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.