![\"\"](\"https:\/\/s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com\/236x\/97\/55\/8d\/97558d0ff314bbe14b9d20366206702d.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The book,\u00a0The Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice,\u00a0<\/em>edited by Nohria and Khurana is an encyclopedic text that is dense and daunting. \u00a0But 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.<\/p>\n Of particular interest to me was the section on the sociology of leadership. \u00a0In the essay,\u00a0Classical Sociological\u00a0Approaches to the Study of Leadership,\u00a0<\/em>by Mauro Gullien,\u00a0the 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)<\/p>\n Max Weber, a giant of the field of sociology whose influence is still widely felt today, viewed leadership in terms of dominion and subjugation. \u00a0 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. \u00a0That is, the way in which leaders secure the legitimacy of their \u00a0‘rule’ or justify and secure their leadership (Nohria, Kindle Location 2754)<\/p>\n 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\u00a0(Nohria, Kindle Locations 2757-2758).<\/p>\n 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. \u00a0We 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.<\/p>\n 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. \u00a0 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).<\/p>\n 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. \u00a0Presbyterians and other Reformed churches as well as some Lutheran (ELCA) and other churches operate in this manner.<\/p>\n 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. \u00a0There 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.<\/p>\n 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. \u00a0I 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. \u00a0So 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.<\/p>\n 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. \u00a0The solution lies in the fourth school of thought on leadership: relational. \u00a0This school is the most ‘active’ and en vogue in terms of \u00a0current scholarship and usage – and all of us connected in any way to our post-modern culture can understand why.<\/p>\n 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. \u00a0I have often heard this discussed in terms of ‘respect’, which is not the same as authority, but have a lot of connection points. \u00a0It 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.<\/p>\n 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. \u00a0It is in and through relationships that respect is earned, authority is given (and earned?) and the ‘relational capital’ is collected to actually lead.<\/p>\n 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).<\/p>\n The other wonderful insight is that if you are able to create relationships with a diverse group, and thus create multiple ‘weak ties’ \u00a0leaders and congregations, \u00a0benefiting 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).<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The book,\u00a0The Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice,\u00a0edited by Nohria and Khurana is an encyclopedic text that is dense and daunting. \u00a0But 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":88,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[414,195],"class_list":["post-10353","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-khurana","tag-nohria","cohort-lgp7"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10353","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/88"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10353"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10353\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10353"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10353"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10353"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com\/736x\/c4\/c7\/b3\/c4c7b3e5db3a97d3bd39be3286e462b9.jpg\")
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"