Written by: gfesadmin on October 25, 2012

Recently I have met with most of the pastors in our city in a one to one conversation. Each person has a very distinct church culture. Each leader has a particular style and values to navigates his or her church. We all share the culture of our city. There in not one church nor leader that does not face substantial challenges. One church just recently hired a senior pastor after a year of searching and disappointment. There first selection backed down after coming for a few days. Another church just had their pastor leave. He confessed to me that he felt not quite accepted. His previous environment was from a Southern U.S. state and in the Northwest he did not fit in. Another church lost almost half of it members in one year. They went from 250 people to about 150. Our congregation is one coming from a group of 20 to 120 in almost two years. Reviving a dying church is hard work! But so is any leadership challenge. My premise is that we can lead better together. If we would collaborate more, we would be better equipped to lead in our contexts. If we don’t we may be pulled apart fragmenting our influence.

One thing I have been reflecting on is the importance of “Contingent leadership”. Much popular literature as been written about leadership skill development. But skill without considering the context can lead to failure. Some Sociology theories have been skeptical of a leader’s impact on society.  Structuralism, for instance, focuses on the oppressive structures of society than hold people down would state a leader’s impact is hindered by those forces. (Elliott p. 87) Contingent leadership theory identifies situations that limit the impact of a leader. (Nohria p.111) A leader’s followed a role in the context of the environment.

But that these there’s to to far. What is important is that leadership is not without context. A leader’s ability to lead is also contingent on the organization or nation that he or she leads. In the book Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, authors Nohria and Khurana give a thorough overview of leadership studies. The chapter on Contingency theory by Jay Lorsch  shifts the conversation from just the leader’s role alone to the system that exists within an organization.  A leaders influence does matter, but knowing what engages people to follow is vital to all leadership. He outlines three types of power that a leaders uses. One is positional power, which is given by the nature of the office one holds. The second is charisma. This is the personal power one has to influence others behavior. The third source is the competence one brings to the task. Each of these can be used to shape an organization. (p. 417-418)

What I found instructive was that leaders in using their power need to assess the values of their followers and make choices consignment with them. (p.420)   Lorsch concludes that the style with which a person leads will be most effective when it relates well to the nature of the organization. (427). So how does one lead a church knowing that the style must match the context where a person leads? I see that there are three contexts we  need to keep in mind. One is the context of the culture of the church. Each member has expectations and a history of church that has to be kept in mind. There are practices and beliefs that may or may not be evident, not even shared within a congregation. I have seen church leaders lead autocratically without considering members and much harm is done. Secondly, there is the context of the city where a pastor leads. We not only keep in mind who we already have, but our calling is to reach out to our city and include them in considering how to lead. There are plenty of internally focused churches that are on the verge of dying because they did not shift the church culture to match their surrounding community. Thirdly, there are the wider cultural shifts that shape local contexts. Without some knowledge of those trends, a leader and congregation can be caught off guard. We cannot keep our head in the sand and ignore what issues the larger culture is dealing with or we will be seen as uncaring or irrelevant. A church organization must see itself in larger picture of who are its members. It is not so clearly defined.

Too often church leader have lead alone. Too often we have not seen other Christian churches as partners rather than competitors. I am fortunate to meet with pastors monthly to consider how we may work together for the health of the community. Are distinctive beliefs and practices are put aside so we may work together. But so far we have done little together. Sometimes are beliefs get in the way, but mostly it is our busy schedules just working to keep our churches running. But I see that our organization is not each church but all the churches and our entire parish as the Catholics calls it. As we lead in our city how do we navigate in the wider organization of our culture?

Careful use of each kind of power should shape our thinking. Lorsch points out we encourage involvement by collaborative efforts. We motivate others by using all of our critical thinking powers to resolve the challenges in a ambiguous future. To do that we need resource beyond ourselves. Church leader can work together in a more collaborative way. We can influence our society more by what we do together, by how we treat each other, than we could ever do separately. To pull together and cheer each other on is part of our calling. Jesus said to encourage each other. It’s is done not only individually but organizationally as well.

Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice, Nitkin Nohria and Rakesh Khurana, Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business Press, 2010.

Contemporary Social Theory, Anthony Elliott, New York: Rutledge, 2009.

About the Author

gfesadmin