Some leaders have been labeled as good and have been used as challenges for others to imitate. This description, however, raises an obvious question: what assumptions expressed this leadership as good? It is certain that some leaders who do not avoid this class have good qualities that others can imitate. For this reason it is important not only to know that leadership has been characterized as good but also to know the qualities as appropriate as well. According to Anthony D Souza, Leadership Leads Between Three Factors:
(a) The Quality and Needs of Followers
(b) The Group's Needs and Expectations
(c) The Requirements or Requirements of the State.1
It is possible to see what D & S; Souza has said that the first episode deals with the personality of leaders; his second, his followers and a third, task to accomplish.
Based on what has been said, the characteristics of good leadership are defined according to the following headings: –
(a) Personal Characteristics of Leaders
(b) Attributes of Followers
(c) Projects of the Leader or Project. Selected leaders in the Bible, whose leaders
have been classified as good will be the basis of this presentation.
(a) Personal Characteristics of the Leader
It can be seen from the scriptures that God was very selective in choosing leaders for specific tasks. God specifically chose Nehemiah to spell the rebuilding of the Jerusalem wall. Moses brought bondage to Israel in Egypt. Paul, a pioneering missionary pain to the Gentiles and David, which cousin would have a lasting power to replace Saul. These men certainly had qualities that were necessary for good leadership. God acknowledged these qualities as an opportunity when he chose them.
This section discusses some of the features of leaders mentioned above in a more general way. The goal is to demonstrate that it has been recognized that the good personal qualities of leaders, when led by leadership, are the characteristics of good leadership.
In the reflection of Nehemiah, John White said that "Nehemiah's book serves primarily to develop a part of God's plan about his people." 2. Two important things face John White's resolution of the leadership of Nehemiah that characterizes a good leadership. The first is the nature and behavior of Nehemiah himself as a leader and the latter is his leadership. White also agreed that probably one of the reasons why Nehemiah was chosen as a cup of tea was due to a good trained personal trait like a stable character. Such a well-trained, stable stick was not only Nehemiah's only effort. This can be seen in the following statement: "God used Nehemiah's active prayer life to shape him into divine leaders." 3. As a divine leader, Nehemiah was dependent upon God as he received personal support and encouragement, which encouraged him to succeed. Nehemiah reached the goal of the ministry and his leadership has been described as good. His good character and behavior and his leadership leadership were the personal characteristics of his leadership, which enabled him to succeed.
Moses & # 39; youth training as a recognized son of Pharaoh's daughter was a custom of leadership. The frequency that led to his escape from Egypt revealed that he knew his leadership role before God called him leadership. However, it took 40 years from the time he fled from Egypt before God called him leadership. Joyce Peel noted that Moses learns how to be a shepherd. Long years after shepherds taught him the patience he needed to be the leader of the cantankerous children of Israel.4 This observation by Joyce Peel shows that personal quality of patience in Moses & # 39; life was characteristic of his good leadership. This quality was evident in Moses' life 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 to worship the golden calf. He responded to the table written with the commandment of God and, with an encouraging cry, "Who is on the side of the Lord?" Calling the faithful Levites in the massacre.5 The next day he exhorted the people and then broke the mountain to pray for their forgiveness .6
Patience was not the only personal quality Moses had. But it has been used to show that good personal qualities, when used for leadership, lead to positive results. Therefore, good personal qualities are good leadership qualities.
Paul made great achievements in the ministry that God called upon him. Performance should, however, be regarded as indicating personal abilities or qualities that a leader has made it possible for him to succeed. What were these qualities in Paul that made him successful? First, it would be important to examine some of Paul's accomplishments. He made a remarkable impact on his missionary work and also in his writing. John Stott found that thirteen letters written to Paul in the New Testament are almost a quarter of the entire New Testament. It was a redefinition of Paul's theology that led to the transformation of the sixteenth century, a theological revolution that led to violence in the Roman Catholic Church and led to the birth of all modern Protestant Churches.7 Paul's educational background waved him to this advantage. It should not be unnoticed that this great apostle used everything he had personally achieved during his years of development in the lead role. Using his personal qualities to achieve positive results in his leadership was characteristic of Paul's good leadership.
According to Ted W. Engstrom, David the second king of Israel was a bad contradiction to Saul the first king.8 It was because of the noble, generous and adventurous qualities that he showed in his leadership. This comparison indicates that David's leadership was not only better than Saul, but his leadership can be characterized by good. John C. Maxwell also compared two leaders. In answer to a question he suggested, "Why did Saul fail to be king of Israel, but David, who seemed weaker?" He said it was because of David's attitude. Unlike Saul, David sought David to become a better leader. 9 It is clear from these two authors that David's personal qualities, especially his attitude to being a always superior leader, were the characteristics of his good leadership. Having talent or qualities is one thing, but applying them to leadership role is something else. David attended leadership role in leadership and acting as leader.
Some good leadership features can be identified by followers. Before defining these features, it would be useful to examine some leadership definitions, mentioning the relationship between Leaders and Followers. According to Oswald Sanders, leadership has an effect. It is the ability of single people to have influence others to follow his leadership. Ted W. Enngstrom defines leadership in just two words – leaders lead. Myron Rush also possesses a definition of leadership and his definition of leadership as a "leader" that reflects himself on followers and "These definitions refer to the relationship between leaders and followers, but largely what they consider to be the goal of the union." Oswald Sanders and Engstrom emphasizes the following issues, highlighting one of the characteristics of good leadership – willing followers. If you take into account the Dosas points mentioned in the introduction, one of the elements of leadership is necessary and the expectations of the group, and it says that one of the reasons because people will readily follow their leader because their needs and expectations are met. Another symptom can be identified by the Myron Rush definition that leads the leader of the followers. It is a guarantee for the continuation of that ministry. Four Leaders, Nehemiah, Moses, Paul and David, whose leaders have been classified as good, ve now used as a test to identify the two characteristics.
When Nehemiah returned to Jerusalem from Susa, he first evaluated the personal condition of Jerusalem's destruction. Then he called the people and shared his vision. The Bible stated that the people answered Nehemiah (see Neh 2: 8). This clearly shows that the beginning of his mission Nehemiah had willing followers. They were willing to follow because they realized that the vision was good and that some of their needs as a community were met. Maxwell noticed 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 offered recognition of subordinate leaders whom he sent responsibility for. This, as he said, opens leadership skills for others.11 Therefore, we can rightly say that Nehemiah has not only wanted followers but also leaders reflected in the ministry.
When Moses returned to Egypt to release the Israelites, they were first excited. But when Moses made the situation worse, they were no longer excited about freedom. But at the end of the ninth plague, they realized that Moses would be sent to deliver God's servant. They followed Moses & # 39; Instructions for watching Easter and then willingly follow him when he brought them out of Egypt.
There are also written indications that leaders were produced under Moses & # 39; leadership. One example is that Joshua, who replaced him. Joshua, who had been a personal assistant to Moses, suggested Moses to become a leader. Moses & # 39; A leader thus had the characteristics of willing followers and to recreate leaders.
Even when he was "Paul of the Age," he held a model and leader of a group of young youngsters. The affection he turned on his followers & # 39; The heart was reflected in tears that flowed when he told them they would not see him anymore (Acts 20: 36-38) .12 Sanders revealed in the passage that the apostle Paul had the characteristics of the will of followers. His ministry had a major impact on the lives of many, who were also unwilling to exchange their leadership to another.
Like Lord Jesus, Paul invested his life in a few people because he expected a lot of them. These were the people he took on his missionary tours. Two of the people, Timothy and Titus became leaders of the local church. That's why, like Moses, Paul had the character of willing followers and producing leaders.
David traveled to fame when he killed Goliath, the Philistine giant. Eugene H. Merrill, who told David's victory, reserves his growing popularity among the people, worsening his relationship with Saul because the king became jealous jealous of the new hero of Israel.13 It is obvious that David had a major follow-up. People followed him because of the potential they saw in him. They knew him as a great leader, even though public recognition was granted to him.
David ruled Israel about a year ago. 40 years and when he stood down as king Solomon, his son had already been impressed by that position. So, like Nehemiah, Moses and Paul, David's leadership was characterized by willing followers and production leaders.
(c) The Leader's Mission or Commitment
It can be seen from the scripture that God always puts a special project or mission to all who he calls. Some characteristics of good leadership can be defined in the way the leaders put forward to accomplish their task or task. There are two things that are primarily important for the way the leader achieved his job. These are his point of view and his political style. Leader guidance and management style can be symptoms of both good and bad leadership. However, in this chapter, the purpose of shoe is how these two symptoms can be a good leadership character.
According to John Haggai, viewpoints are important because it is a key factor in effective leadership.14 A leader can have a good vision, yet his vision does not affect much of his leadership. Haggai points out what a leader needs to do to make his vision to promote good leadership. First, he says that both leaders and followers need to seize the vision. It is the leader of the leader to help followers understand and accept the vision. Secondly, both leaders and followers need to commit themselves to working on the vision. This action involves designing a goal plan to fulfill the vision. In this way, both leaders and followers are prepared to cope with difficulties and eliminate obstacles. It is in this way that vision can be characteristic of good leadership.15
The other factors mentioned that can be characterized by good leadership are a style of leadership. Presidents have received different categories of authors. Anthony D Souza is a group leader in a continuation with one end described as project-oriented and the other as a network.16 Myron Rush also agreed with D & S; Souza's leadership style could be seen in continuity, but he used different descriptive terms for different styles within continuity.17 Four styles used in the Rush Continuity are: Dictator, Public, Advising, and Participant. These authors argue for styles were not pointing at the best but also showing the importance of all of them. The point they were making was that a good leadership had the characteristics of different leaders. The leader must be flexible in changing circumstances. When he is able to adjust his style to a changing situation, his leadership becomes a characteristic of good leadership. Myron Rush gave an example of situations where certain leads to leadership are appropriate. He said that dictatorship style is right in an emergency or when people live is at stake; advisory style in implementing a plan for a department or organization; public style when employees stop abuse of power and participation style when people are able to fulfill their regular duties.18
Four leaders mentioned in this article, whose leaders have been classified as good, will now be used as a test case to determine Whether the points given here are the characteristics of their leaders.
Joyce Peel, who wrote about Nehemiah's mission to build the walls of Jerusalem, said that extinct countries need inspired leaders who can unite and galvanize their people in action. This person was Nehemiah.19 These words not only revealed that Nehemiah had clear views of his assignments but could also let his followers understand the vision and commit themselves to respond to it. This was the only reason they could rebuild the walls in fifty-two days. Many Jews climbed over the ruins of the city wall in Jerusalem, but it saw one man who united the people and kept the hope of changing the situation. Engstrom also pointed to the fact that the people taught Nehemiah a vision and responded to it when he pointed out: "One has only read Nehemiah's book to find out the importance of people at work. Lost perspectives of the overall goal and overall picture. They could keep this focus by use all the people and professionals trained to do specific work. "20 Nehemiah had a characteristic characteristic of an obvious vision that was pursued by himself and his followers.
It can be seen from Nehemiah that Nehemiah used a leadership style leadership when he came to Jerusalem to begin the work. However, in the last sections of the book, when things were going wrong, his management style changed into public. As a result, Nehemiah's leader has the characteristics of the vision and the changing leadership form.
Moses has a clear vision when he returned to Egypt to lead the Israelites from slavery. The Israelites wanted to be free, but they suspected the possibility that Moses would let them go. But when they made sure that Moses was a servant of God, who would deliver them from slavery, they obeyed his command and later went out of Egypt after him.
Biblical evidence also shows that Moses changed his leadership styles. Before Jethro came to visit him, he rented a heavy burden on himself. Myron Rush noted that there was a public way of leadership because Moses had to make all decisions.21 After meeting with Jethro, his management style changed to more advisors.
Paul's vision was not only clear to him but also for his followers. As he learned his experience in Damascus, he knew that he had been called by God to be a missionary.
Sanders stated that Paul was a missionary and played behind him a band of new churches. It is a great face that the greatest missionary progress in the last fifty years has followed the revival or revision of Paul's missionary principles.22 That's because Paul's vision and principle of achieving that vision was so clear that long after he left, people still followed his stages.
It is also clear from Acts's narrative that Paul changed his management style. For example, in disagreement between Barnabas and John Mark, Paul showed official leadership. Sometimes he is also public when he talks about matters in the church. At other times, he showed advisory style leadership – in the case that led to the Jerusalem Council. It can be seen that Paul's leadership was characteristic of clear vision and changed leadership styles.
Two things are very clear in the scripture about David. The first is his vision for Israel and his second vision for God. David was king in war, and he led his army in battle against the enemies of Israel and took the land God to them. He also lived in harmony with 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, later built by Solomon's son.
It is obvious in script that David changed his governance in accordance with changed circumstances. He showed the official leadership style when he led his men in battle. For example, in the situation when Nabal refused to reward him and his people with food production to protect their servants and sheep on the fields. At other times, he showed advisory style leadership. When viewing the Biblical data, it can be clearly seen that David's leadership shows the characteristics of clear vision and change of leadership.
In this article, some characteristics of good leadership are defined. This was done according to the following headings: (a) personal characteristics of leaders, the characteristics of followers and project promoters. These divisions were based on Anthony D & Souza's findings, revealing that leadership understands the relationship between the three elements – leader, followers and tasks to be achieved. Six characteristics of good leadership were defined and are as follows:
a) The personal qualities of leaders who give him leadership skills.
b) Leaders lead or nature formed by the divine life he lives.
c) People's willingness to follow without forcibly.
d) Reproduction of followers from followers.
e) The clear vision of the leader, who eventually becomes the perspective of the people and
in the gospel.
f) Varieties in style leadership to meet different leadership situations.
Six leaders, whose leaders have been characterized as good, were used as examinations to see if they could be found in their leadership. It was proved that these symptoms were evident in each of their leadership. There are many more qualifications for good leadership, but it is first and foremost important to balance the three main areas that are defined. An individual can have all the good qualities of leadership and yet his leadership can not be good because of his management style. Also, people can not follow the leader because his view is not clear to them. Good leadership depends not only on the leader or follower or style leader but on all of these features. When there is a balance in these three areas, leadership will be unique and it was a kind of leadership of Nehemiah, Moses, Paul and David described.
1. Anthony D Souy, Leader (Achimota: African Christian Press, 1990)
2. John White, Excellence In Leadership: Nehemiah Patterns (Leicester:
Intervarsity Press, 1986), p. 10-11.
3. Ibid, p. 14.
4. Joyce Peel, Traveling Through the Old Testament: The History of God
Relationship with a Woman and the World (Oxford: Bible Story
Fellowship, 1993), p. 35.
5. Ibid, p. 41.
6. Ibid. p. 41.
7. John Stott, Men with Message: Introduction to the New Testament and
His Writers (Suffolk: Evangelical Literature Trust, 1996), p. 86.
8. Ted W. Engstrom, Making Christian Leaders (Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1976), p. 30.
9. John C Maxwell, 21 the most powerful minutes of the summit; Reuse
Your Spirit to Strengthen Your Leadership (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publisher, 2000), p. 4.
10. John C Maxwell, 21 Leading Minutes of Leadership: Reusing
Spirit and Strengthening Your Leadership (Nashville: Thomas Nelsons Publishers, 2000),
11. Oswald Sanders, Spiritual Leaders (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), p. 166.
12. Oswald Sanders, Paul Leader: A Vision for Christian Leaders Today (Glasgow:
Kingsway Publication Ltd., 1983), p. 42.
13. Eugene H Merrill, I Samuel: The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Colorado: Wagon
Victor Publishing, 1985), p. 449.
14. John Haggai, Lead On! Leader Ending in a Changed World (London: Word
Edition, 1986), p.
15. Ibid. p. 17.
16. Anthony D Souza, Leader (Achimota: African Christian Press, 1990), p. 36
17. Myron Rush; Command: Biblical Perspectives (Illinois: Victor Books, 1996), p. 219.
18. Myron Rush, Management: A Biblical Approach (Illinios: Victor Books, 1983), p. 226.
19. Joyce Peel, Journey in the Old Testament: The History of God in Relationship with
Man. Woman and the World (Oxford: Bible Study Society, 1993), p. 141.
20. Ted W Engstrom, Making Christian Leaders: How to Develop Management
and Human Relations (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), p
21. Myron Rush, Board: Biblical Viewpoints (Illinois: Victor Books, 1976), p. 220.
22. Oswald Sanders, Paul: A Vision For Christian Leadership Today (Glasgow: Kingsway
Publication Ltd, 1983), p. 967.
1. Anthony D Souza, Leader (Achimota: African Christian Press, 1990)
2. John White, Excellence in Leadership: Nehemia Pattern (Leicester:
Intervarsity Press, 1986), p. 10-11.
3. Ibid. p. 14.
4. Joyce Peel, Traveling Through the Old Testament: The History of God
Relationship with a Woman and the World (Oxford: Bible Story
Fellowship, 1993) p. 35.