It's a small world, when you're thinking and seeking ideas of value and truth that resonates and . . . anyway, here's a post from Mark Berry a pioneer leader who writes Way Out West from the UK. He's quoting my friend and co-thinker here in NZ, Tash McGill.
Follow the links and you'll be introduced to some great people who have links to thinkers they read and you'll inevitably trip over some good ideas on the way. Feel free to leave comments and links to other blog we might enjoy.
"Are you a Medicine Man or a Chief? Mike Frost (Small Boat Big Sea - Forge) spent some time yesterday talking about a theory known as "Medicine Man Chief"... I was going to explain it, but then whilst Googling I found a blog post from Tash McGill that puts it nice and succinctly!
The Chief
Tribes arrange themselves around chiefs. The stronger the chief, the bigger the tribe. Chiefs have mini-chiefs. They are found at the centre of the tribe - the Chieftains house is always in the centre - the focal point of the tribe's direction and leadership. Tribespeople need a chief, and chiefs need tribespeople in order to be a chief at all. The loyalty is chief to tribe, tribe to chief. They are dependant on one another for security.The Medicine Man
The medicine man never lives within the tribe. He lives on the outskirts, outside the city gates or simply travels in a nomadic fashion between tribes that require his services. The medicine man isn't loyal to the tribe or to the chief. He's loyal to the Higher Truth. His is the business of healing. Of bringing truth to the tribe. As such, he has great influence and power. He can be magnetic and charismatic, just like a chief, but his loyalty to truth (which is ultimately for the sake and care of the tribespeople) will always be his highest priority.Go and read Tash's Post for more on the "story"... Mike's perspective was that we need to be aware of the role and significance of both... and of who we are... a Chief on their own means the community quickly becomes institutionalised; pragmatic, following good practice but unable to improvise or take creative risks... a Medicine (wo)man on their own leads to chaos and confusion, a constant state of reinvention and restlessness. The Medicine man can be a thorn in the side of the Chief, never allowing the community to become too self-satisfied, to become petrified or institutionalised... most Pioneers are Medicine men Mike suggests... but there comes a time in the life of a new community that Chiefs have to emerge to begin to stabilise living conditions and practice. The question becomes then, does the Medicine man move on to start new things leaving the Chief to build the structures (to move the community from the Storming and Forming toward the Norming) or should the Medicine man hang around, be part of the "leadership" preventing the community from entering the first stages of decline by becoming unresponsive and inflexible, losing its creativity and dynamism? But the Medicine man is not a "moaner" who always sees the grass on the other side as more lush and fulsome, they are more idealistic, more visionary than that.
As ever with "models" it seems somewhat simplistic, but there also seems to be some use in the narrative... I can see that my role has elements of both, but I guess most I am a Medicine man, a pioneer who gets excited by challenging institution etc. but needs to find the Chief, the do-er, the pragmatist in the community... I do live within the tribe and therefore I want to question the story (above) of the itinerant Medicine man, I see much more of a complimentary dynamic where different elements/people come into play in leadership in a fluid but mutually involved way - for me the Medicine man needs to be part of the community, feeling, listening, learning from the community in it's every day life, not someone who reflects from the outside. It occurred to me that we are perhaps blind to the Medicine men, that when we think of leadership we think of the Chief? When one looks at the attitude of modern writers/bloggers etc. to the likes of Brian McLaren, they see a Chief - when perhaps he is a Medicine man, someone who does not want to run the village, but does want to ask the awkward questions, prompt new thinking etc.? Perhaps "our" model of leadership has become defined by Chiefdom, we expect to see a leader who leads, who demands loyalty, who manages life and business, etc. perhaps we have marginalised and even exiled the Medicine men, the Apostles, Prophets etc. the "Awkward Squad"? Do we cripple Chiefs by putting all the weight of leadership on their shoulders, fine when things are going well but what when challenges to change or rethink arise?
I also began to wonder whether there are communities themselves that manifest as Medicine men for the wider community? Communities who perhaps do not seem loyal to the Chief, communities that are prepared to be a thorn in the side, idealistic, who live to be creative and to ask difficult questions? And yet do see themselves as a part of the wider community, related to it but living on its edge... Perhaps communities of exiled Medicine men are gathering together because they have no place to live? If so we shouldn't necessarily worry about sustainability etc. those are Chief issues, we should talk about the impact that they have on the wider community - do they bring new thinking, do they challenge structures and institutions that have themselves become idols? Do they stir up petrified communities to re-examine purpose, vision and mission? How do we make space for Medicine men and Medicine man communities in the Chief's world?"Agree? Disagree? Variations we should consider?
Comments