I want to return to the levels of leadership discussed earlier. John Maxwell's book on Developing the Leader Within You describes various levels of leadership and Collins talks about level 5 leaders. The categorization of leadership into levels seems to be, at least in part, an artificial structure which, while allowing comprehension of some aspects of leadership, may actually limit our understanding by limiting our concepts to the defined structures/levels and causing would be leaders to focus on climbing a stair case ???. What I'm saying is, maybe there aren't different levels of leadership, at least not as has been suggested.

Oh, sure using the level description it is much easier to describe someone by saying "She has only reached level 3 in Leadership." Or, "Now he is a level 5 leader." All of which ignores much of what is . . . and is not happening in the leadership process.

As I have suggested before, Leadership includes initiative and a willingness to take responsibility for decisions. An almost compelling need to exercise initiative. Think about that. It might be said that Leaders who do not exercise initiative are not at a sub-level of leadership but are not leaders at all.

Now obviously, there are individuals who are in positions which are recognized by the world as leadership positions, but that doesn't make the people in those positions leaders, at any level. And what kind of initiative does a leader exhibit? It is initiative toward a goal. The goal may be misguided or well counseled. The goal may be specific or nebulous. However, leaders always take initiative toward a goal. They may have a misunderstanding of the culture, or the factors which may help them achieve this goal, but this is not a matter of a "level" of leadership as much as as maturation and wisdom.

Let's think about leadership in terms of an accumulation of skill sets. The acquisition of those skill sets will enhance the ability of the leader to move the organization toward the goal. Instead, then, of concentrating on moving to a different level of leadership, a better path to effective leadership might be to identify the skill sets needed to be effective, and to acquire those skill sets (which might also include bringing individuals around you who can supplement your weaknesses if the skill set is beyond your ability or would require excessive time to acquire).

What are some of those skill sets? Some of them might be:

• Interpersonal Communications (i.e. people skills)
• Ability to communicate clearly
• Ability to think critically
• Willingness to take risks
• Willingness to make a decision
• Ability to stay focused

You add some more to this list, it's not complete.

In summary, Leadership might be diagrammed better as a center hub with spokes leading to skill sets, instead of a staircase.

Just a thought.

The last chapters of Good to Great focus on the importance of developing a culture of discipline wherein those who comprise the enterprise are disciplined enough to stay focused (i.e. hedgehog concept) and work within that focus for excellence. Couple this with an understanding of the "flywheel concept" indicating that change toward great occurs as momentum is achieved through perseverant effort. The principles from this book have important consequences for those who are wise enough to see their application.

Of course, as has been noted along the way, all of these principles correlate with other leadership principles drawn from other sources. Perhaps the most interesting thing about these principles is the data which supports them. The vast accumulation of this information and the analysis which produced these principles validate many of those principles taught by others.

An interesting deviation might be seen in the leadership principle which comes from those who teach "transformational" leadership. That is, leadership which focuses upon fulfilling the potential of those who are part of the institution, believing thereby that the goals of the organiation will be achieved as well. Although the principles of Good to Great encourage mutual respect and integrity, the emphasis is placed more squarely upon the "right people" who will focus with disciplined energy to achieve that for which they are passionate about.

Do you see the difference? It is in the goal. In transformational leadership, the development and fulfillent of the follower is the goal which ultimately affects the organization. In Good to Great, the focus is on being part of a great vision. For the church, particularly in America, we are easily convinced that the emphasis should be on the person. That the church's role is to fulfill the person, who will then participate in the mission. This practice has led the church into an increasingly self-focused spirial of stagnation. The goal of most churches is not the fulfillment of the Mission of Christ and the effort at Passionately becoming the best in ministry, but upon fulfilling individuals.

This seemingly circular arguent is, I think, at the root of a stagnant church. The focus is upon "me" and "my comfort," instead of Him and His mission. The New Testament church was one of great sacrifice and radical living. Ours is one of "comfortable" existence fiting into a culture which ignores Christian principles and even attacks Christian standards.

What do you think?