In thinking thru the implications of this book, I’m struck by the odd question: What is the role of leadership in “leaderless organizations”? How does leadership work in decentralized systems?
It seems, as Len H. comments, that “part of the dynamic of the apostolic we see in the NT is structure and authority that is then given away. . . Power becomes invested in the system in values and practices and is personified only in the risen Lord and not in particular individuals.”
On the other hand, the Scriptures have metaphors of leadership (shepherd, servant/steward, ideal king), a gift or gifts of leadership, offices of leadership, references to those who “lead/serve among you” etc. Movements historically are defined in part by key leaders (Jesus, Wilberforce, Wesley, Martin Luther King, Jr.).
Brafman and Beckstron are helpful in solving this dilemma in their discussion of leaders as catalysts. A catalyst is the kind of person who gets things going and then fades into the background ceding control to members. A catalyst influences, leads by example. They clarify the role of the catalyst in “leaderless organizations” by contrasting him or her with the role of a CEO:
CEO | Catalyst
boss | peer
command and control | trust
rational | emotionally intelligent
powerful | inspirational
directive | collaborative
in the spotlight | behind the scenes
order | ambiguity
organising | connecting
The authors write:Catalysts are bound to rock the boat. they are much better at being agents of change than guardians of tradition. Catalysts do well in situations that call for radical change and creative thinking. They bring innovation but they are also likely to create a certain amount of chaos and ambiguity. Put them in a structured environment and they might suffocate. Let them dream and they’ll thrive.
Part of the challenge of leading movements, it seems to me, is developing this catalytic quality of leadership (or at least allowing “catalysts” to flourish).
Leave a Reply