Leadership is not symbolic, but functional. It is far less about the office bearer than the office..
Leadership is often regarded as being synonymous with power. Position often carries the entitlements and symbols of power.
The story of King Saul provides a symbolic illustration of the point. One of the perquisites of his job was a company car, or chariot to be specific. He also had a privileged parking space and just in case no one had noticed his elevation, they gave him a crown. His office had a throne, where courtiers waited on him every day. Oh it was never so grand as medieval castles, but good enough for his era. In addition to all the foregoing benefits, the king had a kind of palace – actually, he was not very well off as a king, for David and Solomon after him fared much better, but there was no doubt about his status as he rode amongst the people.
Is that leadership? Hardly. It may have held value to Saul as it does to so many leaders today, but there is a breed of leaders whose fulfillment comes from none of those things. They find their value in motivating their teams and building a winning culture.
This is not merely a biblical idea. Jim Collins has written a great book on “Good to great leadership”, in which he identified ten notable leaders based on their having lifted their organizations from good to greatness in a given time. Those leaders were all self-deprecating, humble and nondescript, not your typical high-powered executives. They were also fiercely resolute, providing a vital anchor or reference point for other roles in their organizations. They were almost invisible in their leadership style, because they always advanced the teams that had to implement their clearly articulated visions.
Saul was a king in the timeless tradition. He was his own man, driving his own agenda in his own time with ruthless consequences for his detractors. He had no sense of his place in the greater scheme of things, his limited role amongst other role players or his accountability to the people of God. He was also out of touch with God, for he was far too proud to truly bow his heart.
Was it sustainable? Well sadly for Israel he went quite far and lasted longer than many hoped for. I concede that he did do some good, but he did more damage: he killed priests, persecuted David, divided the kingdom, reneged on long standing covenants and made enemies that never existed before him. Worst of all he angered God and Samuel his emissary, though his misguided impulsiveness, a trait of power-centric leaders. He was a frustration to God and men.
I once worked for a man who spoke of his sweeping visions for market share and victory over oft-derided competitors. I pointed out to him that our objective was only to fulfill the expectations of the bigger organization. As a sales function, we needed to take our cues from the product and marketing units of the firm and collaborate with them to ensure that we helped them to achieve their objectives and vice versa. He was deeply offended by my position and my career suffered accordingly, but my debate expressed something of the frustration his whole team suffered because his mindset put his own team at odds with the rest of the organization. He was a Saul, whose own ego upstaged the wider context, for his own advancement: he had no sense of serving the whole or its stakeholders.
J R P French and B Raven, in their work, “The bases of social power”, refer to different bases of power. There is coercive power, which depends on fear, but is otherwise unsustainable and often an expression of insecurity. Reward power is manipulative and rarely brings any fulfillment or aspirational behavior. There is also expert power and referent power, the power wielded by people of influence. But the only power that stands apart from these is legitimate power. Biblically, legitimate power stands on the authority (terms of reference) and anointing of God and holds its own in the serving of a greater cause.
The greatest upshot of Saul’s tenure, is that he never fulfilled the expectations of his people. They wanted a king, to settle and unify the nation. Instead he had a high-maintenance administration that hurt Israel’s enemies but never subdued them, whilst creating almost as many enemies within his realm as he had at the borders. Contrast this with David’s focus on establishing and settling the nation, whilst providing them with a strong spiritual and political centre.
© Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com
Leadership is often regarded as being synonymous with power. Position often carries the entitlements and symbols of power.
The story of King Saul provides a symbolic illustration of the point. One of the perquisites of his job was a company car, or chariot to be specific. He also had a privileged parking space and just in case no one had noticed his elevation, they gave him a crown. His office had a throne, where courtiers waited on him every day. Oh it was never so grand as medieval castles, but good enough for his era. In addition to all the foregoing benefits, the king had a kind of palace – actually, he was not very well off as a king, for David and Solomon after him fared much better, but there was no doubt about his status as he rode amongst the people.
Is that leadership? Hardly. It may have held value to Saul as it does to so many leaders today, but there is a breed of leaders whose fulfillment comes from none of those things. They find their value in motivating their teams and building a winning culture.
This is not merely a biblical idea. Jim Collins has written a great book on “Good to great leadership”, in which he identified ten notable leaders based on their having lifted their organizations from good to greatness in a given time. Those leaders were all self-deprecating, humble and nondescript, not your typical high-powered executives. They were also fiercely resolute, providing a vital anchor or reference point for other roles in their organizations. They were almost invisible in their leadership style, because they always advanced the teams that had to implement their clearly articulated visions.
Saul was a king in the timeless tradition. He was his own man, driving his own agenda in his own time with ruthless consequences for his detractors. He had no sense of his place in the greater scheme of things, his limited role amongst other role players or his accountability to the people of God. He was also out of touch with God, for he was far too proud to truly bow his heart.
Was it sustainable? Well sadly for Israel he went quite far and lasted longer than many hoped for. I concede that he did do some good, but he did more damage: he killed priests, persecuted David, divided the kingdom, reneged on long standing covenants and made enemies that never existed before him. Worst of all he angered God and Samuel his emissary, though his misguided impulsiveness, a trait of power-centric leaders. He was a frustration to God and men.
I once worked for a man who spoke of his sweeping visions for market share and victory over oft-derided competitors. I pointed out to him that our objective was only to fulfill the expectations of the bigger organization. As a sales function, we needed to take our cues from the product and marketing units of the firm and collaborate with them to ensure that we helped them to achieve their objectives and vice versa. He was deeply offended by my position and my career suffered accordingly, but my debate expressed something of the frustration his whole team suffered because his mindset put his own team at odds with the rest of the organization. He was a Saul, whose own ego upstaged the wider context, for his own advancement: he had no sense of serving the whole or its stakeholders.
J R P French and B Raven, in their work, “The bases of social power”, refer to different bases of power. There is coercive power, which depends on fear, but is otherwise unsustainable and often an expression of insecurity. Reward power is manipulative and rarely brings any fulfillment or aspirational behavior. There is also expert power and referent power, the power wielded by people of influence. But the only power that stands apart from these is legitimate power. Biblically, legitimate power stands on the authority (terms of reference) and anointing of God and holds its own in the serving of a greater cause.
The greatest upshot of Saul’s tenure, is that he never fulfilled the expectations of his people. They wanted a king, to settle and unify the nation. Instead he had a high-maintenance administration that hurt Israel’s enemies but never subdued them, whilst creating almost as many enemies within his realm as he had at the borders. Contrast this with David’s focus on establishing and settling the nation, whilst providing them with a strong spiritual and political centre.
© Peter Eleazar at www.bethelstone.com
No comments:
Post a Comment