inspirational v. institutional leadership
THE Academy Award winning movie depicting the life of Mohandas Gandhi opens with the state funeral of the remarkable man who had so transformed India. An American radio commentator narrates the meaning of his life to the rest of the world. In his narration, he observes that before them was a man who was never an “official” leader, a man who never held political office or headed up any government, who never held any official title at all and regarded himself as a humble weaver of cloth, and yet one who in so many ways had transformed the history of his people and determined the destiny of nations in the modern world. He altered his world, not through political maneuvering or institutional power, but rather through the sheer inspirational power of an integrated life based on religious, moral, and social virtues. And because he was such a remarkable model of leadership, he still influences the world today. It is well-known that he was Martin Luther King’s model and inspiration for his stand in the American civil rights movement.
Gandhi was indeed a remarkable person and one well worth studying in relation to leadership and social movements. But what is particularly remarkable, is that he achieved his vision of an independent India by renouncing violence and shunning all forms of institutional power and authority. He based his message solely on what has been called ‘moral authority’. In our case we can also call it spiritual authority or inspirational leadership. Inspirational leadership can be described as a unique kind of social power that comes from the personal integration and embodiment of great ideas as opposed to the power that comes from some form of authorization of external and structural authority like that of government, corporation, or religious institution. For example, the President’s power comes primarily from the office that he/she holds, so too a general, a CEO, or a denominational leader and so forth. In institutional power, it is the human institution that confers the power to an individual to perform a certain task. It is therefore primarily an external source of power that drives the role. Not so with inspirational leadership. Inspirational leadership involves relationship between leaders and followers in which each influences the other to pursue common objectives, with the aim of transforming followers into leaders in the own right. It does this by appealing to values and calling without offering material incentives. It is based largely on moral power is therefore primarily internal.
Comments
23 Responses to “inspirational v. institutional leadership”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
we are explorers
- Alan Hirsch said: Shades of U2's song "I... shapevine v.2
- Frank Viola said: Looks great, Alan. Lance...
- preacherman said: Wonderful post. I... fundamentalism: a true expression of Christianity or not?
- Janet said: Well, at the risk of...
- Matt Stone said: I think its more than...
- Andrew said: Thanks Matt for that...
- Andrew said: A reason I find US...
- Matt Stone said: Andrew, see http://en...
- Matt Stone said: See http://en.wikipedia...
- Andrew said: Matt, I don't understand...
Precisely Alan and this is the point of engagement - across all lines - religion included. You know the Sermon on the Mt. was his basis for all he did. E. Stanley Jones said the difference between Christians and Ghandi on the cross was, “Ghandi saw the cross as an act to be emulated - whereas Christians embrace it as a theology to be believed. Ghandi did more with his half-truth than most believers do with their entire truth.” Jones did an incredible little biography on him - in that same vein - is the new book PILGRIMS OF CHRIST ON THE MUSLIM ROAD - by Paul-Gordon Chandler. It’s a take off of E. Stanley Jones THE CHRIST OF THE INDIAN ROAD.
The pen truly is mightier than the sword - but a shovel in the hand of a visionary changes the world and everyone in it.
Yes…all along I have been saying that we don’t need to know or understand anything more until we do what it is that we already know….take up our cross and follow Jesus, indeed!
I’ll stop before a full-on rant ensues
This is something that I could very much rant on, so I will really try not too…
It seems to me, that far to often (we) evangelicals forget the servant/humble/giving posture of our founder. This is grossly magnified as I read this blog (while channel surfing) and I see a program about to start “Peter Popoff-inspires You to riches.”
Now, I would gather that anyone reading from Big Al is not likely to be a fan of Popoff, nonetheless, it seems indicative of the more ‘popular’ message touted across the U.S.
Where are our humble weavers of cloth? Where are our folks who are not ascribing towards forms of institutional leadership?
Yeah, don’t count me a total skeptic (partial?) as I know of some…but this form of Inspirational Leadership is NOT respected by the culture in the US. (ok, sorry, perhaps I’m preaching to the choir as the antidote goes)…
And many of the leaders in the US would respond with, “Well, someone has to do it.” And they would be wrong. Again. If we have not established a personal relationship with God to the degree that we can hear directly from Him and understand what we need to do…What is the point of the big churches, and all the rest. I still love the C. S. Lewis quote on discipleship. If we do not create actual disciples, not just believers, there really is no point to the rest of it.
And now, I will take a page from Peggy’s book and quit while I am only a little behind.
Charlie, you’re not just preaching to the choir here brother…but, in Richard’s case, the choir director
This morning I awoke to a Christian radio program talking about the need for elderly folks to be sure that they have long-term health insurance…and that the last three months of life are the most expensive. Fortunately, they were on the radio and I couldn’t grab their ties and tell them that I am ashamed of them for encouraging the shipping off of our parents to some care facility because it is more efficient.
…whoa…just narrowly escaping another full-on rant…Alan, you have hit a nerve with this one, brother. I wonder just how many rants this post could muster up
Am I the only one who would love to hear some unrestrained rants on this topic?
What I think the post is trying to get at is the source of leadership authority. Does it come from position or from relationships based on common principles?
The real question seems to be how can we develop/nurture/grow/reproduce/encourage/become more inspirational leaders?
I thought this, Ghandi inspired people while he was living and continues to do so but consider this: Ghandi built his leadership around non-violent resistance and pacifism yet look at the country he helped free. Do they emulate him any longer? Not really. India has engaged itself in more than one war since Ghandi passed away, this is the tragedy. The very people Ghandi lead turned there backs on him, they still revere him as the father of there country but they violently oppose pakistan. We can take some parrellels with Christ. How many revere him as lord but don’t deny themselves and take up there cross? Some do, but not many.
I always thought that power was where people would do what you want because they fear punitive consequences, whereas authority was where people would do what you want because they respected you, followed you etc. Doesn’t scripture say that Jesus taught/led as one who had “authority?”
Wouldn’t inspirational leadership then be based, humbly, on authority from the Living God? How could one have any authority if they were not humble? They would only have power, which is meaningless.
I’m with Patrick #7, let’s see some full-on rants! C’mon Peggy, Richard, etc., ya’ll haven’t been timid before! Rant on!
What?…an invitation to rant!
No…don’t have time right now, but I will start it now and finish it later–
Power is usually about control and coersion based on the subjection of others for self (at worst) or corporate (at best) interests (based on the assumption that God is primarily concerned with efficiency and order) whereas authority is about influence and restraint based on mutual submission and initiation of that which is for the best interest of the other/partners (based on a willing to embrace the chaos that leads to creativity and communitas and ultimately, effeciveness).
Start with that…I’ll be back
I’d be cautious about getting simplistic here with “inspirational leadership = good, institutional leadership = bad”. The other great leader of the 20th century would have to be Nelson Mandela. His moral influence reverberated around the world when “institutionally helpless” in prison. However… he also continued to exercise moral leadership AND institutional leadership as President of South Africa. In that capacity, the Truth and Reconcillation process he instituted is one of the utterly remarkable stories of civil (indeed Christ-like) use of institutional power.
We actually live in a world of institutions… schools, governments, businesses… this is our current reality. I would rather leadership of these organisations be exercised by people who also have moral authority, than by those who are narcisists or worse.
Organisational leadership puts good people occasionally into moral grey zones… but isn’t it better to have bosses who agonise over whether there is any alternative to making good people redundant, than bosses who are only interested in maximizing short term profits to maximise their short term bonuses? Isn’t it better to have presidents / prime ministers / governors etc. who prayerfully agonise over whether tax increases to fund initiatives to benefit the poor might in fact increase unemployment and increase the numbers of poor people (for example)… rather than leaders whose only consideration in decisions is shoring up votes for the next election?
I do not believe aspiring power for power’s sake is ever Jesus’ way. But I do believe some Christians are called to institutional leadership. At least… I hope some are. I don’t want all institutional leadership to be exercised by those whose moral character is weak.
Ghandi exercised inspirational leadership only… and changed a nation. Mandela exercised inspirational leadership and (for a time) institutional leadership… and changed a nation. I think both types of leadership MAY be an expression of God-given vocation.
But of course… temporal power corrupts so often we take it up with fear and trembling.
Good points Jan. I would not suggest that all people who have institutional authority don’t at the same time use inspirational authority. But here I am trying to get to the nub of what makes for real influence and movement style leadership.
I will say though, that if we over rely on institutional forms we weaken our ability to really influence.
I agree, Alan…both that Janet made good points and that over-reliance on institutional forms weakens true influence. It is precisely here that so many churches make their mistakes. They too often allow “the law” (whether church by-laws, unspoken “culture” laws or civil laws) to trump “the LAW” (Love of God and of neighbor), and by so doing tresspass against justice, mercy and humility! AAUGH!
They do what they “may” rather than restrain their “power” for the best interest of their covenant partners…choosing to wield power’s authority OVER others when they should rather embrace influence’s authority FOR serving others.
Holding the trump card of “final authority” may be convenient–and sometimes necessary–but it cannot become standard operating procedure and remain in line with God’s Word and his will.
Influence happens with or without institutional forms…the question is what kind of influence will one have? Those who choose to take up the task of institutional influence must do so, as Janet said, with fear and trembling…and with an eye to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with God–so my favorite verse (Micah 6:8
) says! Getting all three properly balanced is the challenge to which leaders must rise….
Big Al,
It seems to me that inspirational leadership, as you are describing it, is likened to the Organic Systems component of mDNA, no? Perhaps I’m concluding this by thinking that institutional leadership doesnt jive with Organic Systems thinking.
BTW- are you able to comment on my papers? That would be groovy…..thanks mate!
An inspirational leader seems to draw on ideas, concepts, and a vision that is larger than themselves. The institutional leader brings people together under the banner of the institution and what benefits the institution. Being in a place of institutional leadership is not bad as long as the source of the vision is not forgotten and replaced with the immediate needs of the institution.
In the case of leadership within the church we need to be more afraid of and in love with God than with anything else. Our primary concern cannot be with the survival of our local congregation but with the advancement of the movement of Jesus Christ.
Alan (and others), would you see this as a distinction between say the Priest of the Temple and the Rabbi? The priest was part of an institution, the way to become a priest was by being part of the right family. The rabbi was a leader of a dynamic movement, in which ten men could make a synagogue. This was usually dependent on learning and spirituality. Most ecclesiology has mistakenly appropriated the Temple analogy, in which there is a decided head, such as the Pope or Denomination General Secretary. Power then descends from this central post.
A synagogue model, however, is fluid and it seems is the very model the earliest Christians intended. James (Jacob) even uses the word synagogue in his letter.
We can also see this distinction in the Celtic vs. Roman models of the 4th and 5th century until the Council of Whitby began to dash the Celtic model away. Following the Egyptian Desert model, passed through Cassian, Patrick established a church based on Abba leadership, dynamic spiritual authority. There were territorial sees but these were decidedly of lesser importance. The problem came later, and still exists, when charismatic leaders abused their positions, or rose to power because of traits entirely unrelated to their spirituality. Then institutionalization re-asserted itself as a guard against destructive heresy or spiritual abuse. The inspirational leader, I think, can do the most good but also the most harm.
Are these historical models tracking with what you’re getting at?
Peggy, now that’s more like it!
I like the most current points about how inspirational leadership can occur within instutional leadership contexts…but it is most difficult, as the needs/demands of the institution begin to overpower the inspiration (you have to do xyz, or the institution won’t continue).
Patrick, interesting idea on the priest/rabbi. How would that look in today’s society, say from a protestant point of view?
Ghandi (and Jesus for that matter) are striking examples that demonstrate moral authority can change the world… in both cases, they had no institutional authority whatsoever. But those of us formed through institutions… churches, schools etc… often over-emphasise positional authority, which is diabolical in the wrong hands.
I like this post because it emphasises the true nature of leadership, which operates outside of positional authority. And my discernment is God will call more and more people to operate outsite institutional structures in diverse expressions of missional church… and there moral authority is the only tool in your hands.
Still, I threw in the cautionary note lest this conversation be seen as anti-institutional (one of the critiques, fairly or otherwise, of the emerging church) rather than pro-true leadership. I think some are still called to work within institutions.
Some? I thought that most are there Jan. I think that ’some’ are called to work outside the institution.
BTW, you can throw Paul and the prophets in there for good measure. Interestingly the prophets railed against the institutionalization of leadership (kings) and the religious system (cultus).
Well you’re right of course… I’ve had prolonged online dialogues with the wonderful Christian anarchist John Jensen who tends to argue institutions are intrinsically anti-Christian. He notes that Jesus operated outside institutional power structures, and that He is our example… and that the church is an organism not an institution, and historically the church has a record of operating less like the kingdom of God, a radically egalitarian organism, and more like a kingdom of men using and abusing power as it institutionalises.
I mostly agree with him… but I do think there are a few specialist functions that institutions do well, and that there’s a place for redeeming the structures of the institutional world. Of course, I say this as someone working for an institution so I suppose I’m biased!
Biased you might be, but very nice!
You’re too kind… but I’m happy to lap up any compliments! Feeling is mutual of course!