Are Leaders Born or Made - Part 2
In the last post we discussed whether or not leaders are born or made. And the consensus seemed to be that a leader must first be a) “a good follower” and b) “summoned”. While I think both of these statements are true within the community of Christ, I wonder if we are missing something. As I think through this, the consensus does not seem to gel with original question - Are leaders born or made? What is true of the world outside of the community of Christ?
Ex. A kid on the football field, who because of his ability seems to take charge of a team.
Ex. A neighbor who organizes his community for action against violence (happening in my city)
Ex. A tyrant who rises to power in his country and rules by violence and oppression, and instilling fear in his people. (Hitler, Sadaam, etc.)
Ex. A spiritual-cult leader who leads followers to believe that he is a sort of deity incarnate and ultimately leads them to their destruction. (Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc.)
I realize these are very broad examples. However, how do such people rise to the status of leader? Is it divine purpose undiscovered or gone awry? Why do people follow them? What are the spiritual implications?
Would love to hear your commments.
August 17th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Good follow-up Tommy.
Just subscribing to hear the comments!
August 17th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Good follow-up Tommy.
I am subscribing to har the comments while I gather my thoughts.
August 17th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
I asked this same question, basically, on my blog a couple of weeks ago.
Some of my thoughts on that blog:
“So, according to every gift test I have taken I have the gift of leadership. I know not everyone does. But do you have to have that “giftâ€? to lead something? I don’t think so. Yet I know that some people weren’t made to lead. Or were they? Some experts think everyone can learn to lead. And everyone eventually has to lead something. At least themselves. On the other hand, other experts tell you that you definitely should not try leading if you aren’t made to do it. You should be the great follower..doer. Work hard behind the scenes. But can’t behind the scenes people lead too? Are leaders made? or are they born (and then made)? Can anyone learn to lead well? These questions are always bouncing around in my head, because I am always looking for leaders.”
There are certain qualities of a good leader: servanthood, humility, passion, commitment, etc. And a bad leader: pride, misuse of power and control, etc. I guess my biggest question right now is why are those with the good qualities so often afraid to step up and lead? And the ones with the wrong motives much more willing?
August 17th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Nancy:
Thanks for the comments. At the core, motivation is perhaps a factor. For the “bad” leader - pride, greed, lust for power are motivation to promote oneself or to accept the position more readily. However, I wonder why it is that people choose to follow such a leader? I have been mulling this all day.
On the “good” leader side and being afraid to step up to lead. Good question. Maybe it’s a struggle between humility and trust. Perhaps we deprecate ourselves so much that we forget that all of our abilities are from God and do not fully trust his qualities in us. I think we have mistaken qualities like humility and servanthood as weakness and misunderstood their meanings and as a result back down from leading.
I know men often see humility as weakness. However, John the Baptist understood the relationship between humility and strength (John 3:30) as Paul also understood this (2 Cor 12:9).
Thanks for the great thoughts!
August 18th, 2006 at 12:19 am
Leave “good and bad” aside for the time as it will lead you off track.
The calling to lead / follow (the same thing?) comes in many different ways but is always “for the sake of”
First you need to describe the nature / experience of this calling as you have started above.
Once this is done you can then look at the “for the sake of” and ask of it its worth /value/goodness/badness.
humility is experienced as one respond to the call and sets about the task of leading. This is a combination of nautre and nurture, style and skill.
The end, “for the sake of” is a matter of values, ethics and ultimate good.
This then, as they say, “sorts the men from the boys” (sorry girls for the lauguage)
andrew
August 18th, 2006 at 7:16 am
I believe we were designed to follow and as a result lead according to our passions and abilities. I also believe that the original design has been compromised/corrupted - some figure this out and right the ship, while others steer the ship way off course into darker waters.
If I am unserstanding correctly, “for the sake of” could be…
for the sake of self, power, wealth, greed, etc.
Or, for the sake of divine calling, servanthood, love, goodness, etc.
Thanks for the comment!
August 18th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
yes, it can be as you say, but you are looking at motive / morality (which are always present) again.
that is what we bring to the calling
Why climb a mountain? why sail the seas?
The sea calls, the mountains invite
Beacuse it is
Also worthy of conversation
Why are leaders so preoccupied with leadership?
Most conversations seem to end up with the identity of the leader
Why not explore the identity of the followers?
Could it be the the leader is simply a manifestation of the group identity?
I came across this in the Leadership Quarterly 17 2006 by D Collinson
He quotes Shamir 2004
“Calculated” followers follow because they believe the leader will help them achieve their goals
“Saftey - based” followers follow their leader in order satisfy their need for security
“Meaning based” followers fear chaos and look to leaders to provide order and meaning
“Identity-based” followers seek to enhance their own self-esteem by identifying with leaders wo are powerful and attractive
In short …
Ask not of the leader but thoses who follow - who are you?
andrew
August 19th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
I love it! The “leader is simply a manifestation of the group identity”. Excellent contribution. Thanks!
August 20th, 2006 at 1:22 am
couldn’t resist
Some people don’t set out to be or even become leaders.
It seems as though leadership is thrust upon them.
“The bus was crowded, and Mrs Parks found a seat at the beginning of the Negro section. At the next stop more whites got on. The driver ordered Mrs Parks to give her seat to a white man who boarded: this meant that she would have to stand all the way home. Rosa Parks was not in a revolutionary frame of mind. She had not planned to do what she did. Her cup had run over. As she said later, “I was just plain tired, and my feet hurt.� So she sat there, refusing to get up.� Coretta Scott King 1969
The rest is history.
Was leadership in this case an expression of a people who had got so tired of hurting that the pain staying seated was less than getting up?
andrew
August 20th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Perhaps this world would have more leaders if more people engaged in life fully enough that their feet hurt. Mrs. Parks didn’t have a choice. Many of us do. We can stay safely “on the bench” or get in the game and get knocked around a bit. Maybe the best leaders are the ones who are so much into the game that they really don’t realize they are leading.
Great comment, Andrew!
August 21st, 2006 at 9:03 am
I couldn’t help but think, while reading through this thread, that a “leader” is only a “leader” so long as the individual/group following him/her says so. The followers may label him/her as a leader explicitly (with words, titles, compensation, etc.) or implicitly (by the mere fact that they are following his/her lead). However, I’ve met men in the past who thought they were leaders, but turned out only to be a follower and was only walking faster than the rest of the group. The rest of the group didn’t consider him the leader per say, they were all simply walking in the same direction. When the direction of the individual/group changed, he was left walking by himself, unaware that he really wasn’t the leader. Marriages often experience this phenomenon.
So, another question arises. If a leader is only a leader so long as the individual/group says so, is it possible to have all the passion, ability, “divine-ly designed leadership mojo” in the world, yet still not be followed? Because, ultimately in order to be called a leader, you must at least inspire others to move, or be followed.
Or, can a leader be a leader without the expressed written consent of the follower?
I don’t claim to know anything. I don’t consider any of my thoughts to be truth, just a drawing board of lines and erasures that might one day end in a masterpiece. Know what I mean?
August 21st, 2006 at 3:19 pm
My take on Josh’s question:
I think followers’ allegiance to leaders is becoming more sporadic. By that I mean very few people are loyal to a specific leader. If you listen to people you will hear a common phrase that goes something like: “I like ___________ (insert name of leader) but I don’t agree with everything he says or does.”
I would also say that many times the leader is not the person with the title of leadership. There is always a person that holds the allegiance of the group. I learned and experienced this as a manager. In the workgroup there was always a person that conciously and unconciously set the mood and direction of the group. As a manager it was best not to take on this “silent” leader but use thier influnce to my benefit.
Furthermore I think it is possible, on some level, to lead people who are not really wanting to be led. That is if you define leadership as influence - as many people do.
August 21st, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Yes, while I agree that as ‘anorton’ said, a leader is most often a manifestation of the group identity, I believe that there are some who abuse this and the position, arbitrary to who people are, and exercise a cruel use of power, as in the case of Hitler and Sadaam. If a leader loses his identity with the collective, he most often finds himself, as Josh said “walking by himself”.
August 22nd, 2006 at 7:03 am
Chris:
You said, “I think followers’ allegiance to leaders is becoming more sporadic. By that I mean very few people are loyal to a specific leader.”
Is this trend or tendency a good thing? Should we as followers give our leaders more “benefit of the doubt” or should we scrutinize/think for ourselves in regard to our leaders’ affectiveness/motives? To what extent are we called to use the intellect, intuition, and discernment God has blessed us with. Conversely, to what extent are we to simply submit to authority/leadership? Does the Bible speak on this?
I think, by examining this question, we might begin to understand more of what it means to be a leader….or at least to be entrusted as one.
August 22nd, 2006 at 6:06 pm
This is off topic but here is my answer. Right now I say that it is neither good nor bad, but misguided. Paul talked about this in 1 Cor. when some were arguing over who they followed.
The fact is that ultimately people should be following Jesus. That means that if they are following Jesus and I am farther down the road than them, then it looks like they are following me. If I step off the road then they will either follow me and step off also, or they will stay on the path and follow Christ. This is why Paul can say “follow me, as I follow Christ.” (1 Cor 11:1)
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Good thoughts Chris, thanks for sharing!
August 24th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Not that I necessarily disagree with anything Andrew has said, but is being a figurehead the same thing as being a leader? I’d argue not.
A figurehead is a symbol, and in that sense they represent the group identity; a leader shapes that identity. Figureheads are fundamentally passive while leaders are active creatures.
Leaders have a vision of how things ought to be, and can communicate that vision to others in such a way that it makes them want to participate in it.
Are those qualities born or made? The question is just another manifestation of the venerable “nature vs. nurture” debate. I’d have to answer with the ever unsatisfying, “Yes.”
August 27th, 2006 at 1:02 am
good to see your pic
I’ve been doing some reading
Authentic Leadership by Bill George ( great book)
He argues that if we are talking of leadership as skill or style then born / made is a debate
However, his view is that leadership is character, if that is the case then it is made
Character is always formed and it takes time
andrew
June 24th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! grzomxctcr