Faithful Leadership Essay

...

Third, Nehemiah’s activities as governor were “guided by principles of service” (Rata, 2005, p. 23) rather than self interest. This is evidence by his readiness to return to Persia and report as promised to King Artaxerxes (Nehemiah 2) instead of leveraging his success for personal acclaim in Jerusalem. In this sense, Nehemiah is a strong example of servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977), which begins and ends with what is good for the other (Macariello, 2003). As a leadership theory, servant leadership has gained substantial popularity (Taylor, 2004). Rennaker (2005) stated that great leaders are first and foremost servants, which is consistent with Jesus’ statement found in Mark 10:43, “Whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant” (New International Version). This author would propose that servant leadership might best be understood as an ethos that underlies all successful applications of leadership while failing to be justifiable as a formal leadership approach in the Nehemiah context. Also, because the weight of servant leadership theory leans so heavily toward the need of the other (Greenleaf, 1977), it is often perceived as an inherently passive leadership style, especially in seasons of organizational crisis or change when vigilance in pursuit of the organization’s mission is of primary importance (Macariello, 2003).

Finally, loyalty is at the core of Nehemiah’s character. Despite exile in a land far away from his ancestral home he remained faithful to the cause of YHWH, the Hebrew God. Life in realms of luxury and access to power had not affected Nehemiah. He maintained a sense of duty to his God and to his king and remained highly favored by each. Once engaged in rebuilding the wall, Nehemiah was undeterred. He stayed faithful to his task and to the people whom he served, refusing to be distracted by criticism or fazed by threats (Nehemiah 4-5).

Nehemiah from a Contemporary Management and Leadership Perspective

Modern management theory emerged at the dawn of the 20th century with the research of Henri Fayol and Frederick W. Taylor. Fayol proposed 5 functions of work (planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling) and Taylor, who is generally considered the “Father of Scientific Management,” focused on methodologies that increased efficiency in work processes. They, however, did not invent the practice of management. One example of their foreshadowing was Saint Benedict, a monk who codified guidelines for successful operations of monasteries in the 6th century A.D. Another is Nehemiah, who followed a classic flow of management activities (one may find a near-perfect outline of Fayol’s 5 functions in the Book of Nehemiah) as the project manager in Jerusalem’s restoration (Holder & Rollins, n.d.).

The scientific study of leadership is even more recent (Yukl, 2010) and literature is inconsistent when categorizing activities as either management or leadership specific. Drucker (1973), a leading 20th century management scholar, came to differentiate (M. L. Hillard, personal communication, 2016) between the two, observing that “providing visible competence, encouragement, optimism, and a sustaining spirit are leadership activities” while “planning, organizing, motivating, and assessing progress” should be considered management ones (Drucker, 1973, p. 462). Simply put, Drucker came to see leadership as a matter of doing the right things and management as one of doing things right (M. L. Hillard, personal communication, 2016). Therefore, Nehemiah provides an example of practical management and passionate leadership (Holder & Rollins, n.d.).

An interesting observation emerges in the process of literature review by this author. Leadership and management are not always portrayed as complementary activities, the perspectives of faith-based and non faith-based sources often at variance. As previously mentioned, secular sources seldom place emphasis upon spiritual dimensions of leadership. And popular faith-based literature may dismiss management as a secular and not inherently spiritual concept (Hull, 2016). Neither Swindoll (1990) nor Hamilton (2014), biblical commentators in different generations, reflected upon Nehemiah’s management practices in organizing the rebuilding work in Nehemiah chapter 3. In fact, information on Nehemiah 3 is generally scant in both commentaries compared to other chapters. Scholarly exceptions are found in Holder and Rollins (n.d.), Johnson (2010), Macariello (2003), Rata (2005), and especially Thomas, Hebdon, Novicevic, and Hayek (2015), who merge secular management concepts with spiritual leadership principles found in Nehemiah. Another notable exception is Prime-Godwin (2014), a career ministry practitioner, corporate leader and advocate for merging secular and sacred conceptions, whether an organization’s bottom line is mission or money. It is clear from these readings what secular and faith-based authors tend to ignore: to manage well is good stewardship.

Focus of Analysis: Nehemiah as a Model of Team Leadership

Due to the complexity of contemporary organizations, rapidly changing global environments, and the need for adaptive response capability, team-based approaches present a growing alternative to previously popular hierarchical models of management (Hill, 2016). Solansky (2008) estimated that in organizations with over 100 employees, 80% rely heavily on teams-based operational models. Combining classic definitions, a team is comprised of designated persons with specifically assigned tasks and carefully coordinated activities for the purpose of achieving a common goal (Hickman, 2014; Northouse, 2010; Solansky, 2008). Teaming finds its genesis in Henry Ford’s invention of the assembly line for mass production and depends upon team member awareness of interdependence (Edmondson, 2012). High performance teams are characterized by a compelling sense of direction, a structure that enables success, supportive relationships, and excellent coaching (Hickman, 2014).

Shared leadership in teams has been demonstrated to result in better task coordination (Solansky, 2008), higher satisfaction (Pearce, 2004; Solansky, 2008), and greater overall effectiveness (Pearce, 2004) than traditional authoritative organizational constructs. The concept of shared leadership does not negate the need for a designated point leader (Pearce, 2004), and ineffective leadership remains the primary reason for the failure of teams (Northouse, 2010). However, the defining element of shared leadership is whether each member of the team accepts responsibility for motivating the others (Pearce, 2004; Solansky, 2008) and contributes to monitoring team effectiveness (Pearce, 2004). Therefore,

...