Readers in Canada may know that we are some time away from the next federal election. There has been a lot of talk recently, however, about the poll numbers of the major leaders and political parties. Election campaigns in Canada last a matter of weeks after the writ is dropped. In the United States, taking into account party primaries and mid-term elections, it seems that campaign season is always, all the time, forever.
Disenchantment with leadership is not novel. People have been complaining about leaders for decades and centuries. It might be that in our current cultural context, leadership is facing increased scrutiny. Do you remember a time when leaders were not to be questioned? Have you been part of a system, religious our otherwise that perpetuated such demands?
If we are refusing to bow to the authority of leaders simply because of position or title, then this implies that we are somewhat skeptical of how leaders are chosen. We have mostly given up the idea of divine right. We struggle with whether our political leaders are truly the best people to hold such positions of influence and power.
How are or were leaders chosen in religious communities of which you have been a part? Some denominations have fairly rigorous standards and evaluations. The contemporary trend of the largest churches, being mostly non-denominational and relatively new, has meant that leaders of such organizations are often chosen for their entrepreneurial ability more than their spiritual insight or pastoral strengths.
As Andrew Root says in his book, Churches and the Crisis of Decline;
Many in leadership accept the dogma that a church full of life is a church full of resources, and vice versa. The capacity to harvest these immanent realities sustains the congregation (not sacraments, visions, and encounters with the divine being). We consider almost every big church with a big budget and many resources to be ‘alive’. We are shocked when we so often learn of intimidation and spiritual abuse that was allowed to fester and feed in such ‘alive’ churches.
A recent column in the New York Times addressed the idea that the those who rise to high positions of leadership can tend to be people that might not be best suited for the job. One reason for this is that they have to have, on some level, thought that they were the best person for the job. The way I have thought of it is to ponder that if you are okay with your picture being prominently displayed on the side of a bus then there is probably something at least a little bit wrong with you.
The article, by Adam Grant at the Wharton School (famous leader graduates will remain unnamed), presents an idea called “sortition.” You can read the article for yourself, but basically, sortition is a somewhat random way of choosing leaders. It has been used, in some community organizations, for some panels chosen to consult on important issues and historically for some forms of governance.
Would choosing leaders randomly be better than the systems we have now?
Here is a quote from the article; “Groups actually made smarter decisions when leaders were chosen at random than when they were elected by a group or chosen based on leadership skill.”
There are parameters to the models which Grant and others are presenting. It is worth reading the column to consider them. My interest in sortition is how it helps me to reflect on political and religious leadership. I include in this reflection my own roles, through the years, as a leader.
More often than not, I have seen a correlation between someone who thinks that they should be a leader and detrimental results. You may have seen, even in the small pond that a local church or religious organization can be, people who are determined to be leaders, who feel that it is their right or that they would most certainly do a better job than those who are leading currently.
Quoting the Grant column again; “When you’re anointed by the group, it can quickly go to your head, ‘I am the chosen one’. When you know you’re picked at random, you don’t experience enough power to be corrupted by it. Instead, you feel a heightened sense of responsibility: ‘I did nothing to earn this, so I need to make sure I represent the group well.’”
I am not arguing for sortition, I am arguing for humility. If you are in a position of leadership, the chances are that someone else could do the job better than you - maybe even someone chosen randomly. This is not to say that we don’t have strengths and even gifts. Many times I have thought about how grateful I am that a particular person is doing a particular job or leading at a particular time. Perhaps, we would all do better in being leaders and in choosing leaders if we consistently remembered that being convinced that you deserve the leadership roles you have is not necessarily a strength.
Thanks Paddy;
Your insights are appreciated. I can hear in your reflection the tensions that arise in the trade-off questions of what we give up if we choose one over the other, as often seems necessary. You know I am sure, from your decades of organizational leadership in the context of faith communities that professionally and vocationally many of us feel the negatives at times over how we are being judged and evaluated. Take Care.
I think it is hard to find one person who is both humble and entrepreneurial. And the charismatic days were used to think of character and charisma. We seem to always choose charisma over character. And that to the great detriment of the church. And reading and watching about large evangelical and Pentecostal churches that have abuse and exploited the parishioners, one can see the choice of character less so then you see the choice of charisma. I’m not sure I know how to bring those two things into a live intention such set the best decisions are made.