Leadership is not a person

Leadership does not draw many individuals to one, but gives each one a place of value in the whole..

God read the hearts of Israel and gave them, not just what they asked for, but what they really had in mind. They were not just asking for a leader, but a king like the neighboring kings. They wanted a significant man.

Their concept of significance is no different for us today. How many poor leaders appealed to other men because they looked the part. How often better leaders are overlooked because they are not part of the club? How often a stronger woman or more capable brick proves better than an impressively weak charismatic?

Is a man’s man the right model for leadership? Well no, because leadership is not about the person, but about the function they perform, the second principle of leadership.

Leadership is not a position of power and status that directs the organization, but is a vital role anchor that empowers and equips others to find and fulfill their unique roles within the organizational fabric.

The notion that it is all about a person places undue pressure on individuals to live up to such expectations, resulting in vulnerable leaders: they are often over-exposed to loneliness, stress and criticism.

Who said that a church or business will cease functioning for the absence of one? Who says a Sunday service, whatever that means, can only be value-for-money if the main attraction is there. I thought Jesus was the main attraction – after all it is His church.

Saul was every whit a man’s man: taller than all his equals, handsome, statuesque, powerful and falsely humble. He also did a fair amount of good for Israel on the battlefield, but so would any military leader without specifically having to be a king. Saul would have been better taking orders and supporting a king, but he was exactly what the people wanted so God answered their prayers specifically – to teach them a vital lesson.

Saul’s biggest weakness was that he felt that he was the end to leadership, rather than a means to an end. David always deferred to the ultimate ruler of Israel, for he had a heart for God: the basis of his inspiration and vision. Saul was purely mechanical, a doer without a visionary heart and with no sense of accountability to the God of Israel. That is no less true today, for thus so many leaders serve themselves at the expense of their organizations, building empires instead of stakeholder value.

© Peter Eleazar at http://www.bethelstone.com/