When Herbert Hadley referred to “Quaker Leaders” in his book on the history of Friends World Committee for Consultation, several British Friends objected to this phrase, insisting that Friends don’t have leaders. Herbert didn’t agree with this sentiment, and neither do I. I believe Quaker institutions, including monthly and yearly meetings, need leadership if they are to serve Friends and Friends’ principles in an ever-changing world.
Early Friends refused to acknowledge the authority of kings and magistrates. They would quake only before God. They tried to recognize God’s message in the speaking or actions of any spirit-centered person, regardless of her or his station in life. The gift of leadership was recognized in those who seemed best able to discern God’s leadings for the group. Leadership was first and foremost a spiritual matter.
Today, Friends still seem more comfortable with spiritual leadership than with appointed organizational leadership. Though controversy may surround spiritual leaders, it is clear that we respond to these Friends, recognizing their spiritual gifts and according them a measure of authority.
Though the call to respond to the leadings of the spirit is in one sense a call to lead, Friends decided early in their history that restraints on individual leadings were also necessary. Early Friends established the primacy of the meetings as the testing place for individual leadings. No Friend was to act on an important personal leading unless and until that Friend’s meeting felt in unity with such action. (For an excellent analysis of how Friends developed this process and how it actually works today, see Michael J. Sheeran, Beyond Majority Rule: Voteless Decisions in the Religious Society of Friends, especially Chapter II on “The Growth of Central Decision-Making.”)
Two firm principles concerning leadership can be deduced from these basic Quaker beliefs. First, since all can be led by the divine, all people are (at least potentially) leaders. And secondly, no one stands above the group; all “leadings” must be tested and confirmed through a Spirit-guided group process. These beliefs underlie Friends’ resistance to personal authority, particularly when exercised by people within formal positions of power.
I believe that this distrust of power and authority undermines Quaker leadership to such an extent that Quaker institutions-from monthly meetings to large, national organizations-suffer. In order for institutions to grow and adapt to the changing world around them, something more than mere management is necessary. That something is leadership, which involves developing a vision of where to go and articulating that vision in a way which motivates others to work for it.
I have worked for Friends’ organizations since 1974 and, during a 3-month sabbatical from AFSC in 1991, I did a study of leadership in Quaker organizations. I have observed good leadership, poor leadership, and a lot that’s in between. I’ve seen no perfect leaders, and I know that every leader, no matter how skilled, makes mistakes. I’ve watched good people make modest mistakes which were blown up into major catastrophes by others.
I’ve heard Friends complain about a lack of leadership within the Religious Society of Friends, often without understanding the qualities of leadership required within our religious culture. Some insist that the problem lies with the quality of people in leadership positions-that there just aren’t many “strong Quakers leaders any more.” Others argue that the problem is based in the resistance to leadership characteristic of Friends and their organizations. Few speak of the spiritual qualities required for Quaker leadership.
No amount of work or wishing is going to make Friends into willing followers of hierarchical leaders, but we Friends have developed a type of formal leader within our meetings—the clerk. The clerk is truly the servant of the group and of the divine Spirit. The clerk labors to create an environment in which the leadings of the Spirit can best be discerned, in part by careful attention to the agenda, by establishing a worshipful tone, and by providing a guiding hand during consideration of each issue. As the servant of the Spirit and of the group, the clerk is not the servant of any individual. Firmness in dealing with individuals who obstruct the process or pursue their own agendas is required.
When I interviewed administrators and executives of Quaker organizations, I was struck by how their descriptions of their roles resembled the role of the clerk. They said:
Every style of leadership has its strengths and weaknesses. The great strength of the clerk style, and of many Quaker organizations, is the strength that comes from shared leadership. New ideas and initiatives come from many staff and committee people. These people develop a strong commitment to the work they are doing; motivation is seldom a problem.
But there are other problems. The difficulty comes when people involved in the decision-making process are divided or confused about how to proceed. When a meeting for business is unable to discern a sense of the meeting, Friends wait for a time when the leading is clear. Meetings spend years seeking to understand the Spirit’s guidance on controversial issues. Most Quaker organizations, however, must make certain critical decisions in a timely manner. For example, if a Quaker organization has insufficient funds to continue all programs and staff, but the board or committee cannot find unity on which to cut, it is left to the clerk and the executive to make these difficult decisions. When this happens, they frequently are criticized for not following Quaker process.
Another problem with a highly decentralized decision-making process and the clerk style of leadership involves developing a single, clear vision for the organization. There is a tendency for clerk-type leaders to become little more than managers. An AFSC Board member said, “We sometimes suffer from a lack of visionaries in the Society of Friends. I’ve been in many Friends’ organizations, and there is often a need to reassess directions. But there is frequently a lot of groping and not much clarity.
First of all, leadership involves vision, formulating a sense of direction for the organization. Institutions require leadership in order to change, to grow in response to new problems, new challenges, and new opportunities. In order to grow in positive ways, key leaders must understand the organization itself and the evolving environment in which it functions. They need ideas about how the organization should change in response to these factors. Leaders do not have to generate these ideas by themselves, but they need to provide some process for developing a sense of organizational direction. At all times, leaders need to be focused on the outcomes (i.e. results-oriented), though in Quaker organizations, they must be very sensitive to the process as well.
Even the “indirect” type of leader must have, or know how to develop, a clear vision for the organization; that is the essence of leadership. This has to do with an ability to articulate clearly the central values of the organization and to give a general sense of direction and coherence to the whole. One Quaker leader said, “It is important for leaders to be able to articulate a vision. But it need not necessarily be the leader’s vision alone. In fact, it’s much better if the leader can articulate the vision of the group, understanding where people are, and moving the group along towards it.”
The leadership of an organization must be able to communicate its vision to the major stake holders. (“Stake holders” refers to all those who “have a stake” in the organization. For example, members, staff, volunteers, committee members, members of the Board and Corporation, contributors, and the people who are served by or involved in programs.) Leaders must communicate their sense of direction for the organization in a way which catches their attention and inspires them to strive for that vision as well. “Communication creates meaning for people . . . It’s the only way any group, small or large, can become aligned behind the overarching goals of an organization.” (Bennis and Nanus, 1958)
Leaders help others to develop and use their own power for the good of the organization and the achievement of its goals. This begins with a willingness to accept others, which requires a tolerance for imperfection. It would be easy to serve as a leader of perfect people—if there were any. While leaders have in mind the big picture, the long-range vision and major goals of the organization, they must find ways to help others to learn and grow and work for their own good as well as the good of the organization. . . . People in the organization will want to work for its goals if they feel themselves to be a significant part of the organization, if they feel good about it, and if they see their work as important.
Finally, leadership can be distinguished from management. “Managers do things right; leaders do the right things.” Good management is certainly essential to any organization. Managers see to it that things run smoothly. In some situations, and with a little luck, organizations can survive for some time without leadership if they have good management. But leaders are responsible for anticipating the future-the big issues or problems—and developing some way of formulating solutions and general directions.
Inner strength is required in a true leader. Appointment to a top administrative post in a Quaker organization does not automatically confer authority, power, or even legitimacy. Those who would lead must earn the trust and respect of both staff and committee members, and they must go on earning it throughout their tenures. To begin with, they must have excellent judgment and great integrity. Friends sometimes say, “The best leader is s/he who is led.” This speaks to the integrity and wisdom of the leader. One Friends’ executive spoke of times when she felt truly led, saying, “When I’ve felt that clearness, the authority has been there. That sense of leading communicated to others.”
Those who serve in leadership capacities should not depend upon getting a lot of strokes for their good work. Even the best leaders get a lot of heat for unpopular decisions, tough calls, and yes, serious mistakes. One Friends’ executive commented, “I’ve survived as well as I have because I have a lot of tolerance for ambiguity, a lot of resilience, a strong ego, and a good sense of the ridiculous.” Another person spoke at length about this inner strength. Too many people in Quaker organizations want approval. Their sense of their own value comes from being valued. To that extent they behave in ways that will get them approval. Everyone likes praise. Everyone’s sense of self needs reinforcement. But those whose sense of self is weak . . . need a steady stream of approval to hold themselves together.
Real ego strength (involves) a sense of self confidence and a sense of self worth. A sense of self confidence means you think you can do things well; a sense of self worth means you think you are a good person. . . . Such a person will have a healthy need for approval and praise, but their actions in specific circumstances will not be guided by that need. They’ll be able to tolerate conflict, disapproval and risk . . . and postpone gratification in the service of something they think is right...
People without that ego strength will go to great lengths to avoid criticism; they lack courage because it means sacrificing. . . . Somebody who wants to be a leader has to be willing to work on themselves. Every time you get a new level of responsibility and exposure, the stresses increase. . . . I’ve often felt that my own weaknesses prevented me from being a good leader, and I’ve worked on those things.
Good leaders can admit their mistakes, but they do not wallow in guilt or self-recrimination. As one person told me, “A good leader makes as many mistakes as anyone else, but s/he always needs to have integrity.” Some administrators refuse to acknowledge the power they have, claiming weakness in an attempt to shield themselves from criticism. This tactic undermines respect and can in fact be oppressive to those who would challenge the administrator on a decision or policy. As for the criticism leaders must endure, one who had experienced plenty said, “It’s not just having a thick skin, though that helps. One must be able to feel the pain, but not let that be all of it.”
Confronting others and making unpopular decisions is among the toughest aspects of leadership in any organization. However, the Quaker emphasis on the “godliness” of each person and the antipathy to authority and power make this especially difficult for leaders of Quaker organizations. As noted earlier, such leaders must constantly earn the respect of colleagues and subordinates; authority does not simply come with the formal position.
Nevertheless, despite the resistance to authority and power, some leaders in Quaker organizations have the seasoned judgment, the inner strength, and the open style which earns them considerable trust and respect from their colleagues. They are able to confront others and make tough decisions without provoking major conflicts or a collapse of trust. One executive who works at being extremely open and consultative also recognized, “When time doesn’t allow for the process, I go ahead, make the decision, and agree to accept the consequences.”
Strong leaders are not afraid to confront others. Many Friends shy away from this. They rationalize it by saying, “There is that of God in every person.” One Quaker executive stressed that Friends’ biggest problem is their inability to recognize and deal with “sin,” or, as another put it, with fallibility. By stressing the positive and the potential for good, Quakers blind themselves to the negative. “One of the vulnerabilities of liberal Friends is their overly optimistic view of human nature,” said one Friend. “It’s always hard to deal with people whose pride or lust for power gets in the way.”
One executive told me how he occasionally confronted people who were constantly obstructing a committee and asked them to get off the committee. “As an administrator, my ministry was not to individuals, but to the group,” he explained. A woman executive stressed that this can be particularly difficult for women: “We fall into a nurturing mode and think, ‘We’re not doing our job unless everyone feels good.’”
Establishing clear policies, procedures and structures in advance helps administrators to confront people or problems. One AFSC Regional Executive Secretary talked about how important it was to have developed a process for making decisions about laying down programs before a serious budget crunch required that step. Friends tend not to develop clear processes and structures, asserting that they need to remain open to the Spirit in each situation. Among the larger, more complex Quaker organizations, however, clear procedures are needed to deal with difficult situations. One observer noted, “Clear structures and policies are less flexible, but they’re more just.”
The very best leaders are able to provide strong leadership while respecting the democratic or Spirit-led decision-making processes which are at the very core of Quaker practice. They work continually to formulate and articulate a vision while maintaining a commitment to the organization’s animating values. Like the best clerks of Quaker meetings, they have a gift for drawing out the finest contributions from many different people, then providing a clear and persuasive description of what the final decision is. They are very committed to, and skilled at facilitating the processes of consultation and building a sense of unity or consensus. They are people who generally exercise good judgment and exhibit considerable integrity. They respect others and value their work and ideas. Such leaders earn the trust and respect of others, and they go on earning it.
These articles are from Resources
for Fostering Vital Friends Meetings
See also: the FGC Quaker Library
