

























234    Formation, The Catholic Priesthood and The Modern Age     

 

 

 

 

C H A P T E R  1 5  
 

 
 

Co-Leadership as a Management Option 

for Ecclesial Administration 
 

Emmarex Elemeiye OKHAKHU 

 
 

 

Introduction 

Traditional views of leadership as a top-down process are increasingly 

challenged by critical perspectives that acknowledge that leadership 

may involve several people. Using the seminal work of David Sally1 as 

the launchpad for this critical conceptual analysis, this research 

explored co-leadership where members share several leadership 

responsibilities. The research traces co-leadership through its 

definitional, management, and ecclesial lens. It challenged the deep-

seated traditional leadership of parish functions and Church 

administration by bringing to the fore some biblical and canonical 

precepts and considerations that should steer ecclesial thinking in co-

leadership. Beyond its contributions to the current leadership research, 

this work conceives the Church as a living organization with strategies, 

norms, and discipline; a corporate of sorts in dire need of shared 

responsibilities and accountabilities. The overview of the existing 

literature, fused into ecclesial leadership models in the Bible and Post-

Conciliar teachings should wake up fresh insights into the Church’s 
understanding of Gaudium et Spes, the Church in the modern world.  

In David Sally work: Co-Leadership: Lessons from Republican 

Rome,2 a leadership framework was created for Ancient Rome after a 

century of kingly successions. In 510 BCE, the Republic was founded 

and the first pair of Consuls was appointed. From the perspective of 

battle-as-marketplace and government as-firm-metaphor, Rome was 



Co-Leadership as a Management Option for Ecclesial ...    235 

conceived as a high-growth company with sufficient scale of leadership 

to ensure a more complex organizational structure.   “In addition to the 
pair of Consuls (CEOs), two Censors (CFOs) were added, two Praetors 

(COOs), four Aediles (SVPs of production and operations), four 

Quaestors (Comptrollers), and numerous provincial governors 

(Regional VPs)”3  

However, Sally’s analysis insufficiently explained the social 
conflicts that consumed the Patricians (Nobles) and the Plebs 

(Common People), who though were full-fledged citizens of Rome, 

were denied political opportunities. The Patricians’ monopoly on 
power “could not withstand the growing numbers, motivation, and 
wealth of the Plebs, as they organized the own bureaucracy, laws, and 

rights – a state within a state,”4 devolving into more anarchy. This 

failure and crisis of leadership continued into 367 BCE and further, 

even when a merger was effected to include the Plebs in every strata of 

governance. 

Power asymmetries in this new inclusive governance only 

widened the divide between the lame duck and the rising stars, and 

made cohesiveness and learning impossible to the extent that if a co-

leader departs unexpectedly, the others could not forge on to lead the 

organization. Such leadership lacked flexibility, learning, and 

continuity: “for when news came that a huge army of Gauls had 
encamped in [the] Latin territory, Scipio was seriously ill; and the 

conduct of the war was given by special enactment to Popilius”5 

Co-leadership, practised in Roman Republic was power shared 

between the two highest officers of state: the consuls. In this Republic, 

the consuls shared power at the apex of a power-sharing system in 

which every official had to have a colleague with equal authority but 

never trickled down to the ‘subordinates’. Such leadership at best was 

vertical devoid of parallel ownership. It dictated top-down the minds 

of the gods that were reverently obeyed. In this world order, co-leaders 

had no chance of immediately and permanently descending to the 

group. That decision would have to be made by the ex-Consuls as 

entrenched in their laws guiding their dictatorship6. This model 

leadership did not lead ‘with’ rather, it led ‘over’ others. This is where 
Sally’s discourse appeared to have missed the mark. His use of the 
descriptive term’ co-leadership’ to capture the leadership of Republic 
Rome rubs off negatively against its ideal meaning in management and 



236    Formation, The Catholic Priesthood and The Modern Age     

 

leadership studies, and begs us for its re-definition and re-

conceptualization in modern organizations. 

 

Co-leadership in the Literature 

Leadership can be an elusive term to describe but easily identified when 

practised. Based on its common element of relation-building “. . . a 
leader is someone who touches another’s future”7  Peter Senge, writing 

in The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, concurs with this understanding and 

notes that it is easy to perceive both good leadership and the absence 

of good leadership. “You can always sense the presence or absence of 
leadership when you begin working in a new organization”8 The stake 

gets higher when defining co-leadership. 

Heenan and Bennis9 introduced the concept of co-leadership as 

an activity that several people can share. This makes the term 

synonymous with shared leadership. The collective nature of 

leadership focuses on it as being shared and distributed10 between 

formally appointed managers, particularly at lower and middle 

management levels. Position-sharing within pairs of managers 

demonstrates an alternative way of organizing leadership within a 

managerial position. This two-person instance is a “special case of 
shared leadership”11  

In clearer terms, Pearce & Conger  argue that: 

The key distinction between shared leadership and 

traditional models of leadership is that the influence 

process involves more than just downward influence on 

subordinates by an appointed or elected leader […]. 
Rather, leadership is broadly distributed among a set of 

individuals instead of centralized in the hands of a 

single individual who acts in the role of a superior.12 
 

The concept of ‘shared and distributed’ is defining and emerges, as it 
is needed since one leader in the traditional sense cannot be the expert 

in teams composed of people with different expert skills. Rather, the 

team becomes more effective if the leadership is distributed and all 

members are allowed to influence the direction13 . The idea of top-

down leadership weakens the concept of empowered teams since 

shared leadership occurs when the team is exerting influence. 

There is empirical evidence that managerial positions are 

successfully shared in most corporations.14 Even so, the sharing 



Co-Leadership as a Management Option for Ecclesial ...    237 

formula is fraught with problems. We still witness both ignorance of 

and resistance to the idea of shared leadership within a managerial 

position15 Even in Sweden, where shared leadership has been mostly 

demonstrated recently has a problem arising from its new Education 

Act, which forbade school principals to formally share leadership on 

an equal basis; each so-called school unit has to have only one 

principal16. This motivates a discussion about how to conceptualize the 

phenomenon and its different forms. 

 Klinga, Hanson, Hanson, and Anderson17 explored the concept 

of co-leadership as “ one approach to meet the managerial challenges 
of integrated services ---  practiced by pairs of managers – each 

manager representing one of the two principal organizations in 

integrated health and social care services”18  functional and project 

managers with either dotted or solid reporting lines of leadership. These 

researchers argue that “to deliver sustainable health and social care, 

cross-boundary collaboration is needed.19 In addition, Stein,  Barbazza, 

Tello, and Kluge, stated that collaboration between professionals from 

different sectors is likely to develop more people-centred and holistic 

care.”.20 Individuals with complex morbidities, such as those with 

mental illness, HIV, and disabilities, are vulnerable to fragmented care.  

“A higher degree of cooperation between services or integration of 
services is required to decrease the fragmentation”21 

Schools are beginning to imbibe the concept of shared 

leadership as a partnership, where teachers, staff, parents and students 

are equal partners. “Creating this balance of power is probably one of 
the hardest aspects in shared leadership” 22Even so, school boards are 

working on effective and clear parameters that can empower all 

members of the group.  Hughes and Pickeral believe in the importance 

of, 

safe, equitable, engaging and high-quality school 

climates. Shared Leadership is when teachers, staff, 

parents, students and principals collaborate to solve 

problems. Working together to create an engaging 

school climate that accelerates student learning is 

common sense. Where shared leadership exists with 

youth and adults working collaboratively, there is a 

student-focused school.23 

Co-leadership, therefore, is a departure from the formal leader to a 

shared leadership model resulting in shared power and decision-



238    Formation, The Catholic Priesthood and The Modern Age     

 

making. Instead of an ‘elite’ individual leading the crew, others are 
invited to share the responsibility for leadership and develop a positive 

school climate. 

In the complex world of health care, it is inconceivable that the 

traditional top-down, heroic leadership really works. In fact, it would 

be a disservice to the healing profession. Health care leadership is a 

“competency-based behaviour that has to come from everyone 

involved in health care. Doctors work in multidisciplinary teams 

focused on the needs and safety of the patient where leadership 

becomes the responsibility of the team”24 While there is a functional 

leader of the team who is accountable for the performance of the team, 

the responsibility for identifying problems, solving them and 

implementing the appropriate action is shared by the team.  The key 

distinction between shared and traditional models of leadership in this 

scenario is that the influence process involves more than just the 

downward influence of subordinates by a positional leader. Leadership 

is distributed amongst a set of individuals instead of being centralized 

in the hands of a single individual who acts in the role of leader.25  

In critical care for patients with cancer, HIV, AIDS, brain 

aneurysm, or even an automobile accident victim, a community of 

practice is deployed quickly in a multi-disciplinary fashion. This 

critical team may include different experts: surgeons, oncologists, 

anesthetists, palliative care specialists, specialist nurses, general 

nurses, therapists, radiologists, general practitioners, physiotherapists, 

nephrologists, cardiologist etc. These individual expert leaders co-

jointly make contributions in the planning and care delivery of the 

patient. “Within a shared leadership model, leadership passes from 
individual to individual along the patient’s pathway of care. This 
provides continuity of care for the patient without compromising the 

standards of care”26 No one surgeon, medical director, or clinical expert 

satisfies the professional training of the individual experts in the 

interdisciplinary team to lead them in the traditional model. This fact 

does not diminish the need for a functional leader. 

Interdisciplinary teams now characterize effective 

organizations, taking the burden off one person or discipline to have all 

the bulk knowledge and experience that solves the complexity of 

today’s problems. The breakthroughs in science, organizations, and 

people management are more likely to come from the collective 

interactions, contributions, and leadership between multiple disciplines 



Co-Leadership as a Management Option for Ecclesial ...    239 

rather than a single positional leader. So, what are the specific benefits 

and drawbacks of co-leadership? 

 

Benefits and Challenges of Co-leadership 

Successful co-leadership demands the ability to listen to team 

members’ thought processes, which can challenge your own opinions 
based on fact. This disposition on a wider scale may lead to better 

solutions. Such Partnership binds people together toward common 

goals, sharing a common vision. It elicits human creativity, mutual 

respect, and allows partnership and compromise to trickle down to the 

rest of the organization. This concept can shrink factions, silo 

mentalities, and hero worship.  

Co-leadership is a hard process that works when people commit 

to its discipline.  It invites a voluntary commitment and deep desire to 

be involved in the process. One must clearly want to improve self and 

believe sincerely that others have good ideas as well. Like in every true 

partnership, it’s imperative to start with the same vision, a desire to 
keep the conversation alive in spite of disagreements, and springing 

new compromises. O’Toole, Galbraith and Lawler captured these ideas 
more aptly: “... co-leadership is much more likely to be successful with 

clear and agreed differentiation. This isn’t a one-off conversation. 

Make co-leadership sustainable by regularly re-evaluating your roles 

and effectiveness.”27 

The concept of co-leadership shift the perspective from 

viewing leadership as a single-person activity to viewing it as collective 

constructive processes, which opens space for all participants to 

express their agency at every stage of the change process, from ideation 

to implementation. However, Conger and Pearce are eager to mention 

that they do not view shared leadership as the universal solution to any 

leadership issue or group setting. The authors argue that: 

there do exist some situations when shared leadership 

is not just non-optimal, but even harmful, e.g. when 

there is a lack of knowledge, skills and abilities 

necessary to shared leadership, when there is lack of 

goal alignment between members of the team, when 

there is lack of goal alignment between the team and 

the organization, when there is lack of time to develop 

shared leadership and finally, when there is lack of 

receptivity to shared leadership.28 



240    Formation, The Catholic Priesthood and The Modern Age     

 

 

Therefore, the question raised here helps to examine the 

biblical foundation and appropriateness of co-leadership for 

ecclesial management. Is co-leadership right for the Church? 

 

Co-leadership in Scriptures 

Not all leaders are equal in their giftedness, biblical knowledge, 

leadership ability, and experience or communication skill. Therefore, 

those particularly gifted leaders and/or teachers will naturally stand out 

among the others. This is what the Romans called primus inter pares, 

‘first among equals,’ or primi inter pares, ‘first ones among equals.’  
Jesus practised this principle of ‘first among equals’ in His dealings 
with the Twelve. They were all empowered to preach, heal, and cast 

out demons, even Judas. However, Jesus singled out three for special 

attention – Peter, James, and John – primi inter pares. And among the 

three, Peter stood out as the most prominent, the primus inter 

pares. Perhaps, Peter’s personality made him a more outspoken, 
confrontational, and natural-born leader in the group, and rightfully 

called the Rock.    

Christ insistence that the Church be built on Peter, the Rock 

and his triple command to ‘feed my sheep” placed Peter, however, 
above the others (John 21:15-17). The three commands, although often 

translated the same way, are subtly different. The first time Jesus says 

it, the Greek means literally “pasture (tend) the lambs” (v. 15). The 
Greek word for “pasture” is in the present tense, denoting a continual 
action of tending, feeding and caring for animals. 

The second time, the literal meaning is “tend My sheep” (v. 
16). In this exchange, Jesus was emphasizing tending the sheep in a 

supervisory capacity, not only feeding but ruling over them. This 

expresses the full scope of pastoral oversight, both in Peter’s future and 
in all those who would follow him in pastoral ministry. Peter follows 

Jesus’ example and repeats this same Greek word poimaino in his first 

pastoral letter to the elders of the Churches of Asia Minor: “Be 
shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers” 
(1 Peter 5:2). Even so, the eleven were not his subordinates. They were 

not his assistants. He was simply first among his equals, the chief 

Apostle, acknowledged so by Jesus Himself. And it was James who 

headed the Jerusalem Council, not Peter (Acts 15). 



Co-Leadership as a Management Option for Ecclesial ...    241 

In the context of the seven deacons (Acts 6), the dynamics of 

‘first among equals’ leadership relationship is observed. These deacons 
were chosen to relieve the Apostles of certain responsibilities. Philip 

and Stephen stood out as prominent figures among the five other 

brothers (Acts 6:8-7:60, 8:5-40, 21:8). Yet, as far as the account 

records, the two held no special title or status above the others. The 

concept of ‘first among equals’ is further evidenced in the relationship 

between Paul and Barnabas. They laboured as partners in the work of 

the Gospel. They were both pioneers and leaders in missions, yet 

between them, Paul was ‘first among equals’ because perhaps he was 
“the chief speaker” and a more dynamic leader (Acts 13:13, 14:12). 

Paul, the ex-rabbi, definitely more learned, did not boss over Barnabas 

who could also stand on his own ground in the matter over John Mark. 

The advantage of the principle of ‘first among equals’ is that it 
allows for functional, gift-based diversity within the leadership team 

without creating an official, superior or oppressive office over fellow 

leaders; just as the leading Apostles, Peter and John, did not lord it over 

others. These elders laboured in the Word and exercised good 

leadership. 

However, current Church leadership seems easier without the 

encumbrance of others. Some leaders would prefer to dominate rather 

than rely upon the breadth of experience resident in the Church. Others 

fight hard to maintain unchallenged authority because they have a 

deep-seated need to be needed. Still, others feel that they are the only 

ones who could get the job done. 

It’s true that this quick dash into Scriptures raises more issues 
and challenges against heroic leadership, on which the Church thrives 

especially within the power dynamics of the office of Bishops. It is 

truer, however, that it is the overall spiritual giftedness of the pastoral 

team that causes the Church to grow, not just the current leadership 

form of government. The early Church grew out of the anointing of the 

spirit and the common life, shared vision of members, not its lordship. 

Leadership anywhere works best when it is provided by teams of gifted 

leaders serving together in pursuit of a clear and compelling vision. 

Perhaps, Churches more than ever have the dire need to helm-

in some of its primus inter pares fanfare and seek shared and authentic 

leadership based on the spiritual gifts and energies that builds the 

Church. For Christ who, being in very nature God, did not consider 

equality with God something to be used to his own advantage. Rather, 



242    Formation, The Catholic Priesthood and The Modern Age     

 

He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human 

likeness…(Philippians 2:6-7). 

The dialogue on co-leadership in the Church begins here. It 

revolves around the premiums we place on our positions, swayed by 

positional fanfare or whether we see them as invitations to spiritually 

build the body of Christ. The Church must decide on which of these 

values has eternity as a reward; then draw itself closer to the flock of 

Christ, fusing relationship in Christ and co-leading the affairs of the 

Church. From this height can co-leadership further cascade to the 

parish level. 

While Episcopal collegiality and parochial co-responsibility 

are both of vital importance to the life of the Church, and needs to be 

constantly fostered, it seems opportune at this point to give some 

serious attention to the question of Presbyteral collegiality in order to 

balance the various organs of governance in the Church, and to balance 

the confusion of role and isolation experienced by many priests in their 

parishes. This is not to imply that the other dimensions of co-

responsibility are of less importance; it is simply to address the issue in 

a more focused fashion. 

The very first document issued at Vatican II, The Constitution 

on the Sacred Liturgy (#4), speaks of the close bond between the bishop 

and his presbyterate as they gather around the altar for the celebration 

of the Eucharist. It speaks thus: 

The faithful must be convinced that the principle manifestation 

of the Church consists in the full, active participation of all God’s 
people in the same liturgical celebrations, especially in the same 

Eucharist, in one prayer, at one altar, at which the bishop presides, 

surrounded by his priests and ministers. 

The text is significant in that it takes us back to the writings of 

Ignatius of Antioch, indicating a desire on the part of the Council to 

retrieve an earlier understanding of the relationship between the bishop 

and his priests and to reorder ministerial relationships accordingly. It 

also indicates a desire to relocate collaboration between priests and 

bishops in the context of the bonds of communion created by the 

Eucharist.  

The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church re-echoes the 

teaching of the document on the liturgy when it speaks of the bonds of 

communion and affection that are to exist between the body of priests 

and the bishop. The priests “share in the priesthood and mission of the 



Co-Leadership as a Management Option for Ecclesial ...    243 

bishop.” They are “to see in him a true father” and the bishop is to treat 
the presbyters as “his helpers, as his sons and friends.” Among 
themselves, “priests are united together by bonds of intimate 
brotherhood … through the medium of reunions and community life, 

work and fraternal charity.” Priests are also called “to unite their efforts 
and combine their resources under the leadership of their bishops” 
(#28).  

In The Decree on the Bishops’ Pastoral Office in the Church, a 

diocese is described as “a section of the People of God entrusted to a 
bishop to be guided by him with the assistance of his clergy.” The 
priests are placed alongside the bishop in the task of preaching, 

building up the unity of the community, and celebrating the Eucharist. 

Later, priests are called “prudent co-operators with the episcopal 

order,”(#11)  and are said to “assume a part of the bishop’s duties and 
concerns” (#15). Therefore, a bishop should treat them “with particular 
affection” and “regard them as sons and friends” (#16).  In discussing 
the spirit of collaboration that is to exist between the presbyters and the 

bishop, the Decree says: “to ensure an increasingly effective apostolate, 
the bishop should be willing to engage in dialogue with his priests, 

individually and collectively, not merely occasionally, but if possible, 

regularly. Furthermore, the diocesan priests should be united among 

themselves and should be genuinely zealous for the spiritual welfare of 

the whole diocese” (#28). This is the language of collaboration, 

collegiality and co-responsibility of bishops with their priests and of 

priests among themselves. 

At the beginning of his pontificate, John Paul II stated that “a 
spirit of collaboration and shared responsibility” (Redemptor hominis, 

#5) characterizes presbyteral councils, a feature of ecclesial life and 

mirrored the collegiality that existed among the bishops. Towards the 

end of his ministry, in the post-synodal exhortation, Pastores Gregi 

(#45), he reaffirmed the same thinking,  “The presbyters, and among 

them, parish priests, in particular, are therefore the closest co-operators 

in the Bishop’s ministry….The Bishop will always strive to relate to 
his priests as a father and brother who loves them, listens to them, 

welcomes them, corrects them, supports them, seeks their co-operation 

and, as much as possible, is concerned for their human, spiritual, 

ministerial and financial well-being.” 

These relationships are totally meant for the service of the 

Church so that the ecclesial community has an absolute need for the 



244    Formation, The Catholic Priesthood and The Modern Age     

 

ministerial priesthood to have Christ the Head and Shepherd present in 

her. From these relationships emerges the role of the priest. The parish 

priest is the cura animarum of the people of God, the parish, the 

powerhouse of our faith. 

 

The Priest, Pastor, and Leader of the Parish Community 

The ministerial priesthood is the fruit of an election, of a specific 

vocation: "he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve" (Lk 6, 

13-16). Thanks to the ministerial priesthood, the faithful are made 

aware of their common priesthood and they live it (cf. Eph 4, 11-12); 

the priest reminds them that they are the People of God and makes them 

able to "offer spiritual sacrifices" (cf. 1 Pt. 2,5), through which Christ 

himself makes us an eternal gift to the Father (cf. 1 Pt. 3,18). Without 

the presence of Christ represented by the priest; the sacramental guide 

of the community, this would not be an ecclesial community in its 

fullness. So the priest is an alter christus, devoid of all authoritarian 

powers, politics, and lordship; he nurtures the faithful. He nurtures the 

common priesthood of the people of God, chosen by God. His role, 

therefore, is central to the growth of our faith and Church. 

Canon 532 stipulates that, despite the requirement for 

ecclesiastical communion, the parochus “personam gerit” –moves the 

juridic person of the parish in all its juridic affairs. In contrast, Canon 

393 ties the “personam gerit” of the Bishop to the juridic person of the 

diocese, in all the juridic affairs. This is to say that the parochus directs 

the parish within the broad oversight of the Bishop. In essence, the 

priest is the daily, on-ground CEO of the parish. 

It is important to emphasize that the parochus does not exercise 

his role of CEO, of office-holder, of a householder, on his own.  He 

needs assistance. Moreover, as a member of Christ’s faithful himself, 
he needs to co-opt other members of Christ’s faithful to make the parish 
household a vibrant actuation of Christian communion.  And who are 

the others that he needs to enlist in the life and work of the parish?  

Canon 519 puts it this way:  he is to work for the “co-operation” of 
other presbyters or deacons and the “assistance” of lay members of the 
Christian faithful, according to the norm of law.  

The co-operation of other presbyters or deacons (transitional or 

married) has its uneven dynamics that need new learning, healing, and 

acceptance. The co-operation and assistance of lay members of the 

Christian faithful needs focused nurturing as well. We submit here the 



Co-Leadership as a Management Option for Ecclesial ...    245 

following: first, that the co-operation of the lay members of the 

Christian faithful is what makes parishes work. Second that this co-

operation is found in the day-to-day functioning of the parish –with 

parish secretaries, parish catechetical directors, parish business 

managers, and pastoral associates.   

The priest needs seasoned shared leadership to elicit the needed 

‘co-operation’ of all in the parish(es) entrusted to his jurisdiction, 
especially in (a) the parish finance council and (b) the parish pastoral 

council, where Church laws are explicit. 

 

The Finance Council 

Canon 537 states:  

In each parish there is to be a finance council, which is 

governed, in addition to universal law, by norms issued 

by the diocesan bishop and in which the Christian 

faithful, selected according to these same norms, are to 

assist the pastor in the administration of the goods of 

the parish, without prejudice to the prescript of  can. 

532 [i.e., that the parochus is the one who moves the 

person of the parish].  

 

 A point to be made is that the role of the council is consultative.  There 

is nothing in the universal law that requires a parochus to consult with 

the finance council for the validity of his action.  But there is no reason 

why a diocesan bishop cannot issue particular law, requiring 

consultation with the finance committee for the validity of the action 

of the parochus in certain financial affairs (canon 127). And given the 

volume of conflicts from Finance Councils, some co-responsibility and 

joint working are needed. 

The parish pastoral council, unlike the finance council, is not 

an unconditional requirement of law. It is to be made up of the Christian 

faithful – baptized Christians who are in ecclesiastical communion with 

the Catholic Church.  These persons need not be members of the Latin 

Church:  they can be members of any Church sui iuris. Also included 

in its membership are “those who share in the pastoral care by virtue of 
their office in the parish: i.e., parochial vicars, deacons, pastoral 

associates, catechetical and liturgical directors. This membership 

gateway and that of the financial council opens multiple avenues for 

the priest to exercise and practice shared leadership, particularly as the 



246    Formation, The Catholic Priesthood and The Modern Age     

 

council and the parochus are distinct; the parochus presides at the 

meetings. He has leadership responsibilities to be shared with others. 

His collaboration, on the flip side, may elicit the rich 

contributions, the experience of other leaders that can help the pastor 

grow in leadership. The priest needs his co-responsible team to help 

develop a vision. Sofield, Loughlan, and Kuhn29 stressed the 

importance of crafting a guiding vision. The co-responsible team must 

conceive powerful goals, communicate amongst themselves, and gain 

enthusiastic acceptance. Champlin30 advocated a three-pronged 

approach. 1. Gather grass-roots input. Unless people buy into the dream 

it will not significantly motivate them. 2. Keep repeating the dream. 

Keep the people focused on the vision by repeating it again and again. 

3. Express the vision in some captivating way. Use symbols and appeal 

to the senses.  

The co-joint parish team must thrive on Strategic Thinking. 

Peter Senge stated that strategic thinking helps grow strong leadership. 

The leader must articulate and differentiate what is truly essential from 

what is secondary. Good strategic thinking addresses dilemmas arising 

from conflict among competing goals and norms. Senge instructs that 

we must distribute power and authority, but we also want to improve 

control and coordination, for effective strategic thinking. These factors 

help organizations (Churches) become more responsive to changes, 

and helps grow the individual’s stable and coherent sense of identity, 
purpose, and vision.  These create a sense of ownership with corollaries 

to high productivity and creativity. 

A pastor who is not using the parish pastoral council to help 

create a parish vision is probably carrying too much of a burden. Dennis 

O’Leary reminds us that “the primary responsibility of the parish 
pastoral council is to assist the pastor in directional and strategic 

planning. If planning in these two areas is done well, administrative 

and programme planning by the pastor, staff and programme leaders 

will naturally follow, and the result will be a more focused and 

integrated approach to ministry” 31 

 

Co-Leadership and the Future of Ecclesial Administration: Some 

Interrogatives 

1. Do the tenets of co-leadership threaten the Church? 

2. Is the Church more persuaded by power, authority, and prestige 

than by a sublime desire to grow? 



Co-Leadership as a Management Option for Ecclesial ...    247 

3. Will priests and bishops lose power via co-leadership? 

4. Will the people of God feel more empowered to participate in 

the Church through co-leadership? 

5. Can communication and common sense-making of conflicts 

ensure that the process is democratic, honest and ethical, with 

a common goal in mind? 

6. Can parish council meetings be co-led in ways where 

individuals’ specific experience, knowledge, skills, and 
competencies complement the decision process?  

7. Are priests prepared enough to lead parishes in this light? 

8. Are the disciplines of deep listening to other viewpoints, 

transparency, trust, and co-thinking for the richer good of all, 

anti-Christian? 

 

Conclusion and Future Research 

This conceptual analysis and exploration extend our knowledge of co-

leadership as a way of addressing managerial challenges in cross-

boundary service cultures, especially in ecclesial settings. Sharing 

leadership between managers may be of specific interest for future 

leadership development in the post-heroic bent that we have tried to 

construct here. Co-leadership enabled environments to provide robust 

management, broader competence, continuous learning and joint 

responsibility for services. Therefore, co-leadership contributes to the 

provision of sustainable integration of faith and practice, the 

enrichment of the Church. On the individual Christian and 

interpersonal level, the prerequisites for successful co-leadership are 

the perception of the management role as a collective activity, 

continuous communication, trusting environment devoid of personal 

glories and prestige.   

  Defining leadership as a collective construction process makes 

a difference to managers’ and co-workers’ interaction and learning, 
which explains why the issue of how to organize leadership is 

important. Joint leadership, in its far-reaching togetherness, deserves 

special interest. Future research has several questions left to answer in 

order to further understand the relatively widespread32 but under-

researched issue of shared leadership between managers, especially in 

the Church. 

 

 



248    Formation, The Catholic Priesthood and The Modern Age     

 

Endnotes 

1 Sally David, Co-leadership: Lessons from the Republican Rome, California 

Management School Climate Center. 2002. 
2 Sally David, Co-leadership: Lessons from the Republican Rome, Ibid. 
3 Sally David, Co-leadership: Lessons from the Republican Rome 3. 

4 Sally David, Co-leadership: Lessons from the Republican Rome 4. 
5 Livvy. The Rise of Rome. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. 1998,126. 

6 Livvy. The Rise of Rome. 89 
7 J. M. Champlin, & C. D Champlin,  The Visionary Leader. New York: Crossroad 

Publishing Company. 1993. 24 
8 P. M. Senge, C. Roberts, R. B. Ross, B. J Smith, & A. Kleiner, A. The Fifth 

Discipline: Shared Leadership. London: Sage publications. 1994. 65. 
9 D. A. Heenan & W. G. Bennis, Co-leaders : The Power of Great Partnerships. 

John Wiley. 1999. 
10 R. Bolden,  “Distributed Leadership in Organizations: A Review of Theory and 

Research” in  International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13, 251–269 

(2011) DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x  

11 C. L. Pearce,  & J. A Conger, All Those Years Ago: The Historical 

Underpinnings of Shared Leadership, (2003) Retrieved on August 29, 2019 from 

https://www.leadershipacademy.nhs.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2012/10/776bc9c27b6e8741d0ff42e593ba44cf.pdf Review 

44(4): 8 
12C. L. Pearce,  & J. A Conger,  All Those Years Ago: The Historical 

Underpinnings of Shared Leadership (2003) Retrieved on August 29, 2019 from 

https://www.leadershipacademy.nhs.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2012/10/776bc9c27b6e8741d0ff42e593ba44cf.pdf   Review 

44(4): 1 
13 C. S. Burke, S. M. Fiore, & E. Salas, (2003). “The Role of Shared Cognition in 

Enabling Shared      Leadership and Team Adaptability”  in  Shared leadership: 

Reframing the hows and whys of leadership, Craig L. Pearce & Jay A. Conger 
(Ed), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452229539.n5, 105 

14 S. Choi, I. Holmberg, J.  Löwstedt,  & M. Brommels, “Managing clinical 

integration:  A Comparative Case Study in a Merged University Hospital”. 

Journal of Health Organization and Management, 26(4), 486-507, (2012).   

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14777261211251544 
15M. Döös,  Together as One: Shared Leadership Between Managers. 

International  Fieldbook. New York: Doubleday. 2015. 
16 M. Döös, Ibid.  
17 C. Klinga, J. Hansson, C. Hasson &  M. A. Sachs, “Co-Leadership – A 

Management Solution for Integrated Health and Social Care”. International 

                                                           



Co-Leadership as a Management Option for Ecclesial ...    249 

                                                                                                                                  

Journal of Integrated Care, 16(2): 7, 1, 2016. DOI: http://dx.doi. 

org/10.5334/ijic.2236 
18 C. Klinga, J. Hansson, C. Hasson &  M. A. Sachs, “Co-Leadership – A 

Management Solution for Integrated Health and Social Care”. Ibid. 

19 C. Klinga, J. Hansson, C. Hasson &  M. A. Sachs, “Co-Leadership – A 

Management Solution for Integrated Health and Social Care”. 
20 Stein, K.V.,  Barbazza, E.S., Tello,J. & Kluge, H. “Towards people-centred 

health services delivery: a Framework for Action for the World Health 

Organisation (WHO) European Region”. Int J Integr Care. 2013 (105) 10 
21 Stein, K.V.,  Barbazza, E.S., Tello,J. & Kluge, H. “Towards people-centred 

health services delivery: a Framework for Action for the World Health 

Organisation (WHO) European Region”. Ibid. 
22 Hughes &  Pickeral. “School Climate and Shared Leadership”.  NY: National 

In Arthur X. Deegan (ed.) Developing a Vibrant Parish Pastoral Council. 

Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press. 2013. 2 
23 Hughes &  Pickeral. “School Climate and Shared Leadership”.  NY: National 
In Arthur X. Deegan (ed.) Developing a Vibrant Parish Pastoral Council, 3 
24 NHS, (ND). Shared Leadership. Enhancing Engagement in Medical 

Leadership. Retrieved on  

August 29, 2019 from https://www.leadershipacademy.nhs.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2012/10/776bc9c27b6e8741d0ff42e593ba44cf.pdf 
25 C. L. Pearce,  & J. A Conger, All Those Years Ago: The Historical 

Underpinnings of Shared Leadership, 3 
26 NHS, (ND). Shared Leadership. Enhancing Engagement in Medical 

Leadership. Retrieved on August 29, 2019 from 

https://www.leadershipacademy.nhs.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2012/10/776bc9c27b6e8741d0ff42e593ba44cf.pdf 
27 O’Toole, J., Galbraith, J., & Lawler, E. E. “When Two (or More) Heads are 

Better Than 

One: The Promises and the Pitfalls of Shared Leadership”, (2002). 

California Management Review 44(4): 10. 
28 C. L. Pearce,  & J. A Conger, All Those Years Ago: The Historical 

Underpinnings of Shared Leadership, Review 44(4): 299 
29 Sofield, Loughlan, and Donald H. Kuhn. The Collaborative Leader. Notre 

Dame, Indiana: Ave Maria Press. 1995. 
30 Champlin, J.M. & Champlin, C.D. The Visionary Leader. New York: Crossroad 

Publishing Company. 1993. 
31 O’Leary, Dennis J. Parish Pastoral Councils: Instruments of Visioning and 

Planning. 1995. 32. 
32 M. Döös, Together as One: Shared Leadership Between Managers. 

International Fieldbook. New York: Doubleday. 2015. 


