James MacGregor Burns and John Gardner, have each noted a crisis of leadership at the

end of the twentieth century.1 This crisis has not only been found outside the church, but inside as

well. There simply are not enough good leaders to face the task confronting us in our rapidly

changing global environment. Burns (the pioneer of the Transformational Leadership model)

attributes the desperate situation in our organizational life to an intellectual crisis in leadership

thought. According to Burns. “We fail to grasp the essence of leadership that is relevant to our

modern age and hence we cannot agree even on the standards by which to measure, recruit, and

reject it.”2 I however would suggest that the problem is more systemic than intellectual. While

Burns’ call, for a contemporary philosophical tradition, may help us select the right people to lead,

it does not necessarily get at the fundamental cause of the crisis. I would suggest, that underlying

the intellectual crisis is a collapse of historic models of leadership, which are based on flawed

ontological assumptions that do not conform to the real world. As observed by Regine and Lewin

in their article “Leading at the Edge,”

Where once the world was viewed as linear and mechanistic, where
simple cause and effect solutions were expected to explain the
complex phenomena of nature, Scientists now realize that most of the
world is non-linear and organic, characterized by uncertainty and
unpredictability. In retrospect, it is amazing how far we have been
able to take the linear model for understanding the world both in
science and business.3
What is needed in our churches today, is a new model for leadership that will transcend the

limitations of historic models and meet the challenge of the post-modern era. To meet this task, I
1
Wren, 3-10
2
Wren, 9
3
Regine, 6
would propose a transformational model of leadership, which is informed by the scriptures and

insights from complexity science. In this paper I will be using McCloskey’s 4-R Model of

leadership as a framework for my study.

The Failure of Classical Models

Before we turn to McCloskey’s model, let us examine why classic leadership models are

failing. According Angelique Keene, “The dominant organizational paradigm remains wedded to

scientific management theories which reflect a philosophy that remains committed to a need for

control and prediction.”4 Control and prediction however, assume a very linear and mechanistic

concept of the world, where simple cause-and-effect solutions are expected to describe natural

processes – but in actuality cannot. Scientists are now beginning to realize that most of the world is

nonlinear and organic, characterized by uncertainty and unpredictability.5 Informing the

revolution in scientific inquiry is Complexity Theory, a new science, which studies the relational

phenomena of chaos and emergence in dynamic systems. Chaos, generally speaking, describes the

unpredictable nature of complex systems (like weather patterns, the stock market, etc.). Emergence

on the other hand, describes the phenomena of how complex patterns “emerge” (in a seemingly

spontaneous way) out of relatively simple systems under certain conditions.

Regine and Lewin, note several Myths6 surrounding the concept of leadership which grow

out of the linear/mechanistic world view: The myths of Autonomy, Control, and Omniscience.

Much of the failure of historic models of leadership can be attributed to instances where one acts

on these presuppositions, and fails to achieve the desired results, or where one expects outcomes

based on these assumptions which are unrealistic.

4
Keene, Angelique, “Complexity Theory: The Changing Role of Leadership” Industrial and Commercial Training Vol. 32, Number 1 •
2000 © iMCB University Press • p. 15
5
Regine, p 6
6
Regine, 17-19
The Myth of Autonomy

Ellis and Fisher (1994) observe - that groups tend to perform best as the complexity of a

task increases, and that groups are better at judgment than individuals are.7 This is not to say that

“groups” become necessary as complexity increases. Human relationships are mutual by nature,

our identities are formed in relationship to others, and our actions are nearly always reactions to the

myriad of other individuals who influence us. This insight reveals the inadequacy of classical

leadership models. As John Donne famously said, “No man is an Island.” Consequently, one

would expect to find evidence of a different model in the New Testament, in fact we do.

In Trinitarian theology, the doctrine of parichoresis describes the interpenetration of the

members of the Trinity. Through the process of redemption, this interpenetration is extended to us

as we are found in Christ. The Christian Community is to be understood then, as a series of

interpenetrating relationships. This is reflected in Jesus prayer, “even as Thou, Father, art in Me,

and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me”

(John 17:21).

In the New Testament, you see a growing tendency toward mutuality in community life

and the decision making process. There are several instances where the church makes decisions

collectively. In Acts 1:15-26 for instance, the Apostles are choosing a successor to Judas, they

allow the body to put forward a suggestion. Unable to come to a resolution, rather than making the

final decision, they decide to cast lots. The decision to choose this procedure is significant because

it could reflect the fact that the disciples did not feel they were in a position to make the final

decision where the body had not reached consensus. The epistles are not addressed to leaders but

to the congregations as a whole. When the first deacons are selected in Acts 6, the whole church

chooses them. The whole church also settled the dispute over circumcision in Acts 15:22. The

7
Irving 234
Apostles occasionally made unilateral decisions when they had to, but as Erickson notes, We find

no instance of control over a local church by outside organizations or individuals. The apostles

made recommendations and gave advice, but exercised no real rulership or control.8

The study of Complexity reveals that we are all in dynamic reaction with our environment

and are very much a part of the process that creates that environment. We do not exist in isolation

but we exist and have our being in a web of relationships.9 The old model of leadership is

inadequate, because it operates on linear and unidirectional assumption about the flow of influence.

The complex nature of human interaction demands a model that recognizes the mutuality and

interconnectedness of human relationship.

The Myth of Control

John Gardner states that “Leaders are almost never as much in charge as they are pictured

to be, and followers almost never as submissive as one might imagine.”10 Human organizations

are complex systems, as such, they are not subject to direct control. Keene notes,

We tend to see our organizations and us as members of those

organizations, as separate from our environment. We seek to control
that environment and experience frustration when it behaves in a way
that is incongruent and in conflict with the operations of our
organizations. 11

In the end, leaders cannot lead where followers will not be led. Classic forms of leadership, with a

direct control methodology, must therefore resort to coercive means to force cooperation. This

tactic, while effective in some instances, cannot guarantee cooperation and points to the ultimate

futility of direct control. The world simply does not work that way.

In the gospels we see Jesus, the ultimate authority, unable or unwilling to command

compliance. When people go away disappointed like the rich young ruler (Mt 19:22), or

overwhelmed by it, like the crowd who left him (Jn 6:60); he does not try harder. He simply lets
8
Erickson 1098
9
Keene, p 16
10
Wren, 185 (from John W. Gardner, “Leaders and Followers,” Liberal Education 23 (2) (March-April,
1987).
11
Keene, p 16
go. If the Word, who created all things did not seek to directly control people, why should we

expect to. True authority commands, but it does not coerce. Leadership is not about getting people

to do what you want, or getting them to do other than what they would normally do. To quote

Burn’s, The leader’s fundamental act is to induce people to be aware or conscious of what they feel

– to feel their true needs so strongly, to define their values so meaningfully, that they can move to

purposeful action.12 While the old model of leadership operates on the assumption of direct

control, complexity demands a new leadership that understands that the most we can hope for is

indirect control.

The Myth of Omniscience

“It is impossible for leaders to have and know all the answers.”13 This myth is closely related to the

myth of autonomy. One reason noted by Abelson and Levi (1985) is that, individuals are limited

to their intellectual and information-processing capabilities. The limitations of a group are much

less in this manner for they are able to draw from a more extensive collective pool of information

and talent.14 The founder of Systems Service Enterprises, Susan S. Elliott states, “I can’t come up

with a plan and then ask those who manage the accounts to give me their reactions. They’re the

ones who really know the accounts. They have the information I don’t have. Without their input,

I’d be operating in an ivory tower.”15 In first Corinthians 13 we see that the church has been given

a variety of gifts, but not all gifts have been given to everyone, yet all the gifts are needed for the

healthy functioning of the body.

A second reason is that human organizations exist on two levels, the micro-level of our day

to day lives, and the macro, level of cities, nations, businesses and the Church. In the New

Testament we find that the church is never given a big picture or grand strategy. They are given

basic instructions (the Great Commission Mt. 28:19-20). The great Apostle Paul, is not given one

12
Burns, James MacGregor. 1878. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
13
Regine, 19
14
Irving, 234-235
15
Wren (Ways Women Lead). (153)
either. He is told simply, to take the Gospel to the gentiles and their kings (Acts 9:15-16). In his

book, Emergence, Steven Johnson compares the relative scales of humans and ants to their relative

communities.

The decision-making of an ant, exists on a minute-by-minute scale:

counting foragers, following pheromone gradients. The sum of all
those isolated decisions creates the far longer lifetime of the colony,
but the ants themselves are utterly ignorant of that macro-level.
Human behavior works at two comparable scales: our day-to-day
survival, which involves assessments of the next thirty years or forty
years at best; and the millennial scale of cities and other economic
ecosystems. – We interact directly with, take account of – and would
seem to control – the former. We are woefully unaware of the latter.
– That macro-development belongs to the organism of the city itself,
which grows and evolves and learns over a thousand-year cycle, as
dozens of human generations come and go.16

Historic models of leadership relied on the wisdom of the individual or the elite, in place of this;

complexity theory would replace this with the collective intelligence of the body.

Historic models of leadership, which attempt to practice direct control, and rely on the

autonomy and knowledge of the leader, while functional in relatively stable environments

(characterized by the isolation individual agents, and low vertical and horizontal communication

within organizational structures,) only work because the system is essentially “unhealthy”. With

increased connectivity between agents and greater communication of relevant information

vertically and horizontally within the system, direct control does not work as well. Simply

speaking, the empowerment of local agents decreases the manageability of social networks.

Miroslav Volf writes,

People in modern societies - have little sympathy for top-down

organizations, including for churches structured top-down. The
search of contemporary human beings for community is a search for
those particular forms of socialization in which they themselves are
taken seriously with their various religious and social needs, in which
their personal engagement is valued, and in which they can participate
formatively.17

16
Johnson, 98-99
17
Volf, 17
Empowered agents demand more direct input into systems in which they participate. Leadership is

then confronted with a choice; either dis-empower agents through repression and coercion, or adopt

a non-linear approach to organizational life.

Relationships

By making relationships central to his model McCloskey transcends mechanistic models

by asserting that leadership is first and foremost contextual. He states “It is theologically

inaccurate and conceptually inadequate to suggest that a sole person, in any way, shape or form

exists or functions in a state of splendid isolation, especially in the arena of leadership practice.”18

This does not mean that leadership traits become unimportant. McCloskey’s anagram “D.I.C.E.”

delineates the attributes he considers essential to leadership.19 Yet ontologically, we are beginning

to realize that traits are not so much a matter of differing substances, but rather a matter of differing

relations.

Drawing on the insights of developmental psychology, Alistair McFadyen, describes how

our sense of identity and personhood is formed by our individual history of communication; this

makes our encounters with others, including God significant in shaping who we are.20 In this

context it makes sense that McCloskey would put the Divine Human Partnership at the center of

his model. If our relationships define us, spiritual leadership must begin within the context of

spiritual relationships, and all Spiritual relationships find their common entry point in the divine

human relationship.

New relational contexts often elicit latent character traits to emerge in individuals.

Theologically, for instance, it possible to say that God is Love. God always was love. Within the

relational context of his Trinitarian nature, God always existed as a community of loving self-

18
McCloskey, 2-3
19
McClosley, 4
20
McFadyen, A. The Call to Personhood, (Cambridge University Press, 1990) p. 115-116
donation.21 However, one cannot say God has always been just – as a part of his eternal nature.

Justice is a latent character trait that emerged from God in response to human sin, as well as mercy.

When human beings enter into a relationship with the divine, latent qualities emerge. These

qualities are called spiritual gifts. They are latent because they have something to do with who we

are as individuals, they are gifts because they can only be accessed through a personal relationship

to the divine.

McCloskey's acronym D.I.C.E., refers to those characteristics which he determines to be

essential to leadership. The two main features of emergence are reflected in these traits. Dynamic

Determination and Intellectual Flexibility correspond to the quality of adaptability;

Characterological Soundness and Emotional Wellbeing correspond to the quality of Relationality.

It would make sense that these traits would rise to the surface as leaders evolve and adapt to new

and complex environments. Though presenting slightly different taxonomies - other theorists in the

study of leadership have recognized these traits, as the chart below clearly demonstrates.

Burns Dynamic Intellectual Characterological Emotional Wellbeing

Determination Flexibility Soundness
Kirkpatric Drive, Cognitive Ability, Honesty, Self Confidence
& Locke22
Leadership- Knowledge of the Integrity
Motivation Business,

Flexibility
Colins23 Fierce Resolve Humility

Complexity theory states that Feedback loops exist in complex adaptive systems, and through their

dynamics the system evolves over time.24 Who we are as individuals is not only shaped by our

relational context, but also feeds back into the system and contributes to the overall identity of the

system. Given the ebb and flow of this mutual relationship, it is easy to see how Burn’s definition

21
Volf, 412-413
22
Wren, 133-143
23
Colins, Jim. Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve. Harvard Business Review
(2001).
24
Regine, 13
of Transforming Leadership works. “Transforming leadership is a relationship of mutual

stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral

agents”.25

Roles

According to McCloskey, there are four roles essential for leadership: Spokesperson,

Coach, Direction Setter, and Change Agent. McCloskey divides these into four quadrants, which

he calls critical corners of the missional community.26

Spokesperson Direction Setter

Or Horizon Setter
Kingdom Ambassador (?)
(Evangelist)
future/outsider
present/outside
Coach Change Agent
Or Or
Community Builder Trail Blazer
(Pastor) (Prophet or Teacher)
present/inside future/inside

Currently, there is a great deal of skepticism between Complexity and Transformational schools of

Leadership. Complexity theorists see transformational leadership as another linear/unidirectional,

and coercive leadership model. Transformational theorists see Complex Leadership models as

abstract, aimless, preoccupied with systems and negligent of human individuals. Most of these

misunderstandings however are easily resolved, and could be cleared up by more cross-fertilization

of ideas. As we have already seen in the “myths” portion of this study, many of the insights of

complexity theory have already found a place in the thought of contemporary “transformational”

leadership. And the work of Complexity Theorists is surprisingly human. Take for instance this

statement from “Leading at the Edge”,

25
Wren, 103
26
McCloskey, 8
 One of the most important lessons of complexity science is that
complex adaptive systems generate emergent, creative order and
adapt to changes in their environment, through simple interactions
among their agents. In other words, in business, how we interact and
the kind of relationships we form have everything to do with what
kind of culture emerges; with the emergence of creativity,
productivity, and innovation in the workplace; with the organizations
ability to anticipate and adapt to changes. In turn, the emergent order
influences the behavior of individuals in the system – a feedback
loop. Similarly, the culture that emerges in a company will influence
people’s behavior. From this continual interplay between people’s
behavior and the emergent culture flows a dynamic feedback loop that
can enable or disable greater adaptability.27

Leaders who chose complex models of leadership actually focus more on individuals and

relationships than traditional models of leadership because they believe that the greatest possibility

for success lies not in the planning, but in the overall health of the organization, which is actually

an organism on the macro-level. The biblical imagery of the Church as the body of Christ, may

have particular significance for us today (1 Cor 12:12-26). No one claims to be the head of the

church, this role is reserved for Christ (Col. 1:16).

Some people are particularly gifted, by the spirit, with the abilities as Spokespersons

(evangelists), Coach (pastor), or Change Agent (prophets and teachers), but we must all submit to

God, who is the Direction Setter. The flaw of classical leadership model is to assume that the

leader is the head. And that the leader has the requisite intelligence to make definite decisions at the

macro-level for the organization. As the study by Ellis and Fisher indicates, this would make

organizations under classic leadership models, collectively stupid organisms, which rapidly die out,

as the cannot adapt to their environment. This is currently a struggle taking place in the

institutional church as it wrestles for relevance in the contemporary culture.

27
Regine, 16
 Responsibilities

According to McCloskey, Responsibilities are a sequence of specific leadership oriented

actions or behaviors, they comprise what a leader does.28 They are, Vision Casting, Strategy

Formulating, Aligning, and Motivating. Just as in McCloskey’s 3rd R, “Roles,” these

responsibilities can be divided into two categories. Future oriented (Vision Casting, and Strategy

Formulating,) and present oriented (Aligning and Motivating). The analysis, from the standpoint

of complexity, is also similar. The present oriented activities are very relationally oriented, and

from a complexity theorist’s point of view, contribute to the health of the organization by

enhancing relationships. The problematic responsibilities are the future oriented ones. As

complexity theory sees the macro-level of organizational life beyond the cognitive awareness of

individual agents, it is beyond the control of individual agents. It can only be influenced indirectly

by the local decisions of each member of the body as it takes on character over time.

This is not to preclude our making predictions and setting direction, but it demystifies the

concept of Vision Casting, and humbles the art of Strategy Formulation. Keeping leaders grounded

to the realities of community life rather than wedded to utopian fantasies. We have seen earlier

how the New Testament does not provide a master plan, but rather, gives individuals a mission

(basic instructions) to guide it. How that mission unfolds over time is a result of human and divine

interaction evolving in response to contextual circumstances.

28
McCloskey 9
 Results

According to McCloskey, results are contextual. They exist within the communities

purpose, mission, vision and values. Contextual Results are measured both quantitatively and

qualitatively. We have already anticipated much of what complexity theory has to say about results

in the preceding sections of this study. Still more can be said. For many years churches have

focused on numbers as a means of measuring organizational health. Reaction to this standard has

given rise, amongst those who see it as superficial, to others, which chose to measure success by

faithfulness, obedience, or some other qualitative measure. Both have their arguments and nobody

is really in the position to say that the other is wrong. In this way McCloskey has correctly

identified the contextual nature of Results.

This is probably the conclusion of Complexity theorists find most difficult to

accept from those still thinking within the classical leadership framework. It is also the arena

where Transformational Leadership theory most differs from Complex Leadership theory. When

considering Results, complexity theorists would caution, for the aforementioned reasons, that we

do not have the ability to ensure particular outcomes, and we do not have the intelligence to

perceive what is best for an organization on the macro-level. The only thing we have to work with

is local knowledge, human interaction, the recognition of group dynamics, and indirect control over

individuals and over the organization as a whole. Christians have the advantage of hope here over

other human institutions, because the church is the only institution with any sort of head that truly

has the ability to guide a body of organized human beings with true wisdom. It is Christ Jesus who

is the Vision Caster and the Direction Setter for the church. The members of his body are those

who trust that he will lead them into a promising future by his Knowledge and Wisdom. Leaders in

the church, therefore, are those who have the ability to manifest and communicate God’s vision for
the community. They do not cast their own vision, but catch the divine vision of the eschatological

future, and be become infected by it, and then spread it to others. They participate in strategizing,

in Divine/Human partnership with other believers to formulate strategies that guide their actions.

But, their planning is never absolute, but must always be contingent.

13
Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or
that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." 14
Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is
your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then
vanishes. 15 Instead, you ought to say, “if it is the Lord’s will, we will
live and do this or that" (Jas. 4:13-15).

Leaders are beginning to discover in the fast changing, interconnected world, that classical models based on

flawed ontological assumptions do not correspond to what we are discovering about the way the world

actually works. In the past the relative stability of our social environments allowed us to utilize these

approaches with an acceptable level of success. The mistaken assumptions only begin to become apparent as

we become more connected and better-informed individuals. As we move into the future we must let go of

certainty and acknowledge that we are moving into an open future. We must recognize the subordinate and

contingent nature of our smaller visions and strategies – to the ultimate Vision of God. Success can be

measured both quantitatively and qualitatively, but must never be bounded by human expectations of what

success should look like. A healthy church will grow, who will compose its members is not for us to decide.

A healthy church will be faithful, but it cannot predict the context it will be called to express that faith in.
 Bibliography

Collins, Jim. (2001). “Level 5 Leadership: The Triumph of Humility and Fierce Resolve.” Harvard Business
Review (January) 66-76

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Baker 1998

Ford, Leighton. Transforming Leadership. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity, 1992

Irving, Justin A. “The Benefits, Challenges, and Practice of Team Leadership in the Global Context.” In

James G. Coe, Strategies for Effective Leadership: U.S. and Russian Perspective (pp. 227-246).

Johnson, Steven. Emergence. New York: Scribner, 2001

Keene, Angelique. “Complexity Theory: The Changing Role of Leadership”. Industrial and Comercial
Training Vol. 32. No. 1. MCB University Press. pp 15-18

McCloskey, Mark. “Toward a Working Model of Transformational Leadership” (unpublished).

Regine, Birute and Roger Lewin. “Leading at the Edge: How Leaders Influence Complex Systems.”
Emergence, Vol.2, Iss. 2. (2000) pp 5-23

Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998

Wren, J. Thomas (ed.). The Leader’s Companion: Insights on Leadership through the Ages. New York: Free
Press, 1995.
Works Cited From Wren

- Gardner, John W. The Cry for Leadership, pp 3 ff

- Burns, James MacGregor. The Crisis of Leadership, pp 8 ff
- Couto, Richard A. The Transformation of Transforming Leadership, pp 102 ff
- Rosner, Judy B. Ways Women Lead, pp 149 ff
- Gardner, John W. Leaders and Followers, pp 185 ff