The Challenges of PASTORAL LEADERSHIP

AuthorHouse

Contents

Chapter One

A fact about the nature of the leadership construct that is frequently underestimated— yet central to the pastoral sector— is that leadership is related to spirituality.

The demand for true leadership is traditionally said to arise from an expectation that "effectiveness" of group performance is resolved in large part by the leader (Borgatta, Bales, & Couch, 1954). But in looking deeper at the dynamics that drives the collective yearning for a "leader role" there is a more fundamental purpose, one that reaches into the soul. In many ways the need for a "leader role" is tied to a journey rooted in the soul, a sort of spiritual quest for direction where there is chaos, for transcending worldviews where there is inconsequentiality, for assurance where there is uncertainty, and for worth where there is uselessness.

It's quite intuitive in nature to accept how a leader attends to some of the basic needs of the soul. Leaders are visionaries, meaning-makers and guides. Leaders offer a sense of accomplishment and provide inspiration and consolation, boundaries and priorities, comfort and hope. But what becomes more difficult is for the leadership discipline in general to recognize that it is also navigating side by side among the disciplines that study soul. Of course the leadership discipline draws from psychology, sociology, management and education but what about the other scholarly disciplines that have more experience in understanding the dynamics of the soul? Isn't leadership also related to fields of philosophy, theology and spirituality? Every major discipline has some level of discourse related to leadership topics within its own boundaries. But the leadership discipline has yet to fully reach out and benefit from the centuries of knowledge accumulated by schools of philosophy, religion, and spirituality.

If the maxim from St. Augustine (Lib 1,1-2,2.5,5: CSEL 33, 1-5) "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you." holds true, then it could be only a matter of time in which leadership— just as many other disciplines—would eventually drift into the dynamics of the heart and soul. So it is no surprise that after close to 100 years of empirical focus of behaviors, use of power, traits, skills, and leader situational contexts, some prominent authors and scholars within the leadership field have asserted spirituality as a missing element within the leadership field of study (Dent, Higgins, & Wharff, 2005: Fairhom, 1997; Fry, 2003; Korak-Kakabadse, Kouzmin, & Kakabadse, 2002; Vail 1998).

Yet this interest is spirituality and leadership is not without its opponents. Unsurprisingly, spirituality in leadership has the business sector as its toughest adversary and critic. In fact the separation of spirituality and business was considered the norm for most of the twentieth century (Crossman, 2010). The "profit motive" and the sacred were though as two separate domains, one dealing primarily with action the other with contemplation (Durkeim, 1968). The business sector was too enamored with rationalist and scientific approaches to leadership and organizational culture. But towards the beginning of the twenty first century, failures in major corporations such as Enron and more than 20 others named on the Forbes Corporate scandal list (Patsuris, 2002) prompted scholars, consultants, and the media to re-evaluate the effectiveness of leadership training (Hannah & Zatzick, 2007). What had been missing from all these years of leadership education that would result in these moral failures? Consequently, the business sector became more willing to allow values oriented forms of leadership which provided a gateway for moral, ethical, relational, emotional and eventually even spiritual perspectives of leadership modeling as the remedy to the wave of scandals.

Given this evolution of leaders, how has the evolution of the leadership discipline affected the way the leadership function is exercised within ministry? Have some of the leadership education flaws that triggered a rash of ethical misbehaviors in the business sector also latent within the ministry sector? And is the emerging interest in spirituality from the secular sector compatible with the understanding of spirituality in the ministry or pastoral setting?

These are important questions that do not have a simple answer. In order to answer these questions fully, it is necessary to analyze the evolution of leadership theory, the underlying assumptions of secular leadership models, to explore the assumptions and limitations inherent in these models and to demonstrate the circumstances in which it is appropriate to use them. By exploring how the nonprofit, education, government, social service and even the military sectors have reacted to the flaws inherent in current leadership models, we will be able to develop a clearer understanding of the severe limitations of these same models for ministry endeavors. An analysis of differences will illustrate the limits of secular leadership models in the ministry sector, and highlight the unique dimensions of pastoral leadership as a discipline in its own right.

The Imperfections of Secular Models

As benign as this may seem, two of the most common assumptions made about leadership models, which are responsible for their broad popular appeal, are the assumptions of universality and guaranteed success. As a result, when a new leadership model becomes publicly available, the implicit promises of universal applicability and success lead to a seemingly blinding eagerness to implement the model everywhere and anywhere a quick and cheap approach to excellent leadership is required.

The tendency to adopt leadership models unquestionably and unchallenged is frightening and dangerous. Current research clearly demonstrates that there are no grounds for accepting the assumptions of universality and guaranteed success of leadership models. There are no valid grounds to assume that a leadership model, which originated in the private sector, would work just as effectively in other sectors such as nonprofit, educational, government, social service or the military. Additionally, the eagerness to apply a leadership model is many times more powerful than the desire to understand whether this model will be effective or not under circumstances different than originally intended. Despite the eagerness to apply new leadership models across sectors, the assumptions of universality and guaranteed success have no scientific validity whatsoever.

These two assumptions alone have been a significant cause of popular leadership models being forced into situations and environments for which they were never intended. Granted, using any leadership model consistently in a sector that is in need of leadership improvement will result in some benefits to the organization. Yet, more to the point, each sector, including ministry, has its own unique needs and qualities, which, if ignored, will result in at best a short-lived improvement. In fact, if commercialized secular leadership models had to include appropriate warning labels, they would have to state in bold letters "May be hazardous to your organization. Use at own risk."

Warning labels or not, many sectors are already re-evaluating the limits, depth and applicability of leadership models imported from other sectors. One example of this cross-sector skepticism is the application of the "boot camp" training model in the business sector. Although participating executives of some corporations acknowledge the value of leadership "boot camps" as a corporate skills builder (Brown, 1998), military leadership models are still better for basic training than for the boardroom. In an article on the value of military leadership models applied to the business sector, Brandt (2003) observes: "Although there's an enormous amount to admire in the U.S. military—from professionalism to willingness to sacrifice for freedom—it's not a viable model for your business."

Using commercially available leadership models doesn't seem to work well in the military either. For example, an author critiques the Air Force's apparent fascination with off-the-shelf leadership programs: "As a former facilitator of Covey's Seven Habits series, I must admit that I really enjoyed the material. It's principled, concise, and well-focused. But it's not focused on the Air Force and the unique problems that we encounter." (Thirtle, 2002).

Another way to demonstrate the incompatibilities of leadership models across disciplines is to look at the effectiveness of leaders who have been formed in American corporations and later sought opportunities to apply their skills to the nonprofit sector. On the surface it seems reasonable to assume that skilled leaders in the business sector would also be effective in the nonprofit sector. Yet many seasoned corporate CEOs and business leaders who end up volunteering in leadership positions of non-profit organizations are also quick to recognize subtle, but crucial differences, and caution others to be sensitive to these differences (Schweitzer, 1998). Leading an organization in the direction of optimizing financial performance requires a different skill set than optimizing a social-service organization that is focused more on providing a service than on generating a return for the shareholders. The leadership experience in corporate America is based on employees as human resources, whose successes or failures are measured through performance appraisals. But how can one validly insist that a volunteer be measured in the same or similar manner when one of the major aims of the organization is to attract and encourage volunteers to give generously of their time, talent and even their treasure? And how can we ignore that a key purpose of any corporation is to sustain its growth, where the objective of a nonprofit organization is to make a difference in society? Although there are some fundamental skills that experienced corporate, American executives can bring to the nonprofit sector, there are still significant realities in this sector that are incongruent with business skills alone.

The educational sector presents another example of how leadership models can be incompatible with the realities of the sector. For example, although participatory leadership models seem to have become a standard among colleges and universities, some research is suggesting that the models are adversely affecting organizational performance (Kezar, 2001). Important questions to consider in this regard include: Are learning processes primarily participatory in nature? How much learning can be achieved through participation? If participatory styles are emphasized in education, what may be lost or undermined?

Given this evolving sensitivity and healthy skepticism in applying leadership models in different sectors, to what degree is pastoral leadership aware of the boundaries and limitations of secular leadership models?

There already seems to be some noticeable dissatisfaction coming from the pastoral sector. One study on parish pastoral leadership addresses some of the essential sector attributes that are put at risk when business models are applied to ministry. The survey notes that "specific intangibles unique to Catholic ministry, such as building a true sense of community, growing within an ecclesiastical communion, and the inclusion of spirituality, are just some of the aspects clearly not addressed in secular leadership models, yet paramount to managing a successful Catholic ministry" (Rojas, 2002a). A document on U.S. Hispanic Catholics poses an interesting question when looking at the inability of many secular models to embrace cultural diversity in the Church: "What model of leadership will Hispanic Catholics offer as they become the majority group?" and "How will this model strengthen the unity of the body of Christ in increasingly culturally diverse communities?" (Donovan, 2002). Secular leadership models can only remain silent when confronted with these types of questions.

To validate our suspicions that some kind of "gap" existed between what secular models offer and what may be better tailored to parish pastoral work, we conducted an exploration of Catholic publisher listings, books and other materials, as well as training programs offered throughout the United States. Here we attempted to assess the current status and content of "leadership" resources currently being used for the formation of pastoral leaders at different levels within the Church. Without wanting to be overly critical, yet needing to make a statement, we reviewed the "major topics" listed from more than 70 Catholic publishers in the United States and found that only a handful of them stated "leadership" as a major topic of interest. We also reviewed the six most popular leadership training programs being offered at parish and diocesan level throughout the United States, and discovered a heavy dose of secular models with slight modifications to accommodate pastoral distinctiveness. At least for the both of us, these discoveries accentuated the scarcity of research, modeling and attention to this gap between "secular models" and what would be better tailored to "ministry activities". Yet on the other hand, we were encouraged by the recent initiatives of a few Catholic universities that were either developing a certificate program or a graduate specialty in "pastoral leadership."

Another example should further illustrate our concerns regarding a tendency to adopt leadership models without question and unchallenged. In an article titled "Diocesan Bureaucracy," McDonough notes: "A model of diocesan leadership that has been familiar to three generations of Catholics is proving to be less effective than had been hoped" (McDonough, 1997). What went wrong? Did the short-term successes of leadership models overshadow more profound long-term realities? Does this form of leadership set ministries and leaders on a collision course with the realities and needs of a parish?

If there are tensions in the future, they will probably be between the more educated, older lay ministers and the younger priests. As the number of lay ministers increases and the number of priests decreases, some priests will feel that their turf is being encroached upon" (Feuerherd, 2002).

It appears that if Catholic lay leaders continue incorporating—with minimal discernment—business models of leadership in their ministries, they will be on a collision course with the clergy, since such models do not address the complexities of a hierarchy of roles, among other issues.

There is little doubt that business models have various degrees of effectiveness in the ministry sector. Yet a majority of the underlying assumptions of secular leadership models emerge primarily from empirical observations made on and for business organizations, whereas the assumptions inherent in pastoral leadership emerge from Church teachings and traditions, Sacred Scripture and a rich spiritual heritage. The secular leadership paradigm is based on objectives that are primarily financial in nature, whereas leadership for ministry is based on achieving goals that affect life processes and sacramental realities within a Catholic worldview. The vocabulary and fundamental constructs of business leadership deliberately exclude realities that lie within the core of Catholic ministry, such as mystery, solidarity, faith, grace, forgiveness, prayer, discernment, divine providence, communion and the Holy Trinity, to mention only a few. Finally, the parameters of secular leadership are about tangibles, such as efficiency, optimization, metrics and organization building. Pastoral leadership is mostly about intangible life issues and faith-based community skills, which demand "techniques of the heart," a set of skills so evidently absent from secular models. Given these facts, it seems curious that parish and diocesan leaders still seem eager to use secular leadership models in their ministries. If we are to continue to foster appropriate and active involvement of the laity in the life of the Church, it seems critical to the success of that endeavor to recognize the limits of leadership models that are imported from other sectors. This can occur only when we realize that pastoral leadership is unique enough to be considered a leadership discipline in its own right.

This is the fundamental challenge of pastoral leadership. Without a broader understanding of the context, assumptions and limitations of secular leadership models, many of us will continue to learn and apply (many times incorrectly) the leadership model "de jour" in hopes of becoming better leaders, but to the potential detriment of ministry and the Church and the meaningful involvement of the laity in the life of the Church.

As a starting point, it is imperative to canvas the landscape of leadership models and assess the implications of secular leadership models for the formation of pastoral leadership. In that way we will implement leadership models that are true to form, fit, and function for the ministry sector.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from The Challenges of PASTORAL LEADERSHIPby Ronald Rojas John Alvarez Copyright © 2012 by Ronald Rojas and John Alvarez. Excerpted by permission of AuthorHouse. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.