Leadership and the Image of God

Leadership and the Image of God

Abstract

This article builds on the acceptance of spirituality as an

important aspect of leadership. It discusses leadership

theories and suggests that Christian leaders should have the

courage to explore their own leadership style in the light of

these.

It further suggests that the Leadership Styles and Management

Structures adopted by leaders and organisations should be

understood to be more than tools through which aims and

objectives are achieved. These Styles and Structures will also

play a significant part in the creation of an organisation’s

culture, its ability to support the personal development of

fellow workers and the image it portrays to the surrounding

community.

By exploring a variety of leadership and management styles, it

goes on to suggest an approach, both practical and theological

which may assist an organisation reflect an understanding of

God to the wider world. It concludes by suggesting some tools

that practitioners may use to assist them in working with this

approach.

1

In his article Management and Spirituality, Mick Woods writes, to

"be an effective leader you need to develop, amongst other

things, an understanding of who you are, and an awareness of

your own spirituality"1. Whilst his article is not specifically

Christian, he does suggests that Spiritual Awareness along

with Hard Skills and Experience make up the three pillars of

good leadership, and he is not alone in the view that

spirituality is an important aspect of leadership2. This

growing inclusion of a spiritual dimension within the role of

leadership, is something those in Christian Leadership may

have always been aware of. However, the suggestion that it

should impact all leadership situations may encourage

Christian leaders to reflect on their own leadership style and

2

ask if it is compatible with their understanding of the

Christian faith.

The role of leadership is an important one and to be relevant

and effective, it should be properly thought through by

Christian leaders in the context of their theology and the

situation of both the Christian and wider community to which

they are connected.

To focus our thinking throughout this article it might be

helpful by starting by asking ourselves some exploratory

questions:-

“Is there a leadership style that might be said to be

particularly Christian?”

“How might our view of leadership affect our

understanding of Management?”

Before answering these questions, it might be helpful for us

to acknowledge the strong relationship that exists between

leadership and management3, which depending on our perspective,

will generally see one as dominating the other. For example,

if we see management as being dominant, we might argue that a

good manager should be able to adopt a variety of leadership

approaches as and when required. Conversely, if we have a high

view of leadership, we may understand management as a tool to

be used to achieve our aims. Therefore, while undoubtedly

interlinked and occasionally inseparable4, they are not the

same thing. Gill5 writes “We manage things but we lead people”

and while leadership can be understood as the personal ability

3

“to guide, direct, or influence”6, what a person brings with

them to a role or position, management is the system and

structure that enables an organisation to function7.

Already we can see that the relationship between leadership

and management is a complex one. This implies that our

understanding of how we interpret spirituality as an element

of leadership is likely not only to affect our interpretation

of leadership, but potentially has the ability to directly

influence our understanding of management. This in turn may

shape our organisation’s culture, and have implications for

the image that is displayed to the wider community. Let us now

return to our first question.

If in response to our first question, we decide that there is

not a specifically Christian style of leadership or method of

management, we are unlikely to explore the topic any further

and adopt a pragmatic approach of “if it works, it must be

right”.

1 Wood, M, 2001. Leadership and Spirituality Minus Loaves And Fishes in Infed.org http://www.infed.org/leadership/wood_spirituality.htm cited 13Jan 2009

2 Avery, CG. 2004. Understanding Leadership London Sage Publications.

3 Grint. K. 1995. Management Cambridge Polity Press.

Huczynski, A & Buchanan, D., 2001 Organisational Behaviour Harlow Pearson Education

4 Grint, K, 1995,

5 Gill, R. 2006. Theory And Practice Of Leadership London Sage , pg 1.

6 Encarta. 1999. World English Dictionary London Bloomsbury. pg 1070.

7 Encarta. 1999. World English Dictionary London Bloomsbury. pg 1144.

4

Alternatively, we may conclude that the existing style of

leadership found within our Christian community is the

biblical one. This understanding may be particularly prevalent

in Christian communities where the method of leadership is

more likely to be experiential and the general practice is one

where skills and approaches are often handed on from one

generation to the next. While these learning experiences

should not be discounted, there is a danger that by

uncritically adopting this received position, we may become

inward-looking and inadvertently exclude valuable learning

opportunities available from leadership specialists. In

reality, it is only when we combine our experiential learning

with theological reflection and broader training that we find

ourselves in a position to develop a leadership style and

management structure suited to our situation. This may also

increase our ability to develop leadership styles and

management structures which are not just accepted by the

Christian community, but might in some way be said to be

Christian in underpinning. However, if we take the view that

there may be a leadership style that can be described as

Christian, this should lead us to explore our subject in more

detail.

We can do this by first reflecting on the relationship between

spirituality, leadership and management from within a

Christian context and encourage us in doing this we may find

Grenz’s comment helpful. He writes “God is the ultimate model

5

for human kind… the paradigm for the life of the Christian and

of the Christian community”8. If we accept this, then we might

be encouraged to pursue the development of a distinctive

leadership style and management structure that along with

being successful, could enable our organisation to reflect an

image of God to the community it serve.

This opens up exciting possibilities as well as presenting

some challenges. We may be reluctant to step away from our

received position or be disinclined to risk criticism by

developing leadership styles that might appear unusual to both

the church and the wider community. However, recognising that

a growing number of authorities on leadership suggest that our

understanding of leadership is, to a large extent is dependent

on the perception of the wider society in which is located9,

may encourage us to confidently explore new styles of

leadership. This combining of our experience and knowledge of

the Christian Community with wider theological and

sociological reflection on leadership and management, may

assist us to develop a theologically rigorous, sociologically

sensitive leadership style which reflects the values and faith

perspectives of our Christian Communities.

8 Grenz, SJ. 2000. Theology For The Community Of God Grand Rapids Wm B Eerdmans. pg 76,

Gunton, C. 1991. The Promise Of Trinitarian Theology Edinburgh T & T Clark. pg 7.

9 Bass,BM. 1990. Handbook Of Leadership London Collier Macmillan

Grint, K. 2000. The Arts Of Leadership Oxford Oxford University Press

Avery. GC, 2004.

6

Another challenge facing us as we seek to develop our

leadership style is the numerous theories around leadership10

and while it is beyond the scope of this article to explore

them all, we can discuss some of the more prevalent and

readily recognisable, before suggesting an approach which

might fit our Christian paradigm.

The four leadership theories we will examine should be seen as

belonging to a continuum rather than being four distinct

views11. At one end of this continuum is the "The Classical,

Great Man or Trait Theory",12 the idea that there is an elite

group or individual whose birthright it is to lead. In one

respect this theory has fallen out of favour due to its

limitations. Not least its requirement for followers to accept

that some are born to lead13. Another of its shortcomings was

that it seemed impossible to come up with a consistent set of

traits that would adequately define a leader14. As a

consequence, research became more focused on what might be

called Leadership Styles Theory15, an example of which can be

found in the work of Tannenbaum and Schmidt16. This suggests

that Leadership is a continuum, going from Autocratic through

10 Bass, 1990; Avery. 2004; Gill. 2006. sites Edwards who counted forty theories of Leadership.

7

to Democratic leadership. At the Autocratic end of the

continuum the leader makes all the decisions and announces

them to the followers, whereas the Democratic leader allows

his workers freedom The concept behind this theory is that the

situation should dictate the style of leader required, and

this idea can be seen to influence what has recently become

known as the “Contingency” or “Situational Leadership

Theory”17. This posits that to be effective, a leader must

adjust their style in light of the context within which they

are working, and depending on the need of the situation, be

able to call upon a wide spectrum of leadership methods,

ranging from "the manager makes decisions and announces

them",18 all the way to a situation where the team has a

certain level of autonomy in the decision making process.19

All the above ideas contain an understanding of leadership

which is to some extent transactional, where relationships are

treated in terms of an exchange.20

The fourth view of leadership moves on from this idea of

11 Avery, GC, 2004.

12 Huczynski & Buchanan. 2001;; Avery. 2004; Grint. 2000; Gill. 2006.

13 Avery.CG, 2004.

14 Gill. R, 2006.

15 Gill. R, 2006, lists five styles, Directive, Consultative, Participative,Negotiative and Deligative.

16 Tannenbaum, R. & Schmidt, W.H. 1973. “How to Choose a Leadership Pattern” Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 162 – 180.

17 Huczynski & Buchanan.. 2001;Gill 2006; Grint 1995; Avery 2004

18 Huczynski & Buchanan. 2001, supported by Avery 2004; Gill 2006

19 Huczynski & Buchanan. 2001, supported by Avery 2004;Gill 2006

8

leadership as a transaction to suggest that leadership is

Transformational. A Transformational (visionary21) leader,

suggests Burns “addresses people’s higher order needs for

achievement, self-esteem and self-actualisation. It encourages

people to look beyond self interest for the common good.

Transforming leadership raises both leaders and followers to

higher levels of motivation and morality”22. This approach is

not without its critics who point out that too high an

expectation on the leader creates a danger that organisations

can begin to unravel if something happens to them that makes

them unable to function proficiently23.

If we take a quick glance at adverts for workers within a

church context we might find that the leadership style

generally favoured within the church setting, is that of the

Great Man or the Visionary Leader. People speak of being

“called” to the ministry, adverts use words like “Lead”

“Inspire” “Dynamic” to describe what they are looking for in

the person they require. Churches without ministers often wait

in a state of limbo awaiting their new Shepherd. Hopes for the

future are piled onto this one person.

This idea of leadership found within the church is often

assumed to be the paradigm for leadership set out in

20 Huczynski & Buchanan. 2001; Avery 2006

21 Avery, CG. 2004. pg 24.

22 Burns sited in Gill. 2006. pg50.

23 Binkly, G. Wilke, G. & Williams C. 2005. Living Leadership Harlow Person Education Ltd .

9

Scripture. However, even if this approach does appear to be

more prevalent, it is also observable biblical authors do not

shy away from revealing its limitations. Reading through 1st

Samuel to the end of 2nd Chronicles reveals its destructive

nature. Abuses of power and lack of stable government can all

be seen. Could it be that God’s anger with Israel over their

desire to have a king is not only because it was usurping his

position, but also because the Idea of the Great Man or

Visionary leader cannot truly reflect who God is to the world?

In recent time a number of theologians have argued that this

form of leadership, which is so prevalent within the church

community, has grown and developed because of a particular

understanding of the Trinity,24 what Moltmann calls Christian

monotheism25 (Boff's A-Trinitarian monotheism26), a view which

some claim results in hierarchical Christian leadership.27

If this is the case, is it possible to find a leadership

system that more fully reflects the image of God? Colin

Gunton28 writes in The Promise Of Trinitarian Theology that if we view

the Trinity as an eternal relationship of the three, it leads

24 Gunton, C. 1991.

Torrance, J. 1991. The Doctrine Of The Trinity In Our Contemporary Situation. in Ed A I C Heron The Forgotten Trinity London BCC / CCBI.

25 Moltmann, J. 1981 The Trinity And The Kingdom Of God London SMC Press .

26 Boff, L. 1992. Trinity And Society London Burns & Oats.

27 Olson, RE. & Hall, CA. 2002. The Trinity Grand Rapids Wm B Eerdmans.

Moltmann. 1981; Boff. 1992; Grenz, SJ. 2001. The Social God And The Relational Self Grand Rapids Wm B Eerdmans.

28 Gunton. C,1991. pg 78.

10

us into a work practice that has an “ecclesiology of

perichoresis; in which there [is] no permanent structure of

subordination. In which there [is an] overlapping parlance of

relationship. The same person will be sometimes subordinate

and sometimes superior" to other members in the group. To

discover if this is a reality, then it must first be asked

whether such a paradigm can be found in the Bible? Secondly,

and very importantly if is a leadership model that will work?

Initially this approach may not be immediately obvious in

Scripture, but if we move through the New Testament glimpses

do emerge. For instance where Jesus speaks of the second

greatest commandment “love your neighbour as yourself”29, or

more significantly Jesus’ inclusion of his disciples in his

ministry. At another place he says to them that they will go

on to do greater things than he has done30, or again “I no

longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his

master’s business. Instead, I call you friends, for everything

I have learned from my father I have made known to you”31. All

suggest that the intrinsic value of the individual, equality

and empowerment are important aspects of Jesus’ ministry with

his disciples.

Acts 6 shows a structure beginning to develop in the early

Church, with decisions being made by a team, rather than

individuals, along with concept of people leading according to

29 Matt 22:39

30 John 14:12

31 John 15:15

11

their gifting32. Later on in Acts, the idea of groups or teams

working together to send people out for specific tasks

emerges33.

Paul in his writing returns to this theme when he writes “Now

you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of

it”34. Again in Ephesians “It was he [Jesus] who gave some to

be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists and

some to be pastors and teachers35. These references at the very

least hint at a new form of leadership emerging in the New

Testament; an approach which places less emphasis on the

dynamism of an individual and instead focuses on the working

of a team, remitting tasks and responsibilities according to

their skills. But would such a method work for us today.

Certainly more recent ideas about leadership have moved away

from this reliance on a single individual, Avery writes about

what she calls Organic Leadership36 where good leadership is

build around a team becoming “interacting partners” in the

process of leadership. She argues that this method of

leadership can make an organisation more capable of adapting

to change. She writes of what is called Level 5 Leadership37

where leaders are “humble, modest and shy, as well as fearless

and strong willed” She goes on to write that “good companies

32 Acts 6:1-7

33 Acts 11:22ff; 13:1ff

34 1Cor 13:27

35 Eph 4:11

36 Avery. 2004.

37 Avery. CG, 2004. pg 95.

12

are distinguished from great companies” by this form of

leadership. Gill38 writes about the Servant Leader and sites

Greenleaf in saying that the sign of a successful Servant

Leader is that others become more fulfilled and go on to

become Servant Leaders themselves.

This form of leadership, built around an emphasis on shared

goals of the organisation also has two other significant

attributes which might connect it with a Christian approach.

Firstly, it is only possible when the Servant Leader is

committed to a set of shared core values and their behaviour

is consistent with these. The Servant Leader must also be seen

as a person of integrity39. Secondly, this approach to

leadership has a high view of spirituality in the leadership

dynamic40. The strong awareness those working in this

leadership environment have of their own personal fulfilment,

coupled with a sense of belonging to something significant are

just two spiritual attributes which would be important to the

Christian community. This approach is understood to be

successful in a number of respects, not least in the awareness

of ownership it gives to other members of the team, and as

Grint writes “what distinguishes a successful from a failed

leader is whether the subordinates can and will save the

organisation from the mistakes of its leader”41. This is only

likely to happen in an environment where the whole team are

38 Gill.R, 2006. pg41.

39 Gill. R, 2006; Avery. 2004.

40 Avery. CG, 2004; Gill. 2006.

41 Grint, K 2000. pg419.

13

confident in their abilities and brave enough to speak out,

while at the same time humble enough to take advice.

We can now see the possibilities that Organic Servant

Leadership is an approach which might fit with the desire of

the Christian Worker to display the image of God through the

structure of their organisation. Likewise, when it comes to

management systems, there is a constraint to operate in a way

that is framed by Christian beliefs.

If our organisations approach to leadership is the one above,

then it will in all likelihood have implications for the

management structure we are likely to adopt. Leading us on to

our second question.

“How might our view of Leadership affect our

understanding of Management?”

When going on to explore management styles we may find it

helpful to use Quinn and Rohrbaugh’s42 “Competing Values

Framework” as a platform from which to develop our views. They

suggest that there are four competing management systems:-

The Rational Goal model43, with its high level of control

and focus on goal setting employs an attentiveness to

monitoring and regulating levels of productivity as a means of

achieving its aims.

42 Quinn and Rohrbaugh,on Value Based Management.net. http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net/methods_quinn_competing_values_framework.html

43 Quinn. R, et al. 1990. Becoming A Master Manager Chichester John Wiley.

14

The Internal Process Model44 is akin to the previous

model, in as much that it sets a great weight on

organisational control as a priority which will enable it to

achieve its aims. In this instance it does this by managing

information to create a sense of stability.

The Human Relation Model45 sees its ability to be flexible

as important to its success. It believes that a good level of

flexibility is achieved through enabling individual

responsibility combined with a strong sense of team cohesion

and common vision. It is committed to developing high morale

and recognises that developing the skills and abilities of

every member of the team is what is important in achieving its

aims.

The Open Systems Model46 similarly recognises the

importance of flexibility in the management structure.

However, it is more outward-looking in how it realises its

goal, often creating a specialist team dedicated to responding

to a specific situation. It may also look to access outside

support in its attempt to respond.

As Quinn and Rohrbaugh suggest, these approaches are not

compatible. The Internal Process and Relational Goal models

with their strong emphasis on control, may be mismatched with

the Servant or Organic Leadership approaches. However, both

the Human Relations and Open Systems models allow for that

44 ibid ,

45 ibid

46 ibid.

15

greater level of autonomy and freedom which is more closely

related to our understanding of leadership. They maybe more

likely to create an environment where everyone in the

organisation has the opportunity to grow and flourish and

where all may have an opportunity to use their skills to take

a leadership role as the situation demands. Of the two, the

Human Relations Model, with its commitment to individual

involvement, sense of family and organisational loyalty built

around a core vision, may prove to be the most compatible with

Christian work.

Consequently, if we understand ourselves to be Organic or

Servant Leaders, then it is not about imposing a management

structure on a team, but rather together developing a

structure that works for the team.

The reality for the Christian worker is that there should be

an equality of involvement built around the talents and skills

of the team amongst the community of God. The idea of Organic

Leadership combined with a Human Relations Model of management

allows for this, and displaces the concept of management as

something which is done to an organisation, to an

understanding that it is done by an organisation to ensure the

best results possible.

In order to assist us develop our skills an effective and

releveant Organic Leader, it might be helpful for us to gather

together a tool kit of usable knowledge through which we can

enhance our practice.

16

Part of being a good Organic Leader is finding good tools to

enable the organisation to maintain its focus and reach toward

its goals. For example, Drucker’s47 idea of goal setting is

helpful in developing a corporate vision for our work and if

this vision is created corporately then it can help everyone

involved develop a sense of inclusion and significance

However, as Organic or Servant Leaders we need to be careful

to ensure that the personal, social and group development of

our team and our community are included into our strategic

thinking. If we have development goals which are solely

focused on working with X number of people or producing a

specific number of activities, groups or similar predetermined

outcomes, we have an approach which has been described as

Product Oriented. This approach is unlikely to create an

environment ripe for the personal development of workers or

wider community. A useful tool that might assist an

organisation in avoiding this pitfall is Learning Evaluation and

Planning (LEAP)48. Its approach to goal setting, encourages

organisations to focus on the difference they intend to make,

“Outcomes”, rather than on output performance. Another

advantage of LEAP that makes it compatible with Organic

leadership and the Human Relation Model of management, is

that it requires a collaborative approach requiring the input

from all those involved. It is a method sensitive to the

47 Sheldrake. 2003.

48 Donnelley. RR. (2007) LEAP: Revised Edition Edinburgh Scottish Government Hashagen, J. Boyce D. 2003. LEAP For Health Edinburgh Health

Scotland

17

process of planning and is committed to the learning

experiences which can be gained by all those involved in the

process. Working through the process of LEAP is not

straightforward, it requires a commitment to the process, and

it can take longer to reach the conclusions that have been

agreed by those involved. This however, is the nature of good

team and group work. We are all aware that creating a good

dynamic within our organisation is not usually staightforward

and includes many factors49. Human interaction, personality

clashed and differing view points all need to be managed as

they can create the potential for conflict. In fact writers

such as Truckman50 and Drinka51 suggest that conflict is a

reality for any group or teams as they develop to their full

potential. For example, Drinka suggests a team needs to

journey through the stages of Forming, Norming and Confronting

before it can become truly gell into a performing team. He

suggests that conflict, if dealt with correctly can be used

positively to build a group who value difference and perceive

it to be a strength. Dialoguing through these differences can

often lead to discovering and developing new ideas.

Accepting that conflict is an intrinsic part of groups should

encourage us to gather the skills to manage conflict

49 Douglas. T, (1993) A Theory Of Groupwork Practice. London. Macmillan Douglas. T, (1978) Basic Groupwork. Oxford Routledge

50 Brown, A. (1994). Groupwork: Third Edition. Farnham. Ashgate

51 PsychologyLab. (ND). Managing Conflict In Work Teams. PsychologyLab. [Website] available at

http://www.geocities.com/lazaridous/managing_conflict_in_work_teams.htm?200913 [Accessed 13 July 2009]

18

positively52.

Similarly when thinking about an individual’s personal

development within our organisation, we could keep in mind

Maslow’s53 Hierarchy of Needs, a framework which may assist us

in understanding what self-fulfilment may look like for each

team member54.

Other important conditions which surround a job, such as work

atmosphere, conditions and environment, influences which

Herzberg55 called Hygiene Factors, will all have significant

implications for our sense of worth, our involvement in work

programmes and our commitment to our work. His view along with

those of Schumacher56 suggest that it is in small groups or

teams that people feel valued and are most enabled to

52 There are many on line resources to help a worker learn about Conflict Resolution in an organisation setting., for example:-

Clay C,. (2007). Resolving Team Conflicts-Nine Steps to Constructive Resolutions. EzineArticles. [Website] available at http://ezinearticles.com/?ResolvingTeam-Conflict-Nine-Steps-to-Constructive-Resolution [Accessed 13 July 2009] Hoban.TJ,. (2007). Managing Conflict - A Guide for Watershed Partnerships. Watershed Information Network. [Website] available at http://www2.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW/Brochures/ManageConflict.html [Accessed 13th July 2009]

Sommer. D,. (2006). Conflict Management Strategy Revealed. EzineArticles. [Website] available at http://ezinearticles.com/?Conflict-Managment-Strategy-Revelaled&id=237719 [Accessed 13 July 2009]

53 Sheldrake, J. 2003. Management Theory 2nd Edition London Thomson Learning.

54 There are some issues worth further discussion around Maslow’s linear approach to Hierarchy of Needs however his idea of holistic development is an important one.

55 Sheldrake. 2003.

56 ibid.

19

contribute to creating a suitable management structure. This

involvement in turn is more conducive in enabling us to commit

emotionally as well as physically to the aims of the

organisation. This may go some way to ensuring that the

management structure of our organisations are visionary,

involving, inclusive and empowering and should help to create

an environment where the development of the team and the

individuals within it, are served, rather than dominated by

either the leadership or the management structures.

In conclusion, if we incorporate these views of Leadership and

Management into our organisations, we can in reality begin to

move towards creating a structure which at least in part,

begins to reflect an image of God both within our Christian

community, and of equal importance, to the wider community in

which we are located.

If we are committed to being salt and light within those

communities, it is no small thing for us to have a structure

that enables our organisations to naturally present an image

of God to those around us. Adopting a workable Leadership

style and Management structure which reflects our

understanding of the image of God should go some way in

enabling a communitarian, incarnational articulation of our

faith.

We hope that this article has prompted thought and offered

some practical insights with which to enhance our practice and

20

encourage our thinking around Leadership and Management as

important parts of the ministry and mission of Christian

organisations, assisting us in being living witnesses to our

God, both individually and in community.

21