Leadership can be understood as a series of ironies, statements that capture seemingly contradictory yet complimentary ideas about how leaders can lead effectively.  Here are a few:

While leaders must lead and are necessarily in the "spotlight," effective leaders must serve others. Moses’ example of meekness speaks eloquently against contemporary macho notions of leadership. Followers who are affirmed, appreciated, and assisted express more commitment to the organization’s mission.

While leaders must know their followers, effective leaders must develop some social distance from them. Christ’s love for his disciples was great, but he declined James and John’s desire to assume a place at Christ’s side in Glory (Matthew 10:35-45). Leaders must maintain an appropriate objectivity in making personnel and resource decisions. Too-close relationships can make these decisions more difficult and even biased.

The wiser the leader, the more frequent the admission that he or she does not have all the answers. Leaders must make informed judgments, but they do not speak ex cathedra or with vox Dei. This point is illustrated in Proverbs 15:22, “without counsel purposes are disappointed; but in the multitude of counselors they are established,” and in Ecclesiastes 4:13, “better is a poor and wise child than an old and foolish king, who will no more be admonished.”

The more emotional the times, the more rational must be the leader, the more rational the times, the more emotional must be the leader. More emotional times are generally characterized by crisis. Leaders must be able to think clearly and render judgments based upon facts and identified alternatives, not feelings, sentimentality, or peer pressure. More rational times are those in which organizations forget their original purpose and yield to bureaucratic tendencies. Personnel begin to consider means more important than ends, and rules and regulations become more important than client interests and needs. Leaders in such times must be emotional. They must recall the organization to this raison d’etre, and clear impassioned leadership is one of the best ways to do this.

The more complex the organization and its future, the more focused and even simple leadership must be. As organizations grow, they diversify, fragment, and multiply their parts. Leaders are hard-pressed to maintain coordination and continuity. Effective leaders use metaphors and easily understood goal statements. Joshua reminded the people that their task was to possess the land that the Lord their God had given them. Clear, concise leadership is all too rare in this day of circumvention and “doublespeak.”

Effective leaders are optimists at the same time they are realists. They should have their heads in the clouds while their feet remain planted firmly upon the ground. Christian leaders must be optimistic realists, optimists because they affirm God’s sovereignty and realists because they acknowledge the temporal presence and power of sin.

A leader's impact upon an organization is often greater after departing office than when in office. Leaders may actually hold office for a few years, but the values they advance, the structures they establish, and the personnel they attract can influence an organization for decades. Old Testament kings like Ahab left terrible legacies, while others like Josiah left honorable legacies. A leader’s legacy is either an organization’s firm foundation or a nightmare of entrenched accumulated poor decisions.

The busier the leader and the less time to pray and plan the greater the necessity to take time to pray and plan. Crisis management is sometimes required but leaders cannot remain effective for long using this approach. Both prayer and planning help the leader and the organization to focus on identifiable, meaningful goals. Samson’s career is a case in point. Although he periodically accomplished great feats for God, he neither prayed nor planned consistently. Consequently, except for the final hours of his life, Samson’s ministry was a disappointment. While he contributed to God’s service, he could have contributed much more.

The "higher up the ladder" a leader climbs, thus the more specialized in leadership he or she becomes, the more of a generalist the leader must be. Perhaps Nehemiah is the best scriptural example of this irony of leadership. He was promoted from Cupbearer to leader of a reconstruction expedition. He became the leader, but his wisdom was taxed as a spiritual guide, organizer, builder, and more. Effective leaders develop a personality with a wisdom born of perspective and cultivate an eclectic understanding of their organization and the world.

The more effective the leadership, the greater the likelihood that the leader recruited people more intelligent, dynamic, capable, or credentialed than the leader. “Threatened” leaders are not effective. They appoint individuals who are non-threatening and who by definition weaken the organization. King Saul failed to understand this irony in his relationship with young David, but Pharoah avoided similar pitfalls by appointing Joseph to direct Egypt through years of plenty and famine.

The more dynamic, exciting, and even effective the leader’s ideas, the more criticism he or she is likely to receive. This irony is so much a part of the human condition that we can state with reasonable assurance that if leaders are not being criticized, they are probably not leading. If leading and changing go hand in hand, leading and criticism must be hand in glove.  Great ideas change things. People don’t like change. Ergo, change agents (leaders) attract criticism. Abraham lived with a family critic in his nephew Lot. Moses had to answer his critics before he could do great things for God.  Paul responded to critics in the early church. The great man Job even had to deal with critics on his sick bed. Effective leaders fix their thoughts on Jesus and attempt to live peaceably with all people.

The more a leader celebrates rational traditions, the more accepted will be his or her rejection of irrational traditions; the more a leader champions responsible change, the more accepted will be his or her rejection of irresponsible change. Truly effective leaders do not allow themselves to be identified strictly with change or tradition, for both must be continually evaluated for the good of the organization’s mission. It’s true that leading and change are virtually synonymous, but not all change is good and not all traditions are unworthy. Indeed the right kind of traditions create loyalty, espirit d’corp, and community, and the wrong kind of change can harm an organization.

Leaders turn their followers into leaders. John C. Maxwell has nearly cornered the market making this point, and rightly so. James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner say this happens because leaders give people the courage to do things they’ve never done before. Leaders encourage the follower’s heart.

Leaders always are accountable to someone. Leaders answer to the Lord, whether they ever understand or acknowledge this fact of life. Leaders are always responsible for their organizations and thus answer to someone, owners, constituents, personnel, clientele.

And a last irony for the road…visionary leaders lead when others are not yet following.

**A version of this blog was originally published as "The Ironies of Leadership," Christian Management Report, 15(April/May, 1991)3, pp. 5-6.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2010

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow Dr. Rogers at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.