The Characteristics of Bad Leadership

Introduction

When the Israelites requested that they wanted a king to rule over them and rejected the theocratic reign of God, God gave them Saul son of Kish as their king. It was God's decision to continue to rule the Israelites through a human representative. Later, God rejected Saul as unfit to continue to rule the Israelites. Why was Saul's leadership condemned?

Solomon was one of the many kings who ruled Israel after Saul. He had a long and peaceful reign over Israel. His son Rehoboam succeeded him as king. But shortly after his accession to the throne, the United Kingdom was divided into two and he lost the greater part of the kingdom. What made the United Kingdom divide and disintegrate under king Rehoboam?

After the Death of Joshua and the elders who out-lived him, there was a great problem of leadership in Israel. God raised up judges from time to time to deliver his people from oppression and rule over them. Samson was one of those judges that God raised. The Israelites, whom Samson was raised to deliver on several occasions tried to hand him over to their oppressors. Samson later became a prisoner of the philistines until his death. What happened to this great man that God raised as a deliver?

For a woman to rule a nation like Israel, she must certainly have some great qualities. Therefore one cannot be wrong in saying Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah, who also ruled Israel, had great qualities. However, in the seventh year of her reign the people conspired against her and put her to death by the sword. What was wrong with her leadership that caused her subject to have acted in this way?

The four leaders mentioned failed in their leadership roles. For this reason their leadership has been characterized as bad. However, is it because one fails in leadership that one's leadership is bad? Failure is an indication that there are certain characteristics of one's leadership that are not good. These Characteristics, which cause leaders to fail, would now be identified in the leadership of the four leaders. This will be done under the following headings: (a) A reflection on the leadership of five leaders in Bible times ( b) Basic characteristics of their leadership (c) An evaluation of their leadership.

A reflection on the leadership of five leaders in Bible times

This section is a reflection on the leadership of five leaders whose leadership has been characterized as bad. As mentioned in the introduction each of these leaders have experienced failures in their leadership. But, is it because of a failure that one's leadership should be characterized as bad? This reflection is the first step in answering the question posed above. The leadership of Saul, Rehoboam, Samson and Athaliah will be briefly discussed focusing on their preparedness or fitness to lead and on their specific areas of failure.

Saul

Saul was the first king of Israel. Saul is chosen by divine guidance. He is a man of humility, consecrated by holy oil and filled with the spiurit.1 It cannot be denied that Saul was prepared for leadership by the assurance of divine support and the special dualities that God gave him as a person. As Joyce Peel rightly pointed out, at the very beginning of his reign Saul proved his ability to lead as he rescued the city of Jabesh from the control of Nahash the Ammonite. The victory over the Ammonites gave Saul acceptance among all the people.

Without disagreeing with Joyce Peel that Saul had good qualities for leadership and was prepared for leadership by the assurance of divine support, Ted Engstrom stated that Saul lacked most of the fine qualities one expects in leadership.2 To substantiate his point, he made reference to an account in second Samuel Chapter five. This account was in reference to a request the people of the northern tribes of Israel made to David, asking him to also be their King. In their appeal to David, Engstrom observed that they said David was the real power in Saul's government and Saul was only a figurehead. It was David who led Israel out to battle and won victories for the nation. In addition, Engstrom pointed out that the nation that Saul left behind was torn by civil wars.3

In may be true that Saul lacked most of the fine qualities one expects in leadership, but the qualities that he had were good enough for him to succeed. Identifying the areas of Saul's failures can prove the point that he had what would have made him succeed. According to William J Dumbrell, there were three main areas of failures in Saul's leadership. The first was when Saul defies Samuel's orders to wait in Mizpah until he comes to offer sacrifice before the soldiers go to battle. Saul went along and offered the sacrifice though he was not a Levite. The second was, as Dumbrell puts it, his food taboo and his proposed death of Jonathan. Jonathan had eaten some wild honey not knowing that Saul had pronounced a self-determined religious fast, enforced with a curse, until the pursuit of their enemies was over. In addition, Saul's victorious army was so hungry when they returned that they slaughtered and ate the animals without cooking the meet. In this situation Saul certainly lost control of his followers. The third failure was when he failed to carry out God's instructions concerning the Amalekites. He was supposed to destroy them and their animals completely, but he spared the king and the best of the animals.4

Saul's failure must however be seen in its wider context. The issue was that he refuses to acknowledge God's authority established through the prophet Samuel. Samuel was to provide divine guidance to Saul for him to succeed.

Rehoboam

Rehoboam was the son of king Solomon. One can assume that as one of the king's sons he would have been very much interested in the kingship. As the king's son he would also have been groomed for leadership, especially when one considered the fact that under normal circumstances one of the king's sons had to succeed him. He therefore had potentials that qualify him to lead. However, according to some authors, Rehoboam was not adequately prepared for leadership. William J Dumbrell observed, that Jeroboam, the one time forced labor supervisor in the north, capitalizes upon the ineptness of Solomon's son Rehoboam and leads the northern ten tribes into succession as the kingdom of Israel.5 Dumbrell's argument was that if Rehoboam had been adequately prepared for leadership he would not have acted the way he did on that particular occasion. One can gain more insight from the observation of Joyce Peel that Rehoboam was not adequately prepared for leadership. She affirms that Rehoboam, like Absalom, is arrogant. Brought up in Solomon's palace, he sees royalty in terms of privilege and absolute power. He ignores the advise of older counselors, and encouraged by his arrogant men he returned a harsh answer.6 It can be observed from what Joyce peel said, that the problem of Rehoboam's unpreparedness for leadership was basically his. It was a matter of his character or conduct. Every person should be personally accountable for his or her character and conduct. King Rehoboam failed in maintaining the United Kingdom left by his father. The incident already cited resulted in the division of the kingdom. Although the division of the kingdom had already been prophesied, Rehoboam's action should not be overlooked. His failure, one must observe, resulted not only in a political division of the nation, but also in the apostasy of the northern tribes.

Samson

Samson was one of the judges raised to rule Israel before the start of the monarchy. According to Judges 13:15-23, he was the promised son of a barren woman. Even before he was born, God began to make preparations for him as a chosen leader. Samson grew up to be a Nazarite, sworn never to drink or cut his hair. The secret of his phenomenal strength lay in keeping this vow. It should be observed that Samson's preparation as a spiritual leader was of extreme importance to God. One should take into consideration that it was because of the apostasy of the nation that they were experiencing suppression by their enemies. The enemies during Samson's time were the philistines, who were controlling most of the land and they had exclusive possession of iron weapons. Maybe for that reason God raised Samson to be exceptionally strong to confront them even without a weapon.

When Samson assumed his leadership role, Joyce Peel described the kind of person he turned out to be: "But Samson was lustful, self-willed and irresponsible." Peel made references to the two philistine women he married, who infatuated and deceived him. The first one who got the secret of his riddle from him and the second, Delilah, who got the secret of his strength.

The people whom Samson was supposed to lead considered him a failure. On some occasions they tried to hand him over to their enemies because they saw him as the cause for greater suppression. Arthur E. Cundell described the humiliation of this great judge in the hands of his enemies in these words: "The weakened Samson was now easily captured by the philistines. His eyes were gouged out and he was brought down to Gaza, the scene of one of his earlier feasts of strength (16:1-3) and put to work at the tedious task of grinding out corn."8 Samson's life, which promised so much, taking into consideration the special abilities God gave him, was blighted and ultimately destroyed by his sensual passions and lack of true separation to the Lord.

Athaliah

The last of the four leaders to be discussed is Attaliah, the mother of Azariah. As already been pointed out, she ruled Israel for six years. Eugene M. Merrill described how she came to leadership in the following quote: "The empty throne of Judah was left by default to Attaliah, Azariah's wicked Israelite mother."9 The Biblical record in 2Chronicles 22 shows that she puts to death all those she can find who had right to the throne. Therefore describing her as a wicked woman can be justified. However, to be able to accomplish such a goal she must have had good support. The fact that this woman was able to sit on the throne for six years, show that she had leadership abilities. This is however not to justify the way she used her abilities.

On the seventh year of her reign, the biblical records show that she was overthrown and killed by the very people she was ruling. In just retribution for her blasphemies and murders, she was maneuvered away from God's house which her sons had ransacked (2Chronicles 24:7) and was slain near the palace.10 This shows that the people she was ruling never accepted her leadership. She had managed to use force and her position as queen mother to stay in power.

Basic characteristics of the leaders and their leaderships

Having briefly reflected on the four leaders and their leadership, it will now be appropriate to discuss the basic characteristics of their leadership. This will be done under three sub-headings:

a) The leader as a person;

b) His or her leadership;

c) The followers.

This is because leadership involves a relationship between these three elements.

a. The Leaders

According to Bob Gordon and David Fardouly, many people fail in leadership because they did not receive a divine call to leadership. A call from God comes with an inner recognition that the individual will be equipped for the task. They said without God, no one would be sufficiently equipped to accomplish any task in God's kingdom. The individual will only be operating in his or her own strength.11 It is worth noting that two of the leaders being discussed received divine call, but they also failed. Was it because they operated in their own strength? Gordon and Fardouly's point is that one of the reasons why leaders fail is because they operate in their own strength, which in some cases, may be an indication that they have not been called. In other cases, they may have been called but have turned away from God's authority and support. Therefore, from what Gordon and Fardouly have said, one of the characteristics of bad leadership is seen in the conduct or character of the leaders who do not recognize their inadequacy and try to do everything by their own strength.

b. Their leadership

In discussing the leadership of the four leaders, two main things have been given primary importance. These are their vision and leadership styles. As John Haggai rightly observed, "a vision has a direct bearing on his leadership style.12 As a starting point, one could ask, what were the4 visions of these leaders? What was Saul's vision for Israel? Or did Saul really have a vision for Israel? A close examination of the observation of John Maxwell will help one determine whether Saul really have a vision. Maxwell observed that after he tasted success in battle, he mistook his position as king for real leadership. Though he had the title, power and crown of a king, he never moved the monarchy beyond a chairman-based judgeship. He was made a general but he never attracted a large standing army. He created no organized government to preserve his gains. And when God no longer favoured him he though the title of king entitled him to continue leading.13 From these observations one could rightly say that Saul had no vision that he pursued on behalf of Israel. As a result, his style of leadership was mainly seen in his response to Israel's enemies. During those occasions he demonstrated more of o dictatorial or authoritative kind of leadership.

King Rehoboam on the other hand considered to have achieved his goal when he sat on the throne. One can deduce from his reply to the Israelites who appealed to him to reduce the burden of king Solomon placed on them, that he had no proper vision for the people. It was clear from his reply that his vision was for the people to serve him and make him comfortable. Also, the caliber of the counselors he chose supported the fact that he had no vision for Israel. His vision might have been to sit on the throne until he retires or dies. As a result of his lack of vision, his style of leadership was more of an authoritarian or dictatorial one.

Samson was no different from Rehoboam. According to Joyce Peel, Samson was lustful, self-willed and irresponsible.14 Samson was never seen in any constructive leadership role in Israel. His attacks on Israel's enemies were purely based on personal revenge. He was however supposed to subdue the nation's enemies because of their suppression of the nation. The life he lived showed that he had no clear vision for the nation. So his style of leadership was more of an authoritarian or dictatorial one.

Like the others, queen Athaliah did not have a vision for Israel. She came to power in a palace coup and her only goal was to stay in power. The only way she was able to do that was by exercising a dictatorial style of leadership. Leaders like Athaliah demand total obedience from their subjects.

c. Their followers

Some of the Characteristics of bad leadership can be identified with the followers. One must take into consideration Anthony D'souza's statement that leadership involves an inter-relationship between three elements:

a) The quality skills and needs of the leader

b) The needs and expectations of the group

c) The demands or requirements of the situation.15

On several occasion Saul's men abandoned him in battle. On other occasions he forced them to do what he wanted. For instance, when he declared a fast until Israel completed the pursuit of their enemies. This caused the soldiers to sin in the end, by eating meat with blood or in other words, meat that was eaten raw and not cooked.

In the case of Rehoboam, the greater number of Israelites rejected his leadership and revolted against him. Samson's situation was even worse. His followers were willing to hand him over to their enemies. They saw him as the cause of their problems. Athaliah's followers revolted against her and killed her. None of these leaders chose their successor. In fact with the exception of Rehoboam they all died gruesome deaths. Rehoboam escaped such death, by buying peace from Shishak who was planning to invade Jerusalem. Rehoboam bought peace by giving him the treasures in the temple in Jerusalem.

Conclusion

In the introduction the following question was posed: 'Is it because someone failed that his/her leadership should be characterized as bad?' In attempting to answer this question, which forms the thesis of this chapter, the leadership of four leaders in the Bible has been examined. These leaders - Saul, Rehoboam, Samson and Athaliah, were selected because their leadership had been characterized as bad. The goal of the evaluation was to identity the main characteristics of their leadership in order to determine what was common to all and then compare these characteristics with those of good leadership.

END NOTES

1Joyce Peel, A Journey Trough the Old Testament: The Story of God's Relationship with Man, Woman and the World (Oxford: The Bible Reading Fellowship, 1993), p. 66.

2Ted W. Engstrom, The Making of a Christian Leader: How to Dvelop Management and Human Relations Skills (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), p. 30.

3Ibid, p. 30.

4William J. Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel: It's Expression in the Book of the Old Testament (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), p. 80.

5William J. Dumbrell, The Faith of Israel: It's Expression in the Book of the Old Testament (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), p. 87.

6Joyce Peel, A Journey Trough the Old Testament: The Story of God's Relationship with Man, Woman and the World (Oxford: The Bible Reading Fellowship, 1993), p. 66.

7Joyce Peel, A Journey Trough the Old Testament: The Story of God's Relationship with Man, Woman and the World (Oxford: The Bible Reading Fellowship, 1993), p. 62.

8Author E. Cundell, Judges and Ruth: Tyndele Old Testament Commentaries (Illinois: Inter-varsity Press, 1968), p. 179.

9Eugene H. Merrill, 2 Chronicles: The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Colorado: Chariot Victor Publishing, 1985), p. 636.

10John J. Davis and John C. Whitcomb, Israel: A Commentary on Joshua - 2 Kings (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1970), p. 438.

11Bob Gordon and David Fardouly, Master Builder: Developing Life and Leadership in the Body of Christ (Kent: Sovereign World, 1990), p. 6.

12John Haggai, Lead On! Leadership that Endures in a Changing World (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1986), p. 16.

13John Maxwell, The 21 Most Powerful Minutes in a Leaders Day in a Leader's Day: Revitalize Your Spirit and Empower Your Leadership, (Nashville Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000), p. 4.

14Joyce Peel, A Journey Through The Old Testament: A Story Of God's Relationship With Man. Woman and The World (Oxford): The Bible Reading Fellowship, 1993), p. 62.

15Anthony D'souza, Being A Leader (Achimota: African Christian Press, 1990)

p. 811.

Dr. Leopold A. Foullah is currently Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department of Philosophy & Religious Studies, Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone, Mount Aureol, Freetown. He is also the General Superintendent of the Missionary Church of Africa, Sierra Leone Conference. He holds the following academic qualifications: Dip.Th., B.Th., M.Div., M.Th. and Ph.D (Leeds University, England). He is interested in Biblical Theology and Social Issues. He is External Examiner for both The Evangelical College of Theology (TECT), Jui and the Sierra Leone Theological College & Church Training Centre in Freetown. He is married with three children.

The Characteristics of Good Leadership

Introduction

Some leaderships have been characterized as good and have been used as challenges for others to emulate. This description however raises an obvious question: upon what criteria were these leadership characterized as good? It is certain that some leaders, whose leadership does not fall within this category, have good qualities that others can emulate. For this reason it is important not only to know that a leadership has been characterized as good but also to know the characteristics that qualifies it as good. According to Anthony D'souza, leadership involves an inter-relationship between three elements:

(a) The quality skills and needs of the followers

(b) The need and expectations of the group

(c) The demands or requirements of the situation.1

It can be observed from what D'souza has said that the first element deals with the personality of the leader; the second, his followers and the third, the task to be accomplished.

On the basis of what has been said the characteristics of good leadership will be identified under the following headings:-

(a) The personal characteristics of the leader

(b) The characteristics of the followers

(c) The leader's task or mission. Selected leaders in the Bible, whose leaderships

have been classified as good will form the basis of this presentation.

(a) The Personal Characteristics of the Leader

It can be observed from scriptures that God was very selective in choosing leaders for specific tasks. God specifically chose Nehemiah to spearhead the rebuilding of the Jerusalem wall; Moses to bring the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt; Paul, to pioneer missionary work to the Gentiles and David, whose kinship would have a lasting dynasty, to replace Saul. These men certainly had qualities that were essential for good leadership. God recognized these qualities in them as potentials when He chose them.

In this section some of the qualities of leaders mentioned above will be discussed in a more general way. The goal is to show that it has been recognized that the good personal qualities of leaders, when applied to leadership are characteristics of good leadership.

Nehemiah

In reflecting on the book of Nehemiah, John White said that "the book of Nehemiah serves primarily to unfold for us part of God's on-going plan for his people. But always it is the man, his character and his leadership that holds my interest".2 Two important things stand out from John White's evaluative statement about Nehemiah's leadership that are characteristic of good leadership. The first is the character and conduct of Nehemiah himself as a leader and the second, is his leadership ability. White further commended that probably one of the reasons why Nehemiah was chosen as a cupbearer was because of a well-trained personal quality like that of a stable character. Such well-trained stable character was not just the effort of Nehemiah alone. This can be seen in the following statement - "God used Nehemiah's active prayer life to mold him into a godly leader".3 As a godly leader, Nehemiah was dependent upon God from whom he received his personal support and encouragement, which motivated him enough to succeed. Nehemiah achieved his ministry goal and his leadership has been characterized as good. His good character and conduct and his demonstration of leadership abilities were personal characteristics of his leadership, which made him succeed.

Moses

Moses' childhood training as an adopted son of Pharaoh's daughter was tailored towards leadership. The incidence, which led to his escape from Egypt, revealed that he recognized his leadership qualities before God called him to leadership. However, it took 40 years from the time of his escape from Egypt, before God called him to leadership. Joyce Peel observed that Moses learns how to be a shepherd. Long years of looking after sheep taught him the patience he was to need as leader of the cantankerous children of Israel.4 This observation by Joyce Peel shows that the personal quality of patience in Moses' life was a characteristic of his good leadership. This quality was made evident in the life of Moses through the great challenges he faced as a leader over Israel. One example was when he came down from Mount Sinai and found the people worshiping the golden calf. He smashed the tablet inscribed with God's commandment, and, with a rousing cry, 'who is on the Lord's side?', summons the faithful Levites to a massacre.5 The next day he reproaches the people and then brokenhearted, goes back up the mountain to plead for their forgiveness.6

Patience was not the only personal quality that Moses had. But it has been used to show that good personal qualities, when applied to leadership, bring about positive results. Therefore, good personal qualities are characteristics of good leadership.

Paul

Paul made great achievements in the ministry God called him to. Achievements should however be seen as pointers to personal abilities or qualities that a leader has that made him to succeed. What then were those qualities in Paul that made him to succeed? First it would be important to look at some of the achievements that Paul made. He made remarkable impact in his missionary work and also in his writing. John Stott observed that thirteen letters ascribed to Paul in our New Testament form almost exactly one quarter of the whole New Testament. It was the rediscovery of the theology of Paul which led to the reformation of the sixteenth century, that theological revolution which prompted an upheaval within the Roman Catholic Church and led to the birth of all the present day Protestant Churches.7 Paul's educational background gave him this advantage. It should not go unnoticed that this great apostle used all that he had personally achieved in his formative years in his leadership role. Making use of his personal qualities in bringing about positive results in his leadership was a characteristic of Paul's good leadership.

David

According to Ted W. Engstrom, David the second king of Israel was a striking contrast to Saul, the first king.8 This was because of his noble, generous and admirable qualities he demonstrated in his leadership. This comparison indicates that David's leadership was not only better than Saul's but his leadership can be characterized as good. John C. Maxwell also compared the two leaders. In answer to a question, which he posed - 'Why did Saul fail as Israel's king while David, who appeared to be weaker succeed?' he said that it was because of David's attitude. Unlike Saul, David tried to become a better leader.9 It is clear from these two authors that David's personal qualities, especially that of his attitude to always be a better leader were characteristics of his good leadership. Having the qualification or qualities is one thing, but applying them in one's leadership role is quite another. David applied his leadership qualities in leading and made an impact as a leader.

The Characteristics of the Followers

Some of the characteristics of good leadership can be identified with the followers. Before identifying these characteristics, it would be helpful to examine some definitions of leadership, to be reminded of the relationship between leaders and followers. According to Oswald Sanders, leadership is influence. It is the ability of one person to influence others to follow his or her lead. Ted W. Enngstrom defines leadership with just two words - 'leaders lead'. Myron Rush also gave a definition of leadership and his definition of leadership as 'leader reproducing himself on the followers'. These definitions point to the relationship between leaders and followers but most significantly, what they considered to be the goal of the relationship. Oswald Sanders and Engstrom focus on the aspect of following. This focus identifies one of the characteristics of a good leadership - willing followers. If one gives consideration to D'souza's point cited in the introduction, that one of the elements of leadership is 'the needs and expectations of the group', it follows that one reason why people will willingly follow their leader is because their needs and expectations are met. Another characteristic can be identified from Myron Rush's definition - making leader out of followers, there is a guarantee of the continuity of that ministry. The four leaders, Nehemiah, Moses, Paul and David, whose leaderships have been classified as good, will now be used as test case to identify the two characteristics.

Nehemiah

When Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem from Susa, he first personally assessed the situation of Jerusalem's destruction. Afterwards he called the people and shared his vision. The Bible stated that the people responded to Nehemiah (see Neh. 2:8). This shows clearly that from the start of his mission Nehemiah had willing followers. They were willing to follow because they realize that the vision was good and that some of their needs as a community will be met. Maxwell noted that the wall of Jerusalem was rebuilt because of Nehemiah's ability to work with people and lead them where they need to go.10 This shows that Nehemiah had willing followers.

In addition Nehemiah gave recognition to subordinate leaders as he delegated responsibilities to them. This, as he said, opens the leadership potentials for others.11 Therefore one can rightly say that Nehemiah not only had willing followers but also leaders were reproduced under his ministry.

Moses

When Moses returned to Egypt to set the Israelites free, they were at first excited. But when Moses made their situation worse they were no longer excited about freedom. However, by the end of the ninth plague they had realized that Moses was God's servant sent to deliver them. They followed Moses' instructions in observing the Passover and then willingly followed him as he led them out of Egypt.

There is also scriptural evidence that leaders were produced under Moses' leadership. One example is that of Joshua, who replaced him. Joshua who had been the personal assistant of Moses was mentored by Moses to become a leader. Moses' leadership therefore had the characteristics of willing followers and that of reproducing leaders.

Paul

Even when he was "Paul the aged", he remained the model and leader of a group of dynamic young men. The affection he kindled in his followers' heart was mirrored in the tears that flowed when he told them they would see him no more (Acts 20: 36-38).12 Sanders revealed in the passage cited above that the apostle Paul's leadership had the characteristics of willing followers. His ministry had great impact in the lives of many, who were also not willing to exchange his leadership for another.

Like the Lord Jesus, Paul invested his life on a few people because he expected much from them. These were the people he took on his missionary journeys. Two of the people, Timothy and Titus became leaders of local Churches. Therefore, like Moses, Paul's leadership had the characteristics of willing followers and that of producing leaders.

David

David rose to fame when he killed Goliath, the Philistine giant. Eugene H. Merrill, commenting on David's victory reserved that with his rising popularity among the people came a deterioration of his relationship with Saul, for the king became insanely jealous of Israel's new hero.13 It is obvious that David had a large following. People followed him because of the potential they saw in him. They recognized him as a great leader, even before official recognition was given to him.

David ruled Israel for approximately 40 years and by the time he was stepping down as king, Solomon, his son had already been groomed for that position. So, like Nehemiah, Moses and Paul, David's leadership was characterized by willing followers and the producing of leaders.

(c) The leader's task or commission

It can be observed from scripture that God always give a specific task or mission to every person he calls to leadership. Some of the characteristics of good leadership can be identified in the way the leaders set out to accomplish their task or mission. There are two things that are of primary importance to how a leader accomplishes his task. These are his vision and his style of leadership. A leader's vision and style of leadership can be characteristics of both good and bad leadership. However, in this section the purpose is to shoe how these two characteristics can be characteristics of good leadership.

According to John Haggai, a vision is important because it is a key factor in successful leadership.14 A leader can have a good vision and yet his vision does not contribute in any way to make his leadership good. Haggai points out what a leader needs to do to make his vision a contributing characteristic to good leadership. First, he says that both leaders and followers must grasp the vision. It is the leader's responsibility to help the followers understand the vision and accept it. Second, both leader and followers must commit themselves to act on the vision. This action involves designing a goal program to fulfill the vision. In this way both the leader and followers are prepared to face difficulties and eliminate obstacles. It is in this way that a vision can be a characteristic of good leadership.15

The other aspects mentioned that can be a characteristic of a good leadership is the style of leadership. Leadership styles have been given different classification by authors. Anthony D'souza classified leadership styles in a continuum in which one end is described as task-oriented and the other as relationship-oriented.16 Myron Rush also agreed with D'souza that leadership styles can be seen in a continuum, but he used different descriptive terms for the different styles within the continuum.17 The four styles used within Rush's continuum are: dictatorial, authoritative, consultative and participative. These authors argument about styles was not to point out the best but rather to show the importance of all of them. The point that they were making was that a good leadership had the characteristics of the different leadership styles. The leader must be flexible to the changing situations. When he is able to adjust his leadership styles to changing situations, then his leadership styles... become characteristics of good leadership. Myron Rush gave examples of situations where particular leadership styles are appropriate. He said, dictatorial leadership style is appropriate in an emergency or when people's lives, are at stake; consultative style in conducting on-going planning for the department or organization; authoritative style when employees constantly misuse authority and participative style as people become competent in performing their routine responsibilities.18

The four leaders mentioned in this paper, whose leaderships have been classified as good, will now be used as test cases to determine whether the points mentioned here are characteristics of their leaderships.

Nehemiah

Joyce Peel, commenting on Nehemiah's task of building the walls of Jerusalem said that a dispirited nation needs an inspired leader who can unite and galvanize his people into action. Such a man was Nehemiah.19 These words not only revealed that Nehemiah had a clear vision of his task but also was able to make his followers understand the vision and commit themselves to act on it. This was just one reason why they were able to rebuild the walls in fifty-two days. Many Jews lamented over the ruins of Jerusalem city wall, but it took the vision of one man, who united the people and gave them hope to change the situation. Engstrom also pointed to the fact that the people caught Nehemiah's vision and acted upon it, when he noted: "One has only to read the Book of Nehemiah to discover the importance of people at work. The leaders in building the temple and city walls never lost sight of the total goal and overall picture. They were able to keep this focus by using all the people as well as experts who were trained to do specific work".20 Nehemiah's leadership had the characteristic of a clear vision which was actively pursued by himself and his followers.

It can be observed from the book of Nehemiah, that Nehemiah used the consultative style of leadership when he got to Jerusalem to begin the work. However in the last few chapters of the book, when things were going wrong, his style of leadership changed to an authoritative one. Therefore it can be said that Nehemiah's leadership had the characteristics of a vision and a changing style of leadership.

Moses

Moses has a clear vision when he returned to Egypt to lead the children of Israel out of bondage. The Israelites wanted to be free, but they doubted the possibility of Moses setting them free. However, when they became certain that Moses was God's servant who will set them free from bondage, they obeyed his instructions and later walked out of Egypt following him.

The biblical records also show that Moses varied his leadership styles. Before Jethro came to visit him, he carried a heavy load of work all by himself. Myron Rush pointed out that it was an authoritative style of leadership because Moses had to make every decision.21 After his encounter with Jethro his style of leadership changed to more of a consultative one.

Paul

Paul's vision was not only clear to him but also to his followers. Since his Damascus road experience, he knew he has been called by God to be a missionary.

Sanders observed that Paul was a missionary trail-blazer, leaving behind him a string of new Churches. It is a significant face that the greatest missionary advances of the last fifty years have followed the rediscovery or re-emphasis of Paul's missionary principles.22 It is because Paul's vision and principle of accomplishing that vision was so clear that long after he has gone people still followed his steps.

It can also be seen from the Acts narrative that Paul varied his leadership styles. For example, in the contention between himself and Barnabas over John Mark, Paul displayed an authoritative style of leadership. Most times he is also authoritative when dealing with issues in the Church. At other times he demonstrated a consultative style of leadership - in the issue that lead to the Jerusalem council. It can be seen that Paul's leadership was characteristic of a clear vision and changing leadership styles.

David

Two things are very clear in scripture about David. The first is his vision for Israel and the second his vision for God. David was a king of war and he led his army in battle against Israel's enemies and took the land God gave to them. He also lived his life in devotion to God. He had a vision to build a dwelling place for the Lord. Although God denied him this privilege, he made great preparations for this temple, which was later built by his son Solomon.

It is evident in scripture that David changed his leadership styles in accordance with changing situations. He displayed an authoritative leadership style when he led his men in battle. For example in the situation when Nabal refused to reward him and his men with food supply for protecting his servants and sheep in the fields. At other times he demonstrated a consultative style of leadership. When the biblical records are examined, one could clearly see that David's leadership show characteristics of a clear vision and a changing style of leadership.

Conclusion

In this article some of the characteristics of good leadership have been identified. This was done under the following headings: (a) the personal characteristics of the leader, the characteristics of the followers and the leader's task or commission. These divisions were based on the findings of Anthony D'souza, which revealed that leadership involves an inter-relationship between three elements - the leader, the followers and the task to be accomplished. Six characteristics of good leadership were identified and they are as follows:

a) The personal qualities of the leader, which give him his leadership ability.

b) The leaders conduct or character which is formed by the godly life he is living.

c) The willingness of the people to follow without coercing.

d) The reproducing of leaders from the followers.

e) The clear vision of the leader, which eventually becomes the people's vision and

focus in the ministry.

f) The variations in the style of leadership to meet different leadership situations.

Six leaders, whose leaderships have been characterized as good, were used as test cases to see whether the qualities mentioned can be found in their leadership. It was proved that these characteristics were evident in each of their leadership. There are many more qualification of good leadership, but it is primary importance to have a balance in the three major areas identified. An individual can have all the good qualities of leadership and yet his leadership may not be good because of his style of leadership. Also, the people may not follow the leader because his vision is not clear to them. Good leadership does not only depend on the leader or on the follower or the style of leadership but on all three of these qualities. When there is a balance in these three areas, leadership becomes exceptional and that was the kind of leadership Nehemiah, Moses, Paul and David portrayed.

END NOTES

1. Anthony D'souze, Being A Leader (Achimota: African Christian Press, 1990),

p 25.

2. John White, Excellence In Leadership: the Pattern of Nehemiah (Leicester:

Intervarsity Press, 1986), p 10-11.

3. Ibid, p 14.

4. Joyce Peel, A Journey Through The Old Testament: The Story of God's

Relationship With Man Woman and the World (Oxford: The Bible Reading

Fellowship, 1993), p 35.

5. Ibid, p 41.

6. Ibid. p 41.

7. John Stott, Men With A Message: An Introduction To New Testament And Its

Writers (Suffolk: Evangelical Literature Trust, 1996), P 86.

8. Ted W. Engstrom, The Making of A Christian Leader (Michigan: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1976), p 30.

9. John C Maxwell, The 21 Most Powerful Minutes In A Leader's Day; Revitalize Your

Spirit an Empower Your Leadership (Nashville: Thomas Nelson's Publisher, 2000), p 4.

10. John C Maxwell, The 21 Most Powerful Minutes In A Leader's Day: Revitalize Your

Spirit and Empower Your Leadership (Nashville: Thomas Nelsons Publishers, 2000),

P 68.

11. Oswald Sanders, Spiritual Leadership (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), p 166.

12. Oswald Sanders, Paul the Leader: A Vision For Christian Leadership Today (Glasgow:

Kingsway Publication Ltd., 1983), p 42.

13. Eugene H Merrill, I Samuel: The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Colorado: Chariot

Victor Publishing, 1985), p 449.

14. John Haggai, Lead On! Leadership That Endures In A Changing World (London: Word

Publishing, 1986), p 16.

15. Ibid. p 17.

16. Anthony D'souza, Being A Leader (Achimota: African Christian Press, 1990), p 36

17. Myron Rush; Management: A Biblical Perspective (Illinois: Victor Books, 1996), p 219.

18. Myron Rush, Management: A Biblical Approach (Illinios: Victor Books, 1983), p 226.

19. Joyce Peel, Journey Through the Old Testament: The Story of God's Relationship with

Man. Woman and the World (oxford: The Bible Reading Fellowship, 1993), p 141.

20. Ted W Engstrom, The Making of A Christian Leader: How To Develop Management

And Human Relations Skills (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), p

21. Myron Rush, Management: A Biblical Perspective (Illinois: Victor Books, 1976), p 220.

22. Oswald Sanders, Paul: A Vision For Christian Leadership Today (Glasgow: Kingsway

Publication Ltd, 1983), p 967.

END NOTE

1. Anthony D'souza, Being A Leader (Achimota: African Christian Press, 1990),

p 25.

2. John White, Excellence In Leadership: the Pattern of Nehemiah (Leicester:

Intervarsity Press, 1986), p 10-11.

3. Ibid. p 14.

4. Joyce Peel, A Journey Through The Old Testament: The Story of God's

Relationship With Man Woman and the World (Oxford: The Bible Reading

Fellowship, 1993), p 35.

Dr. Leopold A. Foullah is currently Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department of Philosophy & Religious Studies, Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone, Mount Aureol, Freetown. He is also the General Superintendent of the Missionary Church of Africa, Sierra Leone Conference. He holds the following academic qualifications: Dip.Th., B.Th., M.Div., M.Th. and Ph.D (Leeds University, England). He is interested in Biblical Theology and Social Issues. He is External Examiner for both The Evangelical College of Theology (TECT), Jui and the Sierra Leone Theological College & Church Training Centre in Freetown. He is married with three children.