I read an interesting comparison between institutional and incarnational leaders a few days back on a leadership blog. I am not sure that they are competing or even differing models (things are never as simple as this) - but is well worth the read and does help to refine our thoughts in our on-going quest to recover an incarnational approach in leadership. The blog includes the following comparison:* Institutional leaders lead because the institution has passed them as fit to lead.
* Incarnational leaders lead because they emerge from being rooted in a community into recognised leadership.
* Institutional leaders carry their own style into the church and shape it to their preference.
* Incarnational leaders only get to lead because their style fits with the culture of the community they lead
* Institutional leaders are vested with power and authority by the institution.
* Incarnational leaders are granted their power and authority by the community they lead.
* Institutional leaders can still hold leadership positions whether or not they practice what they preach.
* Incarnational leaders can not assume that same luxury (or indulgence?).
* Institutional leaders can live off the admiration and adulation of the congregation.
* Incarnational leaders must continually re-earn their place as leaders. Their power and respect rises and falls with the perceived level of their integrity, authenticity, and deep commitment to the life of the community.
Here is a link to the original blog:
http://craftycurate.blogs.com/pilgrims_progress/2004/10/leadership_inst.html
