In previous posts, I’ve reflected on the role of board and staff; concluded that the parish minister is psychologically central to congregations; and detailed what I think the parish minister’s role should be in mid-size congregations. Obviously, all of what I’ve been saying are my personal opinions, but now I want to get really personal — I want to talk my own feelings about what I feel should be the personal characteristics of the ideal parish minister.

The cover story of the 17 November 2009 issue of Christian Century magazine is titled “Can Introverts Lead?” When I saw this cover, and read this question, I thought to myself, “Boy, I hope so; otherwise I am so screwed” — because I’m definitely an introvert, my job requires me to be a leader, so I had better hope that introverts can lead.

Adam S. McHugh, who wrote the article, is an introverted minister, and he has wrestled with this issue himself. He writes: “There may be no other feature of American life that contains as much bias towards extroversion as leadership…. Psychologist and author Marti Olsen Laney cites a study that was repeated three times with the same findings: when asked if they would prefer their leaders to be introverted or extroverted, both introverts and extroverts chose an extrovert as ‘their ideal self and ideal leader’.” McHugh says that other studies have shown that successful leaders are characterized by five attributes: openness to experience, emotional stability, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and — you guessed it — extroversion.

Mc Hugh goes on to outline what he perceives as the particular “mold of leadership” held by our American “collective cultural subconscious.” He says that Americans want their leaders to be charismatic, dominant, gregarious, and to be superstars. Since ministers are leaders, we Americans tend to expect our ministers to have all these characteristics. McHugh talked to one solo pastor who said, “Most church cultures have expectations for pastors that no single person could ever fulfill. They want sermons that are … deep, thoughtful, and well-prepared, but they also want the outgoing, extroverted, people person, as well as the CEO mover and shaker. These seldom come in one person. This may be one reason why so many drop out of [parish] ministry in five or ten years.”

So then McHugh challenges these notions of leadership. Citing Jim Collin’s book Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t, McHugh states that “glitzy, dynamic, high-profile CEOs are actually a hindrance to the long-term success of their corporations.” Instead, McHugh believes that the leaders who will contribute to the long-term success of institutions “display compelling modesty, are self-effacing, and understated…. [they] display a workmanlike diligence [and] set up their successors for even greater success….” Instead of relying on charisma, McHugh wants leaders who are thoughtful and reflective, and who help their organizations learn, adapt, and reflect critically on their own behavior.

At the end of his essay, McHugh tells us he wants us leaders who engage in “sensemaking,” that is, who help people to make sense of what they are doing together, so that people understand what they are doing, and become more committed to what they are doing.

I think McHugh’s essay gives a good capsule description of what a parish minister should do as the chief executive of a congregation. We don’t want parish ministers who are glitzy, egocentric CEO-types. We don’t want parish ministers who rely on charisma, dominance, gregariousness, and superstardom. Instead, we want modest, self-effacing, understated, diligent ministers who set up their successors for even greater success. Above all, we want parish ministers who lead by making sense of things, so that we make sense of what it is that we are doing together, and through understanding become more committed to what we are doing.

I don’t want to limit this type of leadership to introverts, however — and I think McHugh is a little off-base on this point. We can’t equate extroversion with dominance, egocentricity, and CEO-like behavior; there are plenty of extroverts who are modest, self-effacing, and understated. Similarly, both extroverts and introverts can engage in “sensemaking” — which he has convinced me is one of the key tasks of the minister as leader.

As I reflect on what I want a minister to do as a leader in a local congregation, above all I want the minister to be a “sensemaker” — to help me make sense out of what we are doing, so that I can renew and deepen my commitment to our shared work. Next on my list: I want the minister to work towards setting up his/her successor for future success (which may mean that I don’t know how good a minister really is until s/he has been away from the congregation for ten years). Next on my list: I want the minister to be modest, understated, and self-effacing, so that (to paraphrase the old Taoist teaching) when the minister is gone, the people will say, We have done it ourselves.

So that’s what I want a minister to be like. That’s how I want the parish minister to relate to the board: as a “sensemaker.” That’s also why I want the minister to be head of staff: as a “sensemaker” who helps staff deepen their commitment to the congregation’s goals. That’s how I want the parish minister to be psychologically central: as a modest and self-effacing person who will help the people to understand that they did it themselves.

Well, this is just another ideal; as an ideal, I’m sure it’s impossible to reach. We’re stuck with us ordinary human ministers in ordinary human congregations, where there are no absolutes, where we just do the best we can. And even though the charismatic glitzy CEO-type minister (Rick Warren, Joel Osteen) is probably preferred by most Americans, I’d rather be in a congregation that valued the ideal of a self-effacing, diligent, understated, introverted, “sensemaking” minister.