Jim Meets Leadership Theory

The character "Jim" from the Office: who is he? how does he fit in with Leadership models and culture, where are Christian fellowships missing students like him?

OK. So in August a fellow InterVarsity staff said that many students now want to be like the character Jim from the office--Jim isn't the boss, he doesn't make too many waves, he's an opinion leader and a generally funny and likeable guy. However is Jim a leader? What would need to change to empower Jim to be a leader?

This contrasts with another form of leadership, a more traditonal leadership model when in (at least dominant culture)....leaders are those who take risks in public, speak for groups, have a lot of self-initiative and change the direction of a group. That's probably an incomplete model....but in contrast to Jim, a way of seeing leaders as those who continue to "stick their neck out" and put themselves away from the crowd.

I believe many first year students are somewhat like Jim. When I visited last week at William and Mary several students talked about lacking the general motivation to overly involved in much of anything on campus---not only Christian organizations but also fun events or seemingly-interesting sounding campus lectures. They hear about them, they sound good---but then somehow they lacks the motivation. It seems much better to hang around where you are known, loved and well respected among dorm friends.

I think we all have times where we're like the character Jim. Many of my friends in college were like this. They valued time with one another over most everything else--organizational involvment, grades, "outside" relationships. I think this was a good lesson for me in commitment. Probably the Jims of the world--as I stretch the metaphor to oblivion--are very good husbands, fathers, friends?

This must be clarified---to be like Jim is not bad!!! The character of Jim represents a different kind of student, thus who will be a different kind of leader.

But what do we do with this person? InterVarsity and similar organizations have a strong focus on leadership development. But really--when we sit back and think critically about this type of leadership development--it's under the guise that almost anyone can be a leader.

So what kind of leader is the character Jim? Not just how he acts currently---but how could he be grown and molded into a more effective leader? Not one that would look like the boss of the group who was constantly sticking his neck out looking like a fool--but a leader that would be more true to Jim's personality? How do organizations first get someone like Jim involved (remember, he'd rather spend time with those he knows, trusts, cares for)...and retain his membership. What programming and focus makes him interested?


Where's the intersection here though? A friend of mine is doing a study on leadership development, in particular including a case study on a christian leadership conference. The theorized that maybe we have it all messed up--Christians go to leadership conferences really for reasons of personal development rather than for leadership skills. It makes them feel good--but also just focuses on making us all better individuals, more self-aware. It's all about the cultural fascination with the idea of the "self."

So we have: Jim....then traditional enterprenurial leader.
---are these a false dichotomy?
---two different people?
---part of a development continuum?
---do we culturally value or assert one over the other? In different situations?

Does Jim represent the "Bowling Alone" (famous book written recently) theory that Americans now would rather write a check to charity than participate in a bowling league?


SOOOO if everyone can be a leader....what kind of leader will Jim become?