Some of these led governments, some led movements. Their personal qualities and methods are very
diverse. But in all cases, they led
ordinary people. So consider the question from the other side
of leadership: What makes people
follow? Leaders through the ages have
found what works. They have found that
there are two external means of motivating people to follow: scare them or mesmerize them. Both work remarkably well. Often leaders will use a combination of the
two.
Fear-Based Leadership
Fear-based
leadership prevails throughout history, particularly in totalitarian
regimes. The fear-based leader can use
physical or emotional force to achieve compliance. Perhaps most political leaders through
history have fit this category. This is
the simplest kind of leadership. It
suppresses the will of the follower. It
thrives on uniformity. It says, “I am
the leader because I can make you follow.”
On
a rare occasion fear-based leadership can be healthy. Law enforcement officials may use a show of
force to calm down a riotous crowd. Coaches
may intimidate their players. Drill sergeants
may threaten their soldiers. Such
leadership can only be healthy in the short run, and for a larger purpose.
Fear-based leadership works.
It often generates a quick response.
It takes very little explanation.
It keeps followers together, at least outwardly. Consider the abusive
parent, the manipulative boss, the military dictator.
But
at the same time, fear-based leadership only works as long as the leader holds
the upper hand. Only through upheaval
can the guard be changed. Fear does not
bring out the best in people, but suppresses their dissent. Rarely does it persuade anyone. It is an external form of control. These leaders can only lead by using
people.
Personality-Based
Leadership
Some leaders are blessed with magnetic, charismatic personalities. They can persuade and recruit. They find that people trust them and
willingly follow them, for better or for worse.
They bring people together at a deeper level than fear-based
leaders. They unite followers around a
common theme or goal. Many fear-based
leaders begin by leading people whom they have mesmerized.
Personality-based leaders are persuasive and likeable. They are confident and present their cases
well. They make people glad, but often without
all the facts. People gladly get in line
without scrutinizing the claims of the leader. The crowd includes a plethora of
half-committed crowd-followers. The leader
is more interested in control than the mission.
Manipulation masquerades as leadership.
The personality-based leader identifies himself with the
cause. Without the leader, there is no
cause; no other leader can take the reins.
Intoxicated with the power of a following, this leader often
becomes corrupt. The Jim Jones mass
suicide was based on trust of the leader.
A Better Way: Mission-Based Leadership
Then there are leaders who inspire people to believe in the
cause. This is mission-based
leadership. The leader taps into
convictions and beliefs of the followers and releases them to pursue the cause. Each follower then becomes an ambassador for
the cause. The power of the movement
comes from within each follower.
The cause is something higher, deeper, more important than
the leader. The leader merely taps into
the pre-existing passion of the followers.
He harnesses the power of the masses, as they pursue the mission together. This breeds not uniformity or conformity, but
unity and creativity.
Movements are born under mission-based leadership. Martin Luther King Jr. inspired the faithful
to action. They believed in their cause,
not because of the leader’s authority, but because the leader had a higher
authority. The civil rights movement
grew because people fundamentally believed in the cause.
In a movement, people are persuaded and changed from within. The change is lasting and has impact upon
society and culture.
People can be led externally
with fear-based or personality-based leadership. Or people can be led internally with mission-based leadership.
External leadership is easy, internal leadership is hard.External leadership is fast, internal leadership slow.
External leadership is a sure thing, internal leadership a risk.
External leadership leaves collateral damage, internal leadership builds up followers.
External leadership creates division, internal leadership creates unity.
External leadership inspires class warfare, internal leadership eliminates it.
Internal leadership can be blessed by God, external leadership can’t.
People follow because they fear the leader, they trust the
leader, or they believe in the cause. Lasting,
meaningful change comes from changed hearts, guided by the Holy Spirit. May our leadership be based on the mission.
