Broader-Narrower, Greater-Lesser

With 11 elements of community to build in so many possible contexts, it is helpful to clarify the terms we use to describe the exercise of leadership skill in particular cases.

How, for example, might we distinguish between Person A who builds trust in a setting and Person B who builds shared vision, shared purpose, respect, caring, and participation in another? My suggestion here is that we speak of A as demonstrating a narrower range of leadership skills than B or B as exhibiting a broader range of leadership skills than A; not better or worse, not greater or lesser, not more important or less so, but narrower or broader depending on the numbers of elements being built. What is important is that the terms narrow and broad in this suggested usage say nothing about the quality of the effort being made. Building one community element in a setting may well require greater effort than building several elements in another, so breadth should not be understood as implying anything more than scope.

Since it is common to hear individuals described as "great leaders," we will also help to keep things straight by deciding at the outset just how to distinguish instances of greater or lesser leadership, or the greater or lesser exercise of leadership skills. In this case, I think it is most useful to regard greater leadership in terms of both the breadth of leadership skills being exercised and the extent to which a particular setting features resources and opportunities for community to be created. A very fractious or disconnected group, with little history of collaboration, perhaps living or working in a larger setting that solely rewards individual accomplishment, would be an example of such a "resource-poor" setting. Attempting to build a broader array of community elements in this setting would thus evidence greater leadership than attempting to build a narrower range of elements in this setting or attempting to build a broader range of elements in a more resource-rich setting.

Ability, Position, and Leadership

To avoid confusion, it's helpful to distinguish leadership skills (i.e., skills at building community) from knowledge or ability in a specific area and position with respect to a task or an organization.

It is unlikely that a banker, for example, will be perceived as a leader in the profession without the knowledge or ability to perform banking tasks. Similarly, an athlete will find it difficult to lead his or her team without the ability to perform on the field. Neither ability nor knowledge in themselves are elements of leadership, however. Rather, they are conditions or attributes that are likely to be necessary for an individual to build community effectively with others--in the workplace or on the team. They pave the way rather than ensure a successful march.

Position within a firm or on a team may also influence the opportunity for leadership. For this reason, presidents and quarterbacks may have the greatest chances of being perceived as leaders. Like knowledge or ability in a specific area, however, position is nothing more than a condition that may be necessary for community building. It is a fact, rather than a maudlin sentiment, that even a child may lead.

In sum, it may be easiest to build community in a neighborhood, school, or congregation when one (1) is knowledgeable of the setting and its needs and requirements; (2) is able to perform important and mundane tasks that are encountered daily in the setting; and (3) is in a nominal position of leadership, such as block captain, principal, or minister. But even with these advantages, one must understand and be able to use community-building skills to succeed.

These skills, which aim to create the 11 elements of community, are what comprise the essential ingredients of leadership.