A leader is a person who has an unusual degree of power to project on other people his or her shadow, his or her light. A leader is a person who has an unusual degree of power to create the conditions under which other people must live and move and have their being…. A leader is a person who must take special responsibility for what’s going on inside him or herself… lest the act of leadership create more harm than good.

Parker Palmer, Quaker scholar [1]

There are three essentials to leadership: humanity, clarity and courage… Humanity without clarity is like having a field but not ploughing it. Clarity without courage is like having sprouts without weeding. Courage without humanity is like knowing how to reap but not how to sow.

Fushan Yuan, 10th century Chinese philosopher [2]

What I am for you terrifies me; what I am with you consoles me. For you I am a bishop; but with you I am a Christian. The former is a danger, the latter salvation.

Saint Augustine [3]

Creative leadership is making sure you end up somewhere other than you would have done anyway.

President of a global company [4]

As I thought about ancient understandings of leadership, how it is both the same and changing, and also about my work as a sounding board with leaders in different institutions and different parts of the world, it seemed to me that leaders in churches have a “head start”. As leadership begins to shift from control to creativity, the emphasis falls on understanding people, understanding the self, the need for meaning, the value of forgiveness. In all these areas, churches have long and deep experience on which to draw.

Many examples could be used to illustrate, but two run through so many of my conversations that I have chosen to focus on them: the leadership work of providing conditions in which creativity can emerge, and the creative leadership needed to hold together apparently disparate activities, to provide a way in which it is always possible simply to say “and” rather than “but”.

In essence, creative leadership is about doing things differently to make the most of opportunities in the environment. As such it requires courage – to release other people’s creativity, to face their anxieties about change, to learn from what is working and what is not, and to live with the loneliness of moving people and an organisation forward at a pace that will by definition be too fast for some, too slow for some, and the wrong direction for others. Creative leadership requires clarity – about direction, expectations, resources and completion so that there can be review and learning. And it requires humanity – to imagine how it is for others, and genuinely to be with them in their world; to appreciate that while some are impatient for change, others can be encouraged towards it, and yet others fear it, some resisting openly, some covertly. It is hard, but essential, to provide the space in which all involved can make sense of what is happening, and be helped to find meaning in what they are currently doing and in what they are being asked to do differently.

Providing Conditions

Leadership that provides conditions is very different from a “top-down” approach or “command and control”. The latter may be appropriate when there is little change and the institution is able to set the agenda or at least substantial parts of it. To make the most of change – of what has been called “permanent whitewater” – an institution must not be static for it will be engulfed, equally it must not diffuse into the environment or its distinctive competence will be lost. It must be poised, ready to reach out, to respond, to be lively and creative.

Three conditions that make for this poise are coherence, judgement and review. Coherence ensures that there is a shared understanding of purpose and direction as a touchstone for each person to use his or her own initiative, their own judgement as they make decisions. Because it is a touchstone, coherence strengthens the capacity to make the most of possibilities as they emerge focusing people’s energies on the shared direction. If coherence becomes rigidity, it encourages dependency; if it is vague, energy is dissipated.

Coherence allows people to make sense, to build and if necessary rebuild the structures of meaning[5] we all use to interpret and assimilate our world. Leaders in religious organisations have long understood the need for people to be able to give meaning to their work and specifically to their own contribution. In organisations seeking ways to engage and retain people’s creative energies there is a call for a new understanding of leadership that allows everyone to “make sense of their experience”.[6] Some authors suggest that a leader creates meaning, others that leadership connects people to work and to one another at work and in so doing, creates meaning.[7] As Adair points out “Effective leadership is a relationship rooted in community”.[8]

The second condition is judgement – each person feeling trusted to use his or her own judgement about how to do their work. Each of us longs to be told the purpose of our work, to understand the boundaries and then to be left alone “to get on with it”, to bring something of ourselves to bear, something only we can bring as we reach out to read a situation and judge the appropriate course of action. Humanity in leadership understands and makes the most of this deep longing. The practice of ‘discernment’ – being “patient with uncertainty” – has been used for centuries for spiritual matters and is now increasingly used to describe reaching out to pick up on intricate patterns, on the ‘regular irregularities’ that thread through complex circumstances. A retired Christian banker[9] writes of discernment as “another way of defining intuition and creativity. We live in a changing environment and discernment of change… is really a basic and universal characteristic…. It allows us to see what might not be there.”

In the sixth century Gregory the Great emphasized discernment as he sought a way to lead the church in turbulent social circumstances. In his Liber Pastoralis he suggested that rather than imposing a vision, the leader must seek to discover “what is really going on” by listening to deeper patterns in the community; helping the community to discover its absolute core values and then to find ways to nurture them even in a time of disorienting change.

The third condition is review – to understand, not to blame, to learn from what is working and what is not, to become a “learning organisation”. Review requires courage to face the possibility that a course of action one felt deeply about is not achieving what was hoped, courage to persuade others to do things differently, and release from blame in order that there can be learning. That release depends on forgiveness – “the constant mutual release” from the consequences of action as the exact opposite of vengeance. “Forgiving is the only reaction which does not merely re-act but acts anew and unexpectedly… therefore freeing from its consequences both the one who forgives and the one who is forgiven…. The discoverer of the role of forgiveness in the realm of human affairs was Jesus of Nazareth”.[10]

“Anding” – holding together apparently disparate activities

Drawing again on my work as a sounding board, here are just three examples of the hard work of holding together, of making it easier to say “and” rather than “but” or “either/or”. The first example experienced in all institutions is the dilemma of money and relationships; the second is holding initiatives together where there is “distributed leadership”; the third brief example is taking account of all aspects of people’s lives as they are asked to do things differently.

A book about long-established businesses shows that they do not “brutalise themselves with the tyranny of OR, they embrace the genius of the ‘AND'”[11]. As anyone who does it daily knows, ‘anding’ is never- ending work. The temptation is great to allow one side to take precedence – the numbers because they are “objective”, “straightforward”; the people because “they are all that really matters”.

i) Money and relationships

A business can find itself having to restore creativity in its leadership if cost, revenue and profits become the primary preoccupation and people – customers, employees, “stakeholders” – and the relationships with them are forgotten. A church can find itself working hard – and in unfamiliar territory – to hold together decisions about resources and policies, costs, people and relationships. At any level, “and” can all too easily slip into “either/or” – costs or quality, today or tomorrow, efficiency or purpose, costs or people. Either/or seems to be the default state for human nature – “This is urgent/appealing, that’s where I’ll put my energies for the moment. That’s less urgent/attractive, I’ll put it aside for now.” Sustaining “and” in the face of these strong tendencies depends on providing conditions so that each person is trusted to use his or her best judgement in the light of their coherent understanding of purpose.

Unexpected as it may seem, a church has an advantage in holding together money and relationships. This advantage lies in its deep understanding of two fundamental motivations of human life – the quest for transcendence and the need to function well in everyday life – and of the importance of holding them together as sources of meaning. Many scholars suggest that the first form of money was shared food representing both a longing for something “higher” and people’s responsibility to each other and to their community. At that stage the spiritual and the material were close complements of each other and money was created to help people provide for each other in the material realm – “love thy neighbour”. In many settings the two are now far apart so that “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s” tends to carry with it a connotation that the former is not simply secondary but necessarily wrong, even evil. It has been argued that “the entire problem of the meaning of life in contemporary culture can be defined as the challenge to understanding that saying of Jesus’.[12]

Perhaps one of the hardest aspects of creative leadership in a church is to accept the proper place of money, not to set it aside, or to see it (consciously or unconsciously) as work for lay but not for ordained people, or at worst as somehow regrettable. Awareness of the quest for transcendence and the responsibility for neighbour, is a strength for creative church leaders as they give proper attention to money without being consumed by it or running from it into abstractions “free from the pulls and bites of money”.[13] If they stay too close to the detail, there is a temptation to solve a particular problem without standing back to see the whole. If they stand too far back, it may at first appear more comfortable but they can lose touch with the sharp realities in communities “on the ground”.

In working this way, creative church leadership has much to offer to commercial organisations where there is always a risk that people and relationships can be sacrificed to immediate cost concerns with inevitable risks to reputation and shareholder value in the longer-term. Creative leadership in either kind of institution stays with the hard, endless work of “anding”.

ii) Distributed leadership

Many organisations are beginning to change the pattern of their leadership in order to be more poised and thus more agile in rapidly changing circumstances. Poise depends on being able to sense changes in the environment, reach out and make the most of them. Reading what is happening in rapidly changing local environments is best done by people who live in them. Decisions about ways forward are best taken in the light of a blend of local knowing and understanding of the wider picture – much easier said than done and especially delicate where resources are scarce and/or are needed to sustain the whole as in the parish share. But where the local environment is read by those who know it and decisions are made where they “belong”, “nodes of wisdom”[14] distributed throughout increase poise and agility.

The theological principle of subsidiarity is a valuable framework for helping to understand where decisions “belong”. The principle is that whatever each individual can do with his or her own power should not be done by the community; whatever the smaller community and authority can do, should not be done by the wider community. Subsidiarity allows “as much liberty as possible and as much association as necessary…. Subsidiarity carries with it an obligation to solidarity.”[15] That solidarity is for the life of the whole and the parts.

At heart subsidiarity is about imagination – putting oneself in others’ shoes in order to understand what they do best and how to provide the conditions for them to thrive.

In any organisation subsidiarity means that each level of leadership has a responsibility to ask those questions no-one else can ask, to do only what others cannot do and to provide the conditions in which others can act wisely in doing what they do best – this could include removing “road blocks”, helping to set thinking in a wider context. At its strongest subsidiarity ensures that the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts through holding together different strands, different interpretations of history, of texts and of “ways of being church”. This is “anding” at its best; very difficult to sustain especially in the face of resource constraint and/or different traditions. It seems likely that as parishes in the Church of England become more and more the source of resource for running the Church, the call for subsidiarity will become stronger. Creative leadership will be essential to provide the coherence necessary to counter fragmentation and “congregationalism” and preserve all strands of tradition.

iii) Holding together elements of people’s lives

In many organisations people can be asked to move and/or to take on wider or different responsibilities, perhaps simply to do things differently and this can sometimes happen with short notice. In a business where money takes primacy, an individual may simply be told to move. In a business where there is creative leadership, time and care is taken to be with the person as he or she works through the implications of change for their own life, for that of their partner, children, family, friends and for their own sense of where their working life is heading. This acknowledges the wholeness of the individual – that as a person he or she is a maker of meaning, a maker[16] of decisions; a member of a family, a community, perhaps a professional association; an irreducible mystery, and a fourth “M” from a creative leader – “treating people as people is messy”.

Developing Leaders

Current and historical thinking and writing about leadership is a bridge to thinking about how leaders can strengthen their capacity to provide conditions and to sustain “and”.

Reflectiveness: one of the key findings in research on leadership is the need for reflectiveness and the current growth of interest in and demand for “mentoring” substantiates this. This seems to suggest that as people try to provide creative leadership, even those for whom reflection is not ‘natural’ find themselves looking for ways to “think things through”, to “pause before leaping in and consider a bit”. In my experience this is about having a sounding board, a listener who will be quietly there as the person hears for his or herself what they know, what they think, how they are going to move forward. As E. M. Forster said, “how will I know what I think until I hear what I say?” Being with someone while they listen to themselves means saying very little, not rephrasing their words but providing space for ‘reverie’ so that they can suspend pursuit of any particular purpose and thus let their gaze cover the whole.[17]

While vulnerable to pressure of time, reflectiveness is key to the life of both lay and ordained leaders in churches. There is a wide and deep background of writing and practice to draw upon, an appreciation of the value and strength to be gained from pause and quiet, and the encouragement of daily discipline. The skill and art of reflectiveness is much harder to acquire for people without a background in belief. One approach now widely used is to keep a journal as an encouragement to pausing and considering events and reactions. Sometimes this is with a view to discerning patterns in reactions or in the moments where the person feels most “in flow” – confident, competent, enthusiastic and able to use their judgement to effect.

Understanding the self: this links back to the image of casting “shadow and light” and the need for the leader to know him or herself, to understand their impact on other people and how most wisely to persuade and influence them. As just one current example among many, the man who founded the Visa organisation writes that the first and paramount responsibility of anyone who purports to lead is to understand the self and describes this as “a complex, unending and incredibly difficult, oft-shunned task”. He suggests that it should occupy fifty percent of the leader’s time and when that is the case “the ethical, moral and spiritual elements of (leadership) are inescapable.”[18] Another example is Goleman’s work on ’emotional intelligence’ that has drawn the attention of the business community in particular to the essential role in leadership of understanding and handling the self and others.[19]

Collins’ research into leaders who transformed their companies “from good to great” is in line with a long history of thinking about leadership. His key finding is that these leaders built “enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility[20] and professional will”.[21] In a powerful image he says that these leaders “look out of the window to apportion credit to factors outside themselves when things go well and they look in the mirror to apportion responsibility.”[22]

As the author of The Servant Leader points out, church leaders can draw on a long history of disciplines for deepening understanding of the self and for setting aside a personal agenda for the sake of a wider purpose.[23] These disciplines recognize the courage needed to start on the journey of understanding the self and the need for guidance as vulnerabilities as well as strengths unfold. Many secular organisations use appraisal of individuals and often include in that a gathering of views about the individual from those with whom and to whom they work. In responsible organisations the feedback from these exercises is handled very professionally. Churches have an inbuilt advantage in helping leaders understand themselves but do not always draw on it.

Many leaders find it both necessary and very difficult to discipline their attention. As one put it – “I need to pause and see what in this moment is devouring my attention, taking more of me than I need to give it.”[24] The outcome of devouring of attention can all too easily be weakening of the will and capacity to “and”.

Awareness of the power of “attention”, of its tendency to wander, of its tendency to fixate, and yet also of the gift it can be for the recipient is intrinsic to religious teaching and so in an important way, more readily available to leaders with that background. This is not to minimize the pressures on time for reflectiveness, understanding the self, or directing attention, but to suggest that awareness of the value of all three of these ways of being, lies deep within belief.

Four Journeys

The more leadership is seen as providing conditions and holding together apparently disparate activities, the greater the need for a framework to keep together the “being” and the “doing” of leadership.

The four journeys described is one such framework. It emerged from many years of listening to leaders as they paused to reflect about their aspirations, their vulnerabilities, the path of their leadership, where they had succeeded, where failed. It seemed helpful to suggest that each of us is on four journeys through our lives and that people with responsibility for leadership need to be particularly aware of each journey and of the work of holding them together.

The underlying journey is the journey of the self – what unfolds, the events through which we insert ourselves into the world; where we are born, grow up, study, work, the people with whom we live in childhood and adulthood. Reflecting on the journey of the self helps each of us to hear our own story, to see things differently from the way they seemed at the time – to understand more of the experience and see what we have learned. The particular responsibility for leaders is to deepen their understanding of their own strengths and vulnerabilities and to become more aware of the stories of those they lead.

An important element in the journey of the self is our “capability” as it unfolds over time. Capability is the judgement we use when we do not and cannot know what to do. The prerequisite for sound judgement is being able to “get one’s head around” the complexities and volatilities of a challenge. A match between capability and challenge gives the individual a sense of being “in flow” – confident, competent, enthusiastic. From that the institution gains the poise and agility that come with coordinated, robust decisions.

Capability grows over time. As individuals we all do our best to “go with the grain” of that growth, to find challenges that stretch but do not over or underwhelm us, are just right for us at each stage of our growth. A leader is responsible for combining and pacing those individual patterns of growth for the good of the whole.

A leader also has a special responsibility to reflect on the growth of his or her capability because it is the key element in readiness for the complexities and uncertainties of his or her leadership role. The role may have come a little too early and so he or she feels overwhelmed, or perhaps he or she has been waiting for it for a while and feels underwhelmed when the responsibility actually comes. Everyone will have experiences of being over or under stretched by the challenges of their roles and the effect on their feelings and their decision-making. A leader may have considerable experience early in his or her working life of longing for more challenge, for more complexities and interconnections to navigate his or her way through. Some people faced with this become impatient and try to rush changes; others seek ways to offer their capacity to see a wider and more nuanced picture in support of those with whom they work.

If a leader is overwhelmed by complexities, he or she will not be able to make sense of the ambiguities, interconnections and unpredictabilities of his or her work, so will struggle to make robust decisions. And he or she will be far less able to provide the conditions in which others can use their judgement wisely or to do the delicate work of holding together different and sometimes disparate elements of the work. If a leader is underwhelmed by the challenges of a role, he or she may choose to use “spare” capability to provide conditions and to “and”. But some people in this situation can feel aggrieved; ill used by the institution, not able to use ‘spare’ capability to serve it and may undermine the efforts of others.

The second journey is the public journey at work in which our capability is expressed and affirmed – or not. In times of rapid change the public journey makes heavy demands on everyone. Leaders often find that the demands on time, responsiveness and presence can overwhelm to the point where this journey can seem as if it is the only one. It is in precisely those circumstances that leaders need to be mindful of the importance of the other three journeys for themselves and for those they lead.

In this public journey the leader must do all he or she can to show courage, clarity and humanity, to provide conditions that encourage creativity, and to hold together money and relationships, nodes of leadership and other elements that by their very nature can pull apart.

As any leader knows, the conditions of coherence, judgement (discernment) and review do not sustain themselves and are subject to constant slippage, confusion and weakening. To sustain them requires yet more work – providing clarity, the courage to trust other people to use their judgement and the humanity of giving continuous attention to the alignment of people, purpose and processes through time.

We describe the work of providing clarity about expectations as “tasking”. People experience this clarity as respect, and our experience is that volunteers seek this respect just as much as those who are paid. A book about the rule of Saint Benedict25 explains that the root meaning of the Latin and Greek words usually translated as “rule” is trellis – “Saint Benedict was not promulgating rules… he was establishing a framework on which a life can grow.” A creative leader sets the boundaries of people’s work not as rules but as a frame to shape individual initiative and creativity.

Trusting entrusts each person with purpose and trusts them to discern and to use their judgement about how they will do the work for which they are responsible. Trusting is not easy even when an individual is known and understood; far more difficult when they are new, reticent, different, questioning, and this is where the courage comes in – not to trust blindly but to be vigilant, so that trust builds not as dependency but as mutual respect.

Tending is continual mindfulness, the work that keeps things working, that infuses the “minute particulars” with meaning – as one leader put it, “You tend because stuff happens.” In order to tend, the leader sets aside his or her own agenda for the sake of the whole – a key quality for creative leadership. Tending sustains friendships, gardens, households and institutions and throughout history it has been the work of slaves, women and creative leaders. Because it has no end and no obvious “achievement”, it is unseen and unsung work. In Christian language it is the work of the servant leader: not sufficient in itself, but essential as the complement of tasking and trusting. As one bishop once said, “The weakness comes when tending becomes the task.”

Trusting and tending ensure the coherence that people need to sustain their belief that the work is important. Trusting entrusts people with core purpose, tending keeps that understanding alive through communication. The outcome is a shared, coherent understanding of purpose so that every detail and decision is an expression of it. Tasking and trusting allow judgement to be exercised: tasking sets the limits, trusting encourages each person to use their judgement. Tasking and tending ensure review: tasking prepares for review by establishing completion times, tending prepares for review by keeping systems, practices and people heading in the right direction at the right pace and setting the tone for learning.

Creative Leadership: The Personal Journey

This is the journey through which we do or do not care for ourselves and weave together the other journeys. It is about finding the “grain” of the self and learning how to go with it. For a leader this journey is a “duty of care” – for the light and shadows of the self, for the conditions provided and to sustain courage, clarity and humanity. This journey may be expressed in prayer, listening to music, gardening. The essence is time and space for the self and for reflection – this may be momentary or more focused. Some people are not aware of and give very little time or attention to their personal journeys until they face a crisis. As someone put it, this is the journey to ensure that your self does not disappear.

In following this journey Church leaders have the advantage of belief in the importance of disciplines for understanding and caring for the self – to love thy neighbour as thyself. This is not to say that it is any easier to find the time for this journey or to see it as a “duty of care”, but it is to remind that for people with belief, there is a trellis to support and shape growth.

The personal journey puts us in touch with our inner resources – the judgement that allows us to make a wise decision when we do not and cannot know what to do. It may do that fleetingly or we may choose to become more aware of that “answering activity” that “knowing that can see forwards and backwards and in a flash give form to the confusions and chaos of everyday living.”[26]

Just as tasking, trusting and tending are the underpinnings for providing conditions in the public journey of the leader, so they can serve as a framework for the personal journey. Tasking the self is an important discipline, an expression of the ancient wisdom “know thyself” – strengths, vulnerabilities, graces and thirsts. And as Schumacher[27] showed, there is an essential complement in knowing how others see us so that we can couple awareness of self with insight about the connection between our attributes and behaviour and the reaction of others – we can learn much from the fact that we judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions; and by recognizing that other people do the same.

Trusting one’s inner resources is at the heart of being “in flow” and is at the core of discerning and using one’s own judgement. Each of us is deeply sensitive to being in or out of flow: when we are “in flow”, discerning is spontaneous, judgements just come and we feel confident and not self-conscious; “out of flow”, our inner resources slip from our grasp, seem flimsy, even absent or tantalising in that one moment they are there, the next gone. One person described it well: “When you are in flow, intuition is leading you. When you are out of flow, you become a searcher. You search everywhere and you cannot trust what comes to you. So you try to delay and avoid decisions.”

Tending – continual mindfulness of the self – lies at the heart of living with uncertainty. Tending could be prayer, meditation, reading, running, any time that is for the self. But, as soon as there are demands, we are likely not to find the time for those activities that sustain us. And/or to find ourselves dwelling in the past, leaping to or fearing the future rather than “being here now”, living in the “dimension of the present moment”[28] accepting its transience.

The Neoplatonic philosopher Plotinus described the duty of care to tend the self: “Withdraw into yourself and look. And if you do not find yourself beautiful yet, act as does the creator of a statue that is to be made beautiful; he cuts away here, he smoothes there, he makes this line lighter, this other purer until a lovely face has grown upon his work. So do you also…. Never cease chiselling your statue.”[29]

For the leader there are three key elements of the personal journey:

• Developing and deepening reflectiveness – pausing to consider the way s/he approaches things; thinking about the way he or she thinks; about the way s/he responds to change; how he or she gives meaning to things, decides what is a challenge, what an impossible demand, which game is worth the candle?
• Ensuring that understanding of the self through reflection is complemented by how he or she is seen by others – “O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us to see oursels as others see us”.[30]
• Making sure there is some one person or some people who will tell it to the leader like it is. Leaders can all too easily become cut off from honest feedback free of agendas. The greater the power and uncertainty, the more critical is this responsibility.

The fourth, private, journey is shared with family, friends, a community, and in it we are very close to others’ journeys. In many marriages and partnerships both have public journeys with all that means for expressing and affirming capability, for pressure on time, for managing two careers – and a household. And it seems often to happen that one partner may take on a more senior leadership role around the time when adolescent children need more time and understanding. Or when parents become frail and require more care.

There has been a significant change in the nature of this journey in recent years. For many years it has been common for one partner to have a “more important” public journey – a leadership role – and the other to see their role as in part providing support for it. So the first partner would not have been expected to buy milk on the way home, make the supper or put children to bed. For leaders this adds to the expectations on them – and to the depth of their relationships with their children – and requires an additional understanding of the balancing of journeys of the people they lead.

The private journey is our “habitat” – all that belongs to the place we leave and return to as we set out on our public journey. Pressure on this journey comes from a demanding public journey, from growth in capability not yet appreciated by those we work with, from knowing that we are “out of our depth” but have not yet been able to acknowledge it. And it is easy to feel burdened by and/or a burden to those with whom we share this journey – it can seem as if there is no place in our life where nothing is expected of us.

When we feel guilty about neglecting the private journey we often retreat from it rather than trying to weave it into the other journeys. There may still be a sense that this is acceptable for leaders and to an extent that has to be true. But even if the leader and his or her partner make that choice, many of those led will choose not to neglect the private journey. The leader has to carry the responsibility for resourcing, carrying projects forward meeting emergency demands while being understanding and patient about “life style choices”.

A way of reflecting on the balance between the private and public journeys is to pause and learn from where one has chosen not to be.

In this chapter I have tried to show that many of the understandings and disciplines intrinsic to churches offer a special reservoir for leadership that encourages and releases creative leadership. There is much to learn and much to offer from this reservoir.

Gillian Stamp
Bioss, May 2003

References:

1. Leading From Within. Indiana Office for Campus Ministry, 1990.
2. Quoted in T. Cleary, The Art of Leadership. Shambala, 1989.
3. Quoted by A. Jones in “New Vision for the Episcopate?” Theology, July 1978.
4. Personal communication.
5. P. Marris. Loss and Change. Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974.
6. W. Drath and C. Palus. Making Common Sense: Leadership as meaning-making in a community of practice. Centre for Creative Leadership. Greensboro, North Carolina, 1994.
7. Drath and Palus, ibid.
8. J. Adair. The Leadership of Jesus. Canterbury Press, 2001.
9. P. Caron. “Discernment Beyond the Church”, The Way Supplement 1996/85.
10. H. Arendt. The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press, 1958.
11. J. Collins and J. Porras, Built to Last. Century Business, 1996.
12. J. Needleman, Money and the Meaning of Life. Doubleday, 1991.
13. Needleman, ibid.
14. T.O. Jacobs. Developing Information Age Leaders. National Defence University, Washington D.C., 2002
15. H. Kung. Why Priests? Collins, 1972.
16. In the sense of the Scottish makar, “a poet”.
17. M. Milner, A Life of One’s Own. Virago, London, 1934/1986.
18. D. Hock, Birth of the Chaordic Age. Berrett-Koehler, 1999.
19. D. Goleman, Working With Emotional Intelligence. Bloomsbury, 1999.
20. See J. Adair, The Leadership of Jesus (Canterbury Press, 2001) for many historical examples of humility in leadership.
21. Another significant “and”.
22. J. Collins, Good to Great, Random House, 2001. (Although this work was done in the private sector in the US, it has implications for leadership in all organisations)
23. R. Greenleaf, The Servant Leader. Indianapolis, 1970.
24. J. Needleman, Money and the Meaning of Life. Doubleday 1991
25. ed P. Henry. Benedict’s Dharma. Continuum, 2001.
26. Milner, ibid.
27. E, Schumacher, A Guide for the Perplexed. Jonathan Cape, 1977.
28. M. Holub, The Dimension of the Present Moment. Faber and Faber, 1990.
29. A. H. Armstrong, trans. Harvard University Press, 1966.
30. Robert Burns, “To a Louse”, 1786.