Since there are different ways to lead, it's important to make a very clear selection. Unfortunately, great numbers of people try to be Mr. In-Between. They refuse to select a particular chair and end up sitting on the floor. Eclecticism doesn't work in leadership.
Followers have an amazing ability to accommodate themselves to leadership styles. But if the style is constantly changing, they withdraw, become inactive. They will make gradual adjustments so long as they don't have to make major adjustments. If you will select your style, implement it, and stay consistent, you can almost use any style you want.
I see 5 styles: the benevolent dictator, the entrepreneur (or one man operator), the team player, the leader through compromise and the leader through consensus. Let's focus on two of them:
1. The benevolent dictator. I spoke recently to a group of young pastors who were very interested in church growth. When I described the traits of a benevolent dictator, they immediately said, "That's who we are. We know where we're going. We know what we want people to do to help us get there. Yes, we want to be pleasant about it, but we think the way we're headed is right, and we really are not interested in other people's ideas for this church." They were interested in results, most of which were expressed numerically (size of church, size of budget, growth rate). The benevolent dictator is a common leadership form among pastors.
I have occasionally run into preachers who were tyrannical dictators, but these weed themselves out pretty quickly. They develop what has to be called a cult. Even though it may appear to be theologically sound, it is still a personal cult. Tyrannical dictators rarely last in any organization. Their very meanness undermines them. By operating from a motivation of fear, they sow the seeds of rebellion, which erupt only when the people sense weakness. That, of course, is the very time the leader can't afford to have a rebellion. So tyrants don't last.
2. The team player. Think about a football quarterback. He listens to everybody. He has a coach, but he knows his responsibility to call the play in a given number of seconds. I saw an interview with Jim Zorn when he was still with the Seattle Seahawks, a couple of years after he had lost his number-one quarterback position to Dave Krieg. He said, "Football is a team sport, and if Dave Krieg can get more wins for this team than I can, then he should be the quarterback, and I will back him up. I will support him. I will watch every play and try to see things he can't see. I'll talk to him. We'll be friends. And I will support the coaches' decision to make him the quarterback." The interviewer noted that this kind of attitude resulted from Jim Zorn's vibrant Christian faith. It was a great testimony.
In the growing business or ministry, I think the team philosophy ought to be common practice. If somebody else can do a job better than I can, I want him to do it. A true quarterback plays for the good of the team and isn't just trying to be a star; he's trying to win the objective for which the organization exists. Now a dictator can't become a quarterback/team player any more than he can fly. He may adopt the jargon, but his style will remain unchanged. I have to say this: I've seen limited success in people trying to change their style. Adults tend to develop reflexes, reasoning powers, and success patterns that lock in.
I tend to be a team player, and when I was forty years old, I was asked to be president of a national corporation. I met with the board and did some background study. They had had a dictator for the previous forty years. I turned the offer down, because I'm too lazy to be a dictator. If I had gone in there and called those executives together and said, "Make your own decision," they'd have looked at me and said, "Who? Us? We haven't made a decision in years." I would have hurt the organization. It would have taken me too long to change systems. What they needed was a young dictator whom people could respond to in a habitual sort of way.
Team player/quarterbacks don't make decisions as quickly as dictators. A dictator is a broken-field runner, a punt returner. In an organization, you can tell a quarterback by whether people feel their suggestions will be acted on. With a dictator, people do not feel individual responsibility. They may feel responsible to him, to give him information or even make suggestions, but they feel no personal responsibility for the organization. In a team operation, people feel responsible for the decisions.
