Outros

For an evaluation of TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP along the lines of Bonhoeffer’s four mandates (work, marriage and family, government, Church) it will be helpful to recall the

interrelatedness of world view, intention, character and menschenbild as introduced in section 2.3.5.1 (Figure 6, page 52). The various aspects of TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP and Bon-hoeffer’s mandates interact with these concepts on different levels.

A fundamental question the leader needs to answer is: “What is my responsibility in this world?” A leader needs to become aware of his/her position in each of Bonhoeffer’s mandates in order to be able to define responsibilities, competencies and also limitations of responsibil-ity. Burns defined TRANSFORMING LEADERSHIP on the background of political leadership, which would pertain to Bonhoeffer’s mandate of the government with its task to ensure a secure place in which the other mandates can be exercised. TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP as pro-moted by Bass comes out of an organisational setting, which means it needs to be evaluated on the background of the work-mandate, by whose means “there is created a world of things and values which is designed for the glorification and service of Jesus Christ” (Bonhoeffer 1986:209). In this respect Bonhoeffer’s concept of appropriateness comes into play and a Christian leader needs to ask what ultimate goals TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP pursues in a given situation. As long as its main service is to economic efficiency, following the dictate of consumerism, a Christian leader will have to consider very carefully whether s/he can bear the responsibility of submitting to this goal!

Burns was clear in his definition of a leader’s responsibility: A leader should effect not just change, but real transformation, and s/he is to effect this by raising leader and follower to higher levels of morality. Bass officially has adopted the same claim, but—as has been amply shown throughout this dissertation—there is often a discrepancy between the claim of TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP and the actual practice. If one considers TRANSFORMING and TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP in light of Bonhoeffer’s mandates one’s gut reaction in many cases is “yes, but...”—with the “yes” being stronger toward Burns’ TRANSFORMING LEADERSHIP, and the “but” appearing more often in relation to Bass’ TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP. Some of these “yes, but...” reactions shall be explained in more detail.

Intention. In the context of this dissertation intention has been defined as the motivation with which a leader approaches an action toward a follower. Intention is a concept which Bass also stresses: It is not the acts of a person which define whether s/he is an authentic transformational leader but rather the intentions shaping the acts. However, his frame of reference is not the leader’s specific motivation toward followers, but a much more general

“good will” of the leader in his/her actions.¹⁸⁰ But intention needs to be more than meaning

180 On this ground he can classify a politician as non-authentic if during a campaign he makes promises he knows he will not be able to fulfil. If however, he makes promises under the conviction that he would be able to fulfil them, he is considered an authentic leader, even if his ideas prove to have been far too optimistic (Bass & Steidlmeier 1999:191). Equalling an overestimation of one’s own capabilities with authenticity seems a rather pie-eyed optimism!

well. If an intention is measured by the good will of the leader or by his/her compliance with organisational goals the doors are wide open for overstepping boundaries—which can be observed, as has been mentioned, by Bass himself sanctioning highly questionable means like manipulation if they are necessary to promote the “good cause”.

Rather, the question which intention needs to answer in each of the four “I”s of Bass’

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP (Idealised Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Individualised Consideration, and Intellectual Stimulation) is “What for?” What is the leader’s goal in being a role model? To what purpose does s/he advertise a vision? For what reason does s/he invest in developing and challenging followers? Christian leaders will have to be aware of and well rooted in their position in Christ to be able to continually face these questions and answer them honestly and without euphemising their own motivations. But doing so will open the leader to the corrective work of God’s spirit and the development of a mature character.

Character. It is only on such a background of honesty towards one’s own motivation that the discrepancy one sees so often between the proclamation of noble intents and a leader’s reality can be approached. Bass’ concept of Idealised Influence calls for leaders to be role models—a call one can only support from the point of view of Christian ethics. If a person acts in his/her four mandates as a representative of God, s/he is called to model God’s behaviour and purposes—and is thus a role model in the truest sense. Neuberger with his scathing irony describes a world in which transformational leaders as promoted by Burns and Bass would be the rule:

If we manage to exchange ‘well-behaved’ (top-)managers who ‘have worked their way up’ with transforming leaders who ‘act upon charismatic maxims like humility, service, and love’, the ‘political skirmish about one’s own career’ will stop, the ‘disappointment of workers on all levels of the hierar-chy’ will be resolved, and ‘thousands of workers will be pulled out of lethar-gy into sharing the responsibility for a revitalization of their businesses’

[Kuhn 2000, 26f, who put together a collage of quotes from Bretz (1990)].

(Neuberger 2002:219)¹⁸¹

What a prospect! But what kind of people are these that would promote such a change?

One wonders indeed how such a dream could become reality with ever new scandals about leader behaviour filling the news. Echter (2007) suggests that first of all managers just would have to control their narcissistic inclinations (2007:81).¹⁸² Very obviously this seems to ask too

181 Original: “Wenn es gelingt, ‘brav hochgediente’ (Top-)Manager durch transformative Führer zu ersetzen, die nach ‘charismatischen Maximen wie Demut, Dienst und Liebe’ handeln, dann hört das ‘politische Gerangel um die jeweils eigene Karriere’ auf, wird die ‘Enttäuschung von Mitarbeitern aller Hierarchiestufen’ überwunden und werden ‘ganze Tausendschaften von Mitarbeitern aus ihrer Lethargie heraus in eine Mitverantwortung für eine Revitalisierung ihrer Unternehmen gerissen’ [Kuhn 2000, 26f., der hier eine Collage von Zitaten aus Bretz (1990) zusammenstellt].” (Neuberger 2002:219)

182 Original: “...jeder Topmanager [sollte] erstens seine gierige, narzisstische Seite kontrollieren,...” (Echter 2007:81)

much of people. Bass and Riggio (2006:157) stress that one can learn to become a transforma-tional leader. However, a change of inner attitudes requires more than aquired techniques.

Greenleaf (1991), whose description of a servant leader in many ways corresponds with Burns’ transforming leader, voiced the concern that in this process we should not lose sight of “where the new seed will come from or who the gardener to tend them will be” (:11). His focus in this quote was the transformation of institutions, but this is equally true for the development of leaders! Where should the selflessness of a leader come from in a world where the most important thing everybody learns and clings to is that s/he has rights?

Bonhoeffer would point once more to a leader’s need to be focused on God’s reality and purposes and to answer God’s call on the leader’s life. Transformation in a leader’s own life which goes so much against the grain of current culture surrounding the leader needs a solid base. This foundation the leader can find in living confidently in the reality of Christ’s redemption, because “before one can become a Christian moral agent, one must first respond to the invitation of Christ to become a new creation (2 Cor 5: 11–21) and willingly and consciously enter into a process of moral formation” (Kretzschmar, Bentley & van Niekerk 2009a:6).

Menschenbild. A crucial question in relation to the evaluation of TRANSFORMATIONAL LEAD

-ERSHIP therefore seems to lie in the area of the menschenbild. Burns’ idea that people—out of the pure joy of helping others to grow and advance—would put aside their own agenda and dedicate themselves to the advancement of “higher goals”, seems not too much aligned to reality, neither does Kanungo and Mendonca’s (1996) reliance on leaders’ altruism. Neu-berger’s critique of the menschenbild underlying TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP from a socio-logical perspective has been described in section 5.3.4. While he finds very clear words describing the problem he cannot really offer a satisfying solution. If one approaches these questions from the perspective of Christian ethics one finds that there is indeed a solution to these questions. It is the advantage of a Christian menschenbild that it accounts for both the good and bad in human beings and does not have to ignore or reinterpret the bad. Rather, because of Christ’s redemptive action through his death and resurrection, transformation is possible so that the imago Dei inherent in each human being can manifest itself as people live their lives in this reality of Christ.

Living in Christ’s reality does not account for a smooth life. Rather, since life happens fully in this world and yet the Christian’s character is at the same time aligned toward God’s ultimate reality, a Christian’s life will be a life lived in tension. However, the Christian leader will be able to face the good and bad both in him/herself and in the other, knowing that both the leader as well as the other depend fully on the grace of God to be able to live responsibly