Kevin Martin is the Canon of the Episcopal Diocese of Texas. In
addition to his work there, he serves on what we used to call the
Church Champions Editors Board. We're not quite sure what to call it
these days. Anyway, Kevin is a great learner and translator of his
learnings for the churches that he serves in Texas. He writes an
occasional email column for the church leaders there in Texas.

In a recent edition, he spoke to the issue of trait theory. He mentions
an older book, which is still in my top 10 book list on Leadership. I
liked it so much I asked if he would share it with you. Here it is, in
a slightly edited form.

The Myth of Leader Traits

If you remember, my question in my last newsletter was who would you
nominate as a leader in the church today. (Editor's note: Church
Champions Update readers did not see this.)

I meant, "living" today. So the names sent me of people who have gone
to their greater reward don't count. (There was a list of names here
but to save space, I have cut them.)

One colleague commented about how few true leaders come to mind. I
would comment about how few people outside our country come to mind.
All the international leaders on this list came from one person.

A second view of leadership is that leaders share certain qualities,
traits and skills. This view suggests that if we teach these we can
train leaders or at least train them to be better leaders. Christian
leadership literature usually starts from this perspective. Authors do
studies of various biblical leaders and identify skills shared in
common.

But Christians aren't the only people writing from this viewpoint. In
many ways, this view seems solid until we challenge the conclusions.

For example, "leaders are always relational." Well, Paul couldn't even
get along with Barnabas!

"Leaders are effective communicators." Moses wasn't and often asked
Aaron to speak for him.

"Leaders are visionary." Many historical leaders weren't, take St.
Benedict for example.

"Leaders always command loyalty." The disciples fled Jesus at the
darkest moment.

But this view of leaders is further questioned when we think of people
in the 20th century who were ruthless and egocentric like Hitler.

Further, many traits identified by writers are contradictory. "Leaders
build consensus" vs. "Leaders follow their vision no matter who
follows." The problem is that the trait sounds good but often just
doesn't hold up consistently.

A third school looks not so much at traits but consistent "principles
of leadership." These are said to apply no matter the situation.
"Leaders are honest", "always take the initiative" or "leaders always
exercise moral courage." Stephen Covey's "Principle Centered
Leadership" does a good job of arguing that leaders should have guiding
principles that they always rely on.

By the way, this is what I like about the TV series "West Wing." I am
attracted to a president who - no matter what the political pressure -
doesn't bow to expediency, but acts on the highest principles. I am
attracted to this, but I also have to admit that political leaders are
almost always the most effective when they demonstrate the ability to
sacrifice a principle for the sake of compromise and results.

The problem is that these perspectives still put too much emphasis on
the leader and not other issues like timing, circumstances and context.
I am not saying that principles, character and skills are not
important components. I am just saying that leadership can't be
reduced to these alone.

All this leads me to the person who I think does the best writing on
leadership. This is Warren Bennis. I first discovered him 10 years
ago when a friend gave me his book "Leaders, Strategies for Change."

In this book, Bennis reported on extensive research that his
organization did on leadership in America. First, they identified 80
leaders in a wide range of American organizations. These included
political, church, non-profit, and artistic leaders as well as various
business people. He asked colleagues to identify the best leaders in
their field and then did extensive interviews with the 80 who emerged.
He noted four consistent things these leaders emphasized. They were:

1. Leaders define reality by casting vision. This doesn't mean that
all leaders were visionaries. Many were not. He just found that
outstanding leaders understood the importance of vision for today's
organizations, and helped create one.

2. Leaders effectively communicate this vision to others. I've found
this critical in my work with church leaders. Most clergy tend to be
visionary people, but many cannot communicate the vision effectively,
consistently and in ways others can translate into action. For
example, I am convinced that Bishop Griswold has a vision for the
church, but I don't think he is effective in communicating it into
action. (Editor note: Griswold is a National Bishop for Episcopalians.)
His liability is that he cannot say things in simple and direct ways.
It is the downside of his extensive education and his intellectual
ability.

3. Leaders connect this vision, the organization and the needs of the
wider culture. Bennis calls this "positioning the organization." To
do this, a leader must understand both the internal and external
environment.

4. Leaders practice self-discipline! Bennis found that the best
leaders did not over-extent themselves. They remained focused on the
skills and abilities they brought to their organization. I find church
leaders with passion and great vision who are ineffective because they
lose focus. Bennis says that most leaders lack the discipline of
sticking to what they do best and what they do that only they can do
for the organization. Most of all, they avoid wearing themselves out
trying to live up to the unrealistic expectations of their followers.

Of these four, Bennis believes that this last one is the most critical
to long-range success.

Let me end this with something that I've discovered about clergy
leaders.
In the years that I have worked directly with clergy, I have discovered
that if I push hard enough, I often find that clergy already "know"
intuitively - deep inside - exactly what their congregation needs to
do. Why, I have often wondered, don't we commit to this, develop a
consistent strategy, and just do it?

The answer is two-fold. First, we are afraid of conflict. This fear
causes us to hedge our bets, to take low risks and to try and appease
people.

Second, we pursue too many things, wear ourselves out, balance too many
demands, tend to carry out tasks in areas were we are poorly equipped
or just not skilled. Sometimes we try to micro-manage every aspect of
the congregations life and fail to delegate effectively to others.
These dynamics of fear and over-extension render us less effective than
we could be. In Bennis' terms, we lack self-discipline.

Don't think that I am right? Try this challenge. No matter how busy,
hassled, tired or over worked you are, stop! Go off for 3 days and
prayerfully ask God and yourself, "What are you teaching me right now
as a leader?"

Then make a list of the three most important things your congregation
needs to do right now to move more toward being the church God wants it
to be.

Before leaving your retreat, ask God to give you the strength and
courage to drop everything else but the persistent pursuit of these
three things.

You will be astonished at how this will transform your present
leadership!

That's the end of the article. To respond to Kevin directly, email him
at { HYPERLINK "mailto:CanonKevin@worldnet.att.net" }CanonKevin@worldnet.att.net.