The Leadership Style of King David Essay Sample

Take one leader in the Bible. other than Jesus. and measure his or her leading manner from utilizing the model of modern believing on leading and your ain theological contemplation.

Introduction

In her book “Leadership Can Be Taught” . Sharon Parks ( 2005. p. 3. ) suggests that the survey of leading is “important for the common good” in today’s “complex altering world” . The term “complex altering world” could easy be used to depict the clip covered by the early old ages of King David as described in 1 Samuel chapter 16 to 2 Samuel chapter 5. and 1 Chronicles chapter 11. This was the beginning of a disruptive Kingship for a dichotomous Israel. at a clip of continual external agitation from their enemies. It was a clip in which the type of leading would find the success or failure of the fledgeling state of Israel. Utilising modern-day leading theory. this paper will analyze the leading of David in his “wilderness years” whilst running from King Saul. peculiarly analyzing the manner he led and influenced a group made of societies castawaies into a squad. From this squad some of these “discontented debtors” ( 1 Samuel 22:2 ) would everlastingly be known among “David’s mighty men” ( 2 Samuel 23:8 – 39 ) .

Dumbrell ( 2002. p. 86 ) describes these old ages of David’s life as clip of “waiting patiently” . but on scrutiny of Scripture these appear to demo David in a clip of great personal testing and annealing. This clip was a clip of God fixing Israel’s new King ( Damazio. 1988. p. 134 ) . and a period of God “removing David’s crutches” ( Swindoll. 1997. pp 62-69 ) . This season of readying is a critical measure between a leader’s call. and the leader’s release into the to the full matured functional leading function ( Damazio. 1988. pp. 131-134 ) . To analyze David’s leading manner during this clip. this paper will foremost look briefly at the scriptural history of David’s flying from King Saul.

Overview of the Wilderness Old ages

In the predating chapters to 1 Samuel 20. David has been accepted into the King’s service. and has proved to be an exceeding ground forces leader. David’s leading over Saul’s military personnels is described as really undertaking oriented. The focal point of the histories of David’s conflicts in chapter 18 focal point really much on the success of David. and the awards he received from his fellow Israelites. The subject centres upon the completion of the undertaking and the wagess. David was so forced to fly King Saul. who had antecedently tried to kill David while he was in the King’s service by assorted agencies including throwing lances at him. directing him into an unsurvivable conflict. and commanding others to kill him. Klien ( 1983. p. 210. ) asserts that at no clip up to now hold David been either unpatriotic to King Saul or acted out of opportunism.

In Chapter 20. David flees after being warned to travel by the King’s boy. Jonathon. He seeks nutrient and arms from the priest Ahimelech. lying to him by stating that he was with others on particular King’s concern. David noticed Doeg the Edomite at that place. and even though he knew that he would state Saul that he had seen David being assisted by Ahimelech. he focuses on his ain demands. disregarding the possible branchings – a common defect of airy leaders ( Conger. 1990. pp. 44-46 ) . This lie consequences in non merely the slaying of Ahimelech and his household. but besides the slaying of all priests and their households populating in Nob. The lone subsister was the priest Abiathar. the boy of Ahimelech. David subsequently ( ch22. v33 ) takes duty for their deceases. This moral failure is most likely motivated by the fortunes he is in. instead than a deeper character defect. These motivational fortunes include loneliness and privacy. emphasis. isolation from all signifiers of answerability and emotional support. deficiency of relationship with God. and a deficiency of meaningful relationships from within his old followings ( Whetnam and Whetnam. pp. 16-21. 35. 47-51. 55 ) .

In 1 Sanuel 22 David is concealing in the cave of Adullam. fearing for his life. uncertain of how he was traveling to acquire out of his current state of affairs ( c. f. Psalms 57 & A ; 142 ) . He was in such fright for his ain safety that he sends his household ( who have joined him ) to the land of Moab. Verse three outlines the start of the forming of David’s set of reprobates ; “Also fall ining him was every individual who was in hurt. everyone who was in debt. and everyone who was discontented gathered to him. He became captain over them. And there were about four hundred work forces with him” ( NKJV ) . David is now the leader of an unstructured group of work forces discontented with the current political state of affairs.

They had been wronged and mistreated. were under a expletive of debt that they could non pay. They were non trained loyal soldiers. but like David. are so hard-pressed that they have no option left except to run and conceal from their jobs ( Swindoll. 1997. p. 74 ; Epp. 1965. p. 56 ) . Psalm 57 indicates that non merely were they concealing. but they were angry and desiring retribution on those they felt had wronged them. Keller ( 1985. pp. 120. 121 ) suggests that it was in life with these laden castawaies that David developed his compassion for those populating under subjugation.

Chapter 23 starts with an acclaim of the transmutation that David’s set of reprobate had undergone. It appears that David had been developing his work forces into an ground forces of soldiers. and although they had small religion in their ain abilities as warriors. they had faith in David as a leader. When he said that they could subvert the Philistines at Keilah. David’s ground forces ( now totaling 600 ) even followed him into what they believed was an impossible conflict. When God tells David that his fellow Israelites. the dwellers of Keilah. will bewray him and his work forces to Saul even after they had liberated the metropolis from the Philistines. David demonstrates to his work forces his finding to move righteously by non assailing his ain people. He shows the same righteousness towards the Israelites of Ziph when they besides betray him to Saul. In these Acts of the Apostless David demonstrated self denial for the intent of a greater good. He perceived the occupants of these metropoliss non as enemies. but as some of his ain people whom he will one twenty-four hours regulate and organize into a mighty cohesive state.

David following demonstrates unity to his work forces while concealing from Saul in a cave at the Rocks of the Wild Goats. when Saul enters the cave to alleviate himself. David’s work forces urge him to kill Saul. but David refuses to “stretch out his manus against the Lord’s anointed” ( 1 Samuel 24:6 ; 26:9. 11 ) . and alternatively in secret cuts off the corner of Saul’s robe as cogent evidence to Saul that he intends him no injury and has no animus toward him. David demonstrates the same unity at the hill of Hachilah ( 1 Samuel chapter 26 ) when he enters Saul’s cantonment by dark and steals his lance and H2O jug. In this case David invites Abishai ( who would subsequently be counted among the mighty work forces ) to travel with him on this hazardous venture.

The dedication of David’s work forces was tested at Ziklag. when they spoke of killing him in requital for their households and ownerships being taken prisoner by the Amalekites. The work forces blamed David as their leader for neglecting to supply the proper protection ( Klein. 1983. p. 281. 282 ) . but after David sought God through an prophet provided by Abiathar. the work forces rallied behind him once more as their leader to contend the Amalekites. In this case the dedication that David had engendered from his work forces was evident. that even in their heartache and choler. they trusted the opinion and leading of David enough to set their ain immediate feelings aside to work for a greater good. After the positive consequence from this onslaught on the Amalekites. David demonstrated a grade of equity in the distribution of the spoils of war. He recognised the built-in portion played by all members of his ground forces. Acting ethically. he ensures that those who stayed buttocks at Brook Besor due to exhaustion received an equal portion with those who were straight involved in the combat.

Leadership Style

How can these histories of David’s “wilderness years” be categorised into a leading manner? Northouse describes two behavioral dimensions of leading manner as being undertaking. and relationship ( Northouse. 2007. p. 69 ) ; being whether the leader is focussed on the demands of the people or the completion of the undertaking. The behavioral dimensions of leading can be evaluated on a Managerial Grid such as the one devised by Blake and Moulton ( Northouse. 2007. p. 74 ) . For the intent of this survey. the rating of David will get down with plotting his behavioral manner on a Managerial Grid to find his degree of undertaking versus people focus.

Concern FOR RESULTS

Key To Chart

A – David leads Saul’s military personnels.

B – David lies to Ahimelech.

C – David attacks the Philistines at Keilah.

D – David leaves the people of Keilah and Ziph in peace.

E – David takes Abishai with him into Saul’s cantonment.

F – David fights the Philistines. go forthing Ziklag undefended.

G – David fights the Amalekites and distributes spoils of war reasonably.

Using the manner questionnaire in Northouse ( 2007. p. 86 ) . charting points were assigned to the occasions of David’s pre-kingship life and plotted on the “Results vs. People” axis of the Managerial grid in figure 1. As the finer inside informations of David’s feats are non covered. merely a limited figure of inquiries could be efficaciously utilized. From measuring the grid. it could foremost be assumed that David was an timeserving leader. utilising whatever manner of leading would outdo fulfil his personal demands ( Northouse. 2007. pp. 75. 76 ) . If the information is evaluated in regard to clip. it can be seen that David moves from “authority – compliance” ( 9. 2 ) manner of leading to a manner that reflects a greater concern for people ; so on to what Blake et Al ( discussed in Northouse. 2007. p. 75 ) footings as “team management” . This manner reflects engagement. openness. clear precedences. committedness to the undertaking and the people. and a undermentioned through with actions. The exclusion in this timeline is the case when David fails to adequately protect the households of his military personnels shacking in Ziklag ; a affair that he shortly rectifies.

This manner of rating is a utile tool in quantifying David’s leading. as it gives a wide apprehension of his leading in relation to his followings. It besides allows visibleness in how that relationship develops from undertaking orientation to a balance of undertaking and people orientation over clip. This data gives sensible refute to Dumbrell’s earlier averment that this period was simply a clip of David “waiting patiently” . The probe of manner entirely nevertheless. fails to adequately measure up David’s leading manner in association with public presentation results such as morale. follower satisfaction. and follower growing and end accomplishment ( Northouse. 2007. pp. 79. 88 ) . To determine this making. of leader influence over follower growing. the theories of Leader-Member Exchange Theory ( LMX ) . Transactional Leadership. and Transformational Leadership will be utilized. There is non plenty informations available to use a psychodynamic attack to find a consistent form of moving in respect to David’s continually altering environment.

LMX theory utilises the acknowledgment and categorization of dyadic relationships between leader and the persons in the group of followings into one of two groups. These groups are called the “in group” and the “out-group” . Did David hold a choice group with which he had particular dyadic relationships? The fact that some of the work forces recorded as being with David in his are ulterior portion of the choice group of “mighty men” who “strengthened themselves with him [ David ] in his kingdom” ( 1 Chronicles 11:10 ) suggests that there was such a group. This is farther reinforced by the conversation and attendant action between David. Ahimelech. and Abishai ( 1 Samuel 26:6-12 ) ; where David invites them to travel with him to Saul’s cantonment. and Abishai. who is one of the “mighty men” . accepts the challenge to put on the line his life with his leader. The deepness of that dyadic relationship can subsequently be observed when Abishai risks his ain life to support David against Goliath’s brother ( 2 Samuel 21:17 ) .

Transactional and transformational leading behaviors are two aspects of leading manner which address the manner in which the leader interacts with their followings ( Bass and Avolio. 1990. p. ; 1995. p. ; Northouse. 2007. p. 176 ) . Transactional leaders utilise an attack of making just exchange relationships with their subsidiaries by placing their demands and offering exchange wagess for acceptable consequences. This can non be seen in the leading of David. as when the castawaies joined him ab initio in the cave he had no wagess to offer. and there is no grounds of management-by-exception. . Transformational leading goes beyond minutess and improves followers’ committedness by act uponing their demands. values. and self-esteem ; handling them holistically.

An declarative consequence is followings accomplishing more than what would hold been expected of them ( Northouse. 2007. pp. 175. 176 ) . The transformational attack raises the degree of motive and morality in both the leader and follower. and is characterised by a leader with strong moral criterions who transcends their ain ego involvement for the greater good. The behavior of the transformational leader can be classified into four dimensions: idealised influence / personal appeal. inspirational motive. rational stimulation. and individualized consideration ( Bass and Avolio 1995. p. ; Northouse pp. 181-184 ) . To find if David was a transformational leader. his actions will be characterised against these four dimensions.

Idealised Influence / Charisma

David demonstrated to his followings a high criterion of moral and ethical values which transcended his ain demands for a greater good. This can be seen in the sparing of Saul’s life ( twice ) . the protecting of Keilah from plunderers with no promise of wages. go forthing the treachery by the citizens of Keilah and Ziph unavenged. and in guaranting that the spoils of war from the conflict with the Amalekites was reasonably distributed.

Inspirational Motivation ( IM ) .

In taking his work forces to assail the Philistines at Keilah. when they were afraid to even go forth the privacy of their concealment topographic point. is a presentation of David’s IM. David has sought an reply from God. and has used that reply to actuate the military personnels into action. ensuing in them accomplishing more than they had of all time expected. An expected consequence of IM is that followings move beyond their ain opportunism for the benefit of the greater good ( Northouse. 2007. p. 183. 184 ) . This is seen in the work forces following David into conflict once more against the Amalekites instead than move out of their ain choler. Looking at the slaying of Abner at the custodies of David’s “mighty men” Joab and Abishai ( 2 Samuel 3:30 ) casts uncertainty upon any permanent consequence of such moral alteration. although there is no record of Joab. the 1 who really committed the slaying. of all time holding been in David’s “boot camp” in the wilderness.

Intellectual Stimulation

During his wilderness old ages. there is non a great trade of informations available that supports invention. This would be partly due to the cultural restraints that typify a monarchically lead state. every bit good as being due to the cultural trait of uncertainness turning away of middle-eastern civilizations ( Northouse. 2007. pp. 306. 312 ) . Reading of 2 Samuel chapter 23 and 1 Chronicles Chapter 19 records that subsequently in David’s harness his “mighty men” . being leaders of military personnels fought innovatively.

Individualised Consideration

In taking Abishai with him into Saul’s cantonment. and in sing the demands of those left buttocks at Brook Besor. David demonstrated individualized consideration.

In consideration of the standards so far discussed. David’s leading during his “wilderness years” can be seen as one of patterned advance ; taking a quantum spring from a leading manner that appears consequences oriented and monarchal. to a transactional 1 that ( by and large ) shows a balance between consequences and people. This is demonstrated in his set of castawaies executing beyond what anyone. including themselves would hold expected. In his dyadic relationships. David utilised LMX to construct into the lives of a select docile few who would reflect his possible ( Maxwell. 1998. pp. 109-119 ) . thereby efficaciously reproducing himself as a leader and a “giant killer” ; a trait that Maxwell ( 1998. pp. 133-141 ) identifies as one of the “laws of leadership” . David’s moral criterions. although non perfect. were such that they provided a positive influence to his followings and challenged them to alter their ideals.

After larning at Nob the importance of seeking the Lord in all determinations. David made wont of maintaining God at the centre of his determination devising. and look intoing these spiritually based determinations with Abiathar ; thereby non merely seeking God. but besides seeking the wise advocate of another who can besides keep him accountable. This combination would move as a battler against farther moral failure ( Whetham and Whetham. pp. 16-21. 35. 87-93 ) . It is easy to look at David’s weaknesss and inquire how God saw a “man after His ain heart” ; but when the alteration of bosom that David went through and the manner in which He allowed his leading to be “God lead” and morally based is considered. it is easy to see why David is frequently seen as one of Israel’s greatest leaders.

Bibliography

Bass. B. M. & A ; Avolio. B. ( 1990 ) . _Transformational leading development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire_ . Palo Alto. Calcium: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Bass. B. M. & A ; Avolio. B. ( 1995 ) . _MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire_ . Technical Report. Redwood City CA. : Mind Garden.

Conger. Jay A. ( 1990 ) . The Dark Side of Leadership. Elsiever Science Publishing Company Inc. . New York. USA.

Damazio. Frank. ( 1988 ) . _The Making of a Leader_ . Trilogy Productions. Portland. Oregon. USA.

Dumbrell. William J. ( 2002 ) . _The Faith of Israel: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament_ . Baker Academic. Grand Rapids. USA.

Epp. Theodore H. ( 1965 ) . _David: A adult male After God’s Own Heart_ . The Good News Broadcasting Association. Lincoln. Nebraska. USA.

Keller. W. Phillip. ( 1985 ) . _David: The Time of Saul’s Tyranny_ . Word Books. Milton Keys. England.

Klein. Ralph W. ( 1983 ) . _Word Biblical Commentary. Book 10_ . Word Books. Waco. Texas. USA.

Maxwell. John C. ( 1998 ) . The _21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership_ . Thomas Nelson Inc. Nashville. USA.

Northouse. Peter G. ( 2007 ) . Leadership_ : Theory and Practice ( 4th edition ) _. Sage Publications. New Delhi. India.

Parks. Sharon Daloz. ( 2005 ) . _Leadership Can Be Taught: A Bold Approach in a Complex World_ . Harvard Business School Publishing. Boston. USA.

Swindoll. Charles R. ( 1997 ) . _David: A Man of Passion and Destiny_ . Word Books. Waco. Texas. USA.

Whetham. Paul ; Whetham. Libby. ( 2000 ) . _Hard to Be Holy: Unraveling the Roles and Relationships of Church Leaders_ . _Open_ Book Publishers. Adelaide. Australia.

Concern for Peoples

The fact that non one of his old followings recognised the indefensible persecution by Saul and came to his assistance shows a deficiency of personal
relationship edifice – see informations point A on Figure 1.

C. f. Psalm 57:4 My psyche is among king of beastss ; I lie among the boies of work forces who are set on fire. whose dentitions are lances and pointers. and their lingua a crisp blade.