People in authority who lack vision and a clear sense of mission and who are unable to galvanize the commitment of the people are increasingly common in organizations today --- particularly in religious organizations. I propose that the decline in church attendance and the growing cynicism towards church authority is a result of too many years of having managers in leadership positions. And, as the author of Proverbs teaches, "Without a vision, the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18)

For several decades now, society in general and the church in particular has confused leadership with good management. This shouldn't be surprising since the church seems to get along better without leadership than it can without management. It is maintained through management. It is changed through leadership. Both are required at different times in the life of the church, but they are not the same. To equate the two leaves the church without a future. 

Managers are most effective when the community is expanding rapidly and an efficient structure is required to provide services and maintain order. They do not, however, have the capacity to build an organization from its infancy and they cannot turn an organization around that is in a state of decline. They lack the vision and charisma to carry out this work. Today managers have usurped the church and leaders, in the true sense of the word, have been relegated to the cheap seats.

It is not my aim to propose how administrators and pastors are chosen in the Church. Certainly I would love to see a process much more democratic than is currently the practice. If it is true that "by their fruits you shall know them", I would like to make a few distinctions and describe their character traits so that true leaders can be distinguished from the managers.

Characteristics of Leaders

Fundamentally, good leadership is about vision and unity for the sake of the good held in common. Leaders, at their best, foster relationships among members of the group who are inspired and excited by the realization of a shared vision of liberation and communion among all God's creation. They focus on the future, on the realization of the mission --- not on maintaining how things are. The vision they promote is usually so daring and compelling that it taps into altruism and impels people to act. Individuals set aside personal plans to work for the common good. 

Leaders also use intellectual stimulation to change perceptions, ideas, and beliefs and to strengthen their community's use of imagination and creativity in problem solving. Leaders and the people engage each other in a collaborative process of decision-making and action. In the midst of uncertainty and chaos, they call the group to hope and to a bold vision for the future. They push the boundaries of how the group has defined itself. They challenge, question, and take risks in intuitive decision-making. They catalyze the group to adapt new ways of being that make it most able to respond to the demands of its mission in a rapidly changing world context. They call the group to imagination.

Excellent leaders place priority on the mission --- even to the point of subordinating their personal needs for affection and popularity. They are able, as Pope John XXIII brought to the Second Vatican Council, to read the signs of the times and be proactive about them. They mobilize commitment by consensus building rather than by decrees and directions. 

Managerial Traits

Managers, on the other hand, are committed to preserving order, preventing chaos from being unleashed, and maintaining the status quo at whatever cost. Cautiousness, hyper- vigilance, and preparedness for any sudden deviation from the routine are essential traits. Risk is a dirty word to them and because there is little vision, managers are rarely proactive and mostly reactive when dealing with problems. 

Managers are preoccupied with determining how certain functions of the group are going to continue in the face of diminishment. They are captured in the here and now. Such functioning is often evident in congregational meetings and council meetings in which the agenda is locked into sustaining what is, often to the exclusion of dreaming and planning for what might be. This leaves people exhausted, depressed, demoralized, and disheartened. 

If we examine our experience of church in the past thirty-five years, we see temptations on the part of many to return to the nostalgia of the past. Creativity has been suppressed and dissenters silenced. Structural conversion and gender equality are treated as passing fads that should be ignored. Fears of the consequences of the vision have caused some to hold tenaciously to the past. In some cases we see even reactionary attempts to wield power and exercise control that might have worked reasonably well in the past, but are inadequate and potentially destructive in meeting the needs of today. 

Hierarchy vs. Collegiality

Managers prefer certain forms of organizational structures to others. Perhaps the greatest testament to the control of the Church by managers is the continuing existence of a hierarchical model of governance in spite of the "vision" of Vatican II, which emphasized collegiality and the importance of participation. 

Julius Caesar, who developed it to manage the Roman army, created the hierarchical model. It is a system rooted in paranoia since few emperors in his day died of old age. Hierarchy is based on four assumptions:

Most people are not educated and therefore the well-educated elite was the only ones who could be trusted in important matters of governance. Women, who were rarely educated, were barely acknowledged. 
People were dangerous to the leader and there had to be layers of insulation between the leader and the populace. 
There is a limited amount of power. The ruling class has to keep as much power as possible for fear that a lack of it would lead to political impotence. 
The elite class would use its power for the good of all, not just for its own ends --- an early version of the "trickle-down theory".

The Church, of course, operates with surprising similarity. Like the military, the Churches structure has superiors and subordinates with a very clear chain of command. Orders are given rather than participatory decision-making. Recent declarations from the Curia betray an attitude that some members of the church are mature while most are not, some know well what truth is while others do not, and the trickle-down theory is advertised as the will of God. It is elitist to the core. These are the managers of the church and presently they have control of the ship. Leaders who might want to adjust the direction of the ship are intentionally kept out of the Officer's Mess. They are made to swab the deck, branded as mutineers and sometimes threatened with the brig when they become too vocal. 

Leaders, surprisingly enough, were in charge of the proceedings at Vatican II. This explains why there was an emphasis on collegiality and shared decision-making rather than hierarchy. Pope John XXIII, himself a leader, had to continually battle curial managers scared witless at the possibility of losing their control and privilege. Isn't it interesting how the managers have "managed" to reverse much of the work of the Council since then? 

Collegiality is based on trust not paranoia, vision rather than status quo. As a model of governance, collegiality is also based on four assumptions:

People have sufficient knowledge to be entrusted with power over their own lives.  The emphasis is on knowledge and understanding rather than on education alone. 
Most people are of good will and are not dangerous to themselves or to others. From such people, a good leader has nothing to fear. 
Power is limitless and it increases the more it is shared.
The good of the whole will be better served by more people being involved in governance in a variety of ways. It does not trust the "trickle-down theory".

Conclusion

That the church today lacks leaders and is inundated with managers is a foregone conclusion. True leaders often do not lobby for these positions of power since they know the personal suffering involved, the lack of support they will receive and the risk of burn out. The people who tend to be promoted these days are those who need to have power for reasons other than service. Many are chosen because they are "safe", have never taken a risk and have consistently obeyed orders from central command.

I find Jesus' leadership style refreshing and so foreign to what we have now in the Church. Some of his followers were leaders and others were managers. He enabled both to function within an organizational structure where the managers carried out the practical tasks and the leaders remained focused on the vision called the Realm of God and its realization. Judas Iscariot was likely the consummate manager and took his life when he could not accept the vision nor control events at the time. More powerful managerial types like the High Priest's, Herod and Pontius Pilate had more to loose than Judas and made sure the new leader from Galilee was removed. 

The persistent choice of managers for positions of authority in the Church has left it without a vision for the future and an inability to creatively respond to the needs of today. How the Church will change this I do not know. It seems impossible that "manager" Cardinals will choose anyone but another manager for Pope. One thing is certain, however, the Church's future hinges upon its ability to wrestle control from the managers and hand it over to leaders who are committed to a new vision of hope, are unafraid to suffer, and are freed from the practical tasks of management. 

 Sheldon Oleksyn