…in the outer…

My last post outlined some reasons why we might consider King Saul to be a textbook case of a toxic leader. According to Jean Lipman-Blumen in her book, “The Allure of Toxic Leaders,toxic leaders are those who engage in destructive practices and exhibit personality dysfunctions, who often “cause serious harm to their organizations and their followers.” Saul seem to fit those descriptions as I outlined in my last post.

In leadership literature there is a tendency to highlight and distinguish toxic leaders from good leaders. The term “good” used here, as Joanne Ciulla (Coston Family Chair in Leadership and Ethics at the Jeppson School of Leadership Studies, in her article, “Leadership Ethics: Mapping the Territory” in Ethics, the Heart of Leadership) clarifies, is used in two senses: as morally good as well as effective or technically good. The danger here is to focus on only the heroic aspects of leaders and to look for super-heroes in our leaders, only to be disappointed when they all come up short. Earlier on, I noted this all too common tendency of “pedestalizing” our leaders (yeah, it’s that word again!).

However, I wonder if the opposite tendency of crucifying our leaders for their failures could also be stemmed from our propensity for hero-worship in our society. In her book, Lipman-Blumen cited six psychological needs and fears that gravitate the public towards strong personalities as leaders, sometimes good, but often bad. These psychological forces are:

- our need for authority figures to fill in our parent’s shoe.
- our need for security and certainty, prompting us to surrender our freedom to achieve them.
- our need to feel chosen or special.
- our need for membership in the human community.
- our fear of ostracism, isolation, and social death.
- our fear of personal powerlessness to challenge a bad leader.

It is interesting to note that Lipman-Blumen made the point that some of these psychological needs and fears have religious significance - either they are fed by religious and cultural beliefs, or these needs and fears give rise to a preferance or popularity of certain religious beliefs or doctrines (such as predestination and the feeling of being part of the “chosen ones”). This is an interesting point, and something about which we might debate, but one that I think might not be too far from the truth. In any case, I believe our quest for heroes in our society and our fickle disappointments in them when their frailties are exposed may both be due to the same distorted view we have about leadership.

For instance, often we hear so much about King David as an examplary leader and we hear also of King Saul as an example for us to avoid. In our minds’ eyes, King Saul is the epitome of destructive, self-centered, carnal, vile, evil leadership while David is the man after God’s own heart, the spiritual leader extraordinaire who deserves to be emulated. However, consider this, of the three moral failures that I traced in Saul’s life, David also committed the same sins, and perhaps even more grievious than Saul’s. David, too was impatient and took matters into his own hands in direct violation of God’s command; he too thought he was beyond the scope of certain moral requirements; and he too succumbed to his own arrogance and pride. If there was an example of a toxic leader, David proved to be one as well.

Have you ever wondered why after God had originally rejected Saul the first time, that he continued to allow him to reign? Saul reigned for forty-two years! Why did God act so slowly in changing over to another King if He rejected Saul? I believe the reason for this, is the same reason for most of the stories of how God deals with His people: God is a God of mercy and grace. The reason for “the delay” I believe was that God was giving Saul the opportunities to respond to him, but unfortunately Saul remained unwilling to respond to God until it was already too late to turn back. The difference between these two toxic leaders is that David was quick to respond to God’s grace, while Saul was in denial even up till the end (see I Sam. 15: 10-30; notice that even in his confession he tried to shift the blame on to others rather than take full responsibility.)

Perhaps this little insight into the two kings highlights an important point about leadership. While we may continue to yearn for, and seek, good leaders, and while we may talk about toxic and good leaders, perhaps leadership is not so much about leaders, but more about the practice of leadership. That is to say, we may never be able to find “good” or “great” leaders, but we can certainly find, create, encourage the practice of good, great, ethical leadership in our organizations, societies and communities. In other words, even though we may view Saul as a rejected leader, and David as the man after God’s own heart (it might be interesting that this assessment was at the beginning of David’s account, and that David’s end was every bit as sorrowful and heartbreaking), in reality both had moments of grandeur and behaved examplarily, and yet both had moments of disgrace and toxicity. This underscores that God is not looking for super heroes to fulfill his purposes and to lead His people. He is looking for broken, transparent and available people who are willing to interact with His people in open and trusting ways to achieve His purposes for them.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 18th, 2005 at 7:29 pm and is filed under Ethics, Leadership, Meditations. Subscribe to RSS: RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Email This Article Or Print This Article