Roman Catholic or Episcopal church, then you know that at the ‘laying on of hands’ portion, it is understood that there is an unbroken line of leadership and authority conferred in that moment that traces its roots all the way to Peter).
And, of course, many churches work with a legal-rational authority structure, where there is process for determining leadership that is quite similar to that in the business and secular world, a candidate is chosen based on his or her professional abilities and characteristics. Presbyterians and other Reformed churches as well as some Lutheran (ELCA) and other churches operate in this manner.
I highlight all of this, because it is a widely accepted fact that there is a problem in many of our churches today: membership is declining, attendance and engagement is declining. There are less people and so many of our churches are doing less – at just the time when it seems like there is so much more to be doing in our world.
There are, certainly, multiple – possibly even a multitude of – factors that contribute to the problems the church in the West (and America particularly) is facing. I wonder, though, if a significant part of the problem doesn’t lie with our church leadership structures and how we seek to project the authority to lead. So many of our churches are relying on personal, traditional or legal-rational authority when the vast majority of people in their pews are no longer willing to submit to this type of authority.
And it is here that the sociological study of leadership provides not just a critique for the church, but also I believe, a potential solution. The solution lies in the fourth school of thought on leadership: relational. This school is the most ‘active’ and en vogue in terms of current scholarship and usage – and all of us connected in any way to our post-modern culture can understand why.
For most post-moderns the old forms of authority – traditional and legal-rational to be sure, but also personal to an extent – simply don’t seem to matter. I have often heard this discussed in terms of ‘respect’, which is not the same as authority, but have a lot of connection points. It used to be (or at least so the discussion goes) that a teacher or pastor or community leader was respected because of their position, but now, more and more – it is expected that the person in that position must first earn that respect.
Whether we are talking about earning respect or asserting authority to lead, in our current context, there simply is no substitute for the power of relationships. It is in and through relationships that respect is earned, authority is given (and earned?) and the ‘relational capital’ is collected to actually lead.
This insight does not give us an easy, 5-step plan for ‘effective church leadership’, but it does help understand the reality of the situation and prepares us for where the task of leadership really begins – on a relational level (I might suggest that it begins first with our relationship with God, then our relationship with other leaders, then spreading out from there).
The other wonderful insight is that if you are able to create relationships with a diverse group, and thus create multiple ‘weak ties’ leaders and congregations, benefiting from access to diverse sources of information, generate more innovative ideas, and enjoy more entrepreneurial opportunities by bringing together disparate parties., which Gullien says, Empirical research has found that individuals with access to diverse information perform better than others (Nohria, Kindle Location 2896).
So, as leaders of the church, we must first our ‘authority’ (and one might add, ability) to lead in our relationship with God and then, build our leadership through our relationships with others – the more diverse those connections, the better.
About the Author
Chip Stapleton
Follower of Jesus Christ. Husband to Traci. Dad to Charlie, Jack, Ian and Henry. Preacher of Sermons, eater of ice cream, supporter of Arsenal. I love to talk about what God is doing in the world & in and through us & create space and opportunity for others to use their gifts to serve God and God's people.7 responses to “The sociology of leadership and the nature of authority”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Quite an involved analysis Chip! I had to concentrate for an extended period of time, which isn’t easy on a Friday afternoon. Bring back the Peanuts cartoons I say!
Authority and its use is a very interesting concept in church. My old pastor used to say that any time you need to draw attention to your “authority”, you’ve already lost it! Much of the “power” in church is soft power, relational as you say. Institutionally conferred leadership doesn’t cut the mustard with millennials. As a general rule, I find that people do what I say in church, until I say no….
Geoff – every once in a while, I have to try to show depth without the use of a peanuts cartoon…. even if I’m not successful!
On a related note, it does seem like people are much more receptive to my ‘leadership’ when I only tell them to go places they were already heading…. I did once hear it said that the best leaders don’t just get people to do what they want, the get them to think it is their idea!
I have definitely not reached that level of leadership yet.
“..the vast majority of people in their pews are no longer willing to submit to this type of authority.”
“The other wonderful insight is that if you are able to create relationships with a diverse group, …..individuals with access to diverse information perform better than others (Nohria, Kindle Location 2896).”
Yes, with knowledge comes power.
Chip, I couldn’t agree more. We are in a postmodern society and people do want more say as individuals. They are also able to “church-hop-and-shop” and if they aren’t made to feel significant they will go where they can feel needed and included.
On the other hand, I go to a church where the population is older and the people are happy to “let the domine do it”. With the opportunity to be in on decisions goes responsibility. They truly don’t want the responsibility. Sadly, almost none of their kids go to our church.
Well the times they are a-changing. I think your insights on relationships are great. They do take a lot of work for the pastors though.
Sociology, In life, there are those who come to church to receive a feeling of empowerment, confirmation, need ammunition to give it to someone, etc. They are not coming to: share, fellowship, give, etc. Then there are those who come to: socialize or make a deal. There is a small number seeking to serve and receive God. They are the ones who keep the programs going, pay the bills of the church, shout or wave amen, and are there every time the church is opened.
Spiritual, as pastor we are to preach to all – it is a challenge individually, but powerful when you are led and follow God’s wisdom. Preaching to motivate and encourage them to give and receive is it charisma, leadership, gift, favor, will of God,…?
Just continue to do the will of God mixed with your spiritual gifts, experience, and the support of those who follow the will of God. It’s a great team and you will produce good fruit.
Chip great post! I had to put my sociology hat on as I read this. I do think that there is something powerful about diversity in all aspects. Fostering an environment as a leader that promotes diverse relationships and ideas are the fundamental needs associated with nurturing creativity and innovation within an organization.
The challenge is that relationships require trust and diverse ideas require open hearts and minds.
So good. Thanks for reflecting on this thoughtfully, friend. Relational authority seems to lie less in the position, but the person…’s relationship with me and others. Challenges– trust, time (it’s slow), a tendency towards inefficiency (which, in my mind, is not a terrible thing).
Diverse connections– this encourages us to expand the small bubbles in which we tend to dwell.
(See also my reply on your comment to my post).
Chip, for me, you bring a unique perspective of the church to our conversations. It is both refreshing and helpful in my understanding of the church and kingdom of God. Thank you!
Both your argument and the analysis you presented in your post are convincing. Your perspective about authority in the church is insightful and well presented. I agree that the older paradigm of placing leaders within the church, though they have their place, do not in themselves make a leader. Nor is a leader made simply by title and position. This may have been the case in the past but not today. You are right, “in our current context, there simply is no substitute for the power of relationships.” Thank you Chip!