XX) BACK TO THE FUTURE OF LEADERSHIP

I remember a trilogy of movies from the 80's entitled, Back to the Future. Marty, played by Michael J. Fox, was the main character who, through a series of events related to an eccentric scientist and a time machine, goes first back to the past and then to his future before going back to the more distant past and eventually returns to his present. His present, however, has been altered by his activities in the past. The time machine was a modified Delorian (a stainless steel car for some of you younger folks). Interestingly, at the time the movie was made a Delorian was a modernistic looking car but the car company went defunct and no longer exists.

I reflect upon that movie because the title seems like an oxymoron. The future, as we all know, is thought of as being forward in a linear timeline stretching from the past. We speak of “eternity past” and “eternity future” and illustrate this with a line. A line, in geometry, is a straight line with two arrows pointing in opposite directions on each end. It suggests that it has no beginning and no end. A segment is a line with points or dots at the end. It represents a specific measurment or a definable period to time, as such, time is a segment plucked out of eternity. So to talk about going backward in order to go forward is a paradoxical statement. Yet, in the discussion of leadership it seems that we do, indeed, need to go backward if we hope to be able to lead in the present future. Let me explain.

I recently attended a conference with Leonard Sweet and Jimmy Long as the featured speakers. These men are both recognized as leaders in the current “emerging church” movement. They are also futurists and surveyors of culture. These men, as well as those who work in this field of study agree that our culture, on a global scale, is changing and a new cultural paradigm is “emerging” --hence the concept of the emerging church. Some refer to it as Postmodern. This term too, seems somewhat oxymoronic in that we often though of modern as a dynamic, or a moving definition, rather than a static or stationary definition. As such, we tended to believe that modern is always modern. We conceded that what was “modern” today may well be “antique” in the future, but it seemed that it would be impossible to move beyond modern because modern was moving forward.

Now are are saying that this may not have been the case at all. Many are now saying that we have moved beyond modern. Modernity is a cultural mindset with its own rules, structures and worldview, and many still operate within this worldview. However, the cultural shift going on in the world is so dramatic and dynamic that the cultural paradigm of modernity is quickly becoming obsolete and the changes are accelerating. Within the last week, the disaster in New Orleans is one example of an event in our time that challenges the very fabric of all that we Americans held dear as a “modern” nation. We have watched a modern city in a relatively young nation reduced to primitive, third-world conditions in a matter of days.

What will the results of this tragedy be? How it will affect the psyche and the spirituality of the nation? Already there is a growing dissatisfaction with the response of the government and of leadership in general. Justified or not, the perception being created through the media is that nothing is being done and that leadership from local police precincts all the way up to the president has failed to respond in a timely manner. This perception is and will alter the role and the reality of future leadership.

It was during the conference I attended (which was held prior to Hurricane Katrina) that Jimmy Long compared and contrasted leadership models from the “Modern” cultural paradigm with the paradigm of the “Postmodern” or “Emerging” culture. Let me list both models:

Modern Leadership Paradigm

Individual Leader (One person in charge of the whole)

Task Oriented (We gather together to do this task)

Positional Authority (He/She holds this title, so they are the leader)

Heroic Leader (He/She is the picture of strength and courage)

Building Structures (Organizational and literal structures)

Direct (Give specific commands, directives, directions)

Destination Oriented (We are going to this place and when we get there we have reached our goal)

Aspire to Leadership (Being a leader is a worthy goal, and something to strive for)

Emerging Leadership ParadigmTeam Leadership (The leader is part of a team and they are working together. He is seem more as a coach helping the team to succeed.)

Community Oriented (We are not coming together only to achieve this task, but we are coming together to be together in community.)

Earned Authority (You are not commissioned leadership, you earn it through trust, integrity, and concern.)

Vulnerable Leader (The leader must demonstrate that he or she is on the same road, walking with the team. As such, he or she struggles with the same issues.)

Developing Vision (The leader is not trying to build a structure, but is developing a vision, which may be in flux, not as a fixed point of reference, but as an emerging and fluid direction toward which the organization moves.)

Empower (The leader does not claim to know or have all the answers, but empowers others to find their answers for themselves. Empowers them to become and to achieve a state of genuinaity (my new word, which means to be “genuine, honest, real and in touch with existential moment”.)

Journey (The goal is not to reach a goal, to mobilize for a destination, but to engage in the journey, to have, as Tillich puts it, “the courage to be” in the moment.)

Inspire to Leadership (Given that leadership is now suspect. Baby Boomers have witnessed the Watergate debacle, have gone back to revisit the moral lapses of icons, like John Kennedy, have seen the moral failures of Evangelical Superstars, and now Generation X and the new Millennial generation are witnessing the moral failures of Catholic priests and are witnessing the seeming impotency of current governmental and military leadership in the face of disaster. So who wants to be a leader? What is there to aspire to? If we are going to have leadership for the future, then current leaders are going to have to inspire the next generation to step up and be willing to lead.)

With all of that said, and after reviewing the two lists of characteristics of leadership, it seems to me that the leadership style of Jesus was more along the lines of emerging culture than of the modern. So perhaps, to be an effective leader for to the future, we need to go back to the model that Christ gave us. I will explore this thesis a little more in my next blog.