It’s a plea for a transition from the pyramidal system of leadership to a participatory structure in which listening and learning are essential components. Synodal leadership believes in service and solidarity rather than in exercising authority and control. The pillars of synodal leadership are collective discernment, collaboration, co-responsibility and communion. Under this structure, the leader functions more as an animator or facilitator of a discerning community rather than its administrator or decision maker.

The new synodal structure of leadership is a call to cultivate a culture of consultation in the ongoing journey of a community of the people of God at all levels and forms. Such an approach could be a challenge to the conservative conception of authority in religious communities, threatening to create conflict with the traditional style of leadership that we are accustomed to. But in our contemporary context, we cannot afford to continue with such traditional approach. In case we attempt to stretch it further, we may end up causing more wounds than healing them.

Synodal leadership demands a conversion from a hierarchical mindset to an open, inclusive and collegial attitude that is willing to be led by the Spirit of God. Where do we find ourselves in this process of conversion? The Constitutions of the Society of the Divine Word may not speak explicitly of the synodal way of leadership but contain seeds of it, repeatedly emphasizing the importance of service (c.601), solidarity (c.603), subsidiarity (c.604), regular consultation, collective discernment, collegiality and teamwork (c.606 and c.612) in the exercise of leadership and authority. It even advocates use of electronic media to facilitate consultations in difficult circumstances (c.612.1-2).

Our Handbook for Superiors SVD in its section on the “Governance in our Society”, underlines the servant leadership as essential aspect of leading a religious community (D1,1). Perhaps in the description on the three-fold functions of a superior, the synodal aspect may have gotten blurred, but solidarity, co-responsibility or sharing of responsibilities are repeatedly emphasized (D1, 2.2.2 & 3.2; D3,1.0) in the Handbook.

It also speaks of the importance of regular sharing of information, creating effective channels of communication, devising platforms of common discussions and collective discernments (D1, 4.3). It encourages us to make the office of the superior as subject of constructive discussion in community meetings and common assemblies (D3, 3.0) so as to improve the quality of leadership in our congregation.

The Society of the Divine Word is blessed with some dynamic, strong and committed leadership at all levels and at all times. With their listening and learning attitudes, these leaders are able to take along everyone entrusted to their fraternal care in their common religious missionary journey. As Pope Francis exhorted in Gautete et Esultate, they believed that a prayerful discernment was born out of their readiness to listen to the Lord and to others, and to reality itself, which challenged them in new ways (GE 172).

As missionaries of synodality, we are urged by the 19th General Chapter to promote participation and partnership also with our lay collaborators as co-responsible persons (19th GC 2024, #78-81). We notice in our Society, where there are mechanisms of regular consultations, co-responsibility, teamwork, open channels of communication and enhanced exchanges of information, the climate is cordial and confrerely. When there is affirmative and creative leadership, there is vibrancy and vitality. When the leaders value interculturality and internationality, there are less tensions and more collaboration and growth in the respective entities of their jurisdiction.

A timely and unanimous recommendation from the 13th AFRAM Zonal Assembly held last year in Madagascar states, “It is recommended that we will commit ourselves in our PRMs to collegial, synodal, collaborative and servant form of leadership.” It is a significant recommendation that should echo into every Zone of ours. But how does this translate into all levels of leadership in our Society? Confreres in general, would appreciate it better if there were scheduled community meetings, regular communications and sharing of information from their community leaders, and that they were included in the decision-making process that matters to their life and ministry.

At the Generalate, in our efforts to infuse and enhance the synodal process in our life and leadership, we ensure well-planned semi-weekly General Council meetings, regular consultations in its decision-making process, involving the Generalate team (including Generalate officials, secretaries and coordinators), increasing and intensifying the General Council’s engagement and interaction with Zonal Coordinators, PRM leadership teams, grassroots coordinators of Characteristic Dimensions, SSpS and SSpSAP sisters, mission partners, collaborators, co-workers, lay associates, etc. to the extent of using electronic media to facilitate and promote synodal values. We need to strengthen further this synodal spirit.

It is disheartening to see some superiors running into difficulties with synodal leadership and teamwork as they seem to have assumed enormous power and tend to be autocratic and authoritarian. Under such leaders, there are no regular consultations, effective communications and prompt sharing of information. Taking for granted that such superior’s opinions and decisions are guided by his council may be risky.

At times, some leaders tend to yield to the pressure groups in making appointments, transfers, granting permissions for higher studies, tolerating deviant behaviors, ignoring financial irregularities, etc. even to the extent of entertaining ethnocentric and exclusivist tendencies. We are reminded that appeasing some groups at the cost of others, even to the level of bypassing common policies & healthy practices, is not in tune with the spirit of synodal leadership.

Leadership, in some instances, seems to be concerned about maintaining the status quo than bringing about transformation and growth in the concerned communities or entities. Some superiors seem to be over-concerned about the administrative aspect of leadership and are oblivious of the animating and coordinating aspects of their leadership.

The power seems to be centered around the person of the superior. Do we inadvertently promote such a phenomenon rather than promoting collegiality? Is it necessary to incorporate and insist on the synodal process of decision making at all levels of our leadership? How does this radical call for conversion touch your life and ministry as the Divine Word missionary?

The Generalate Leadership Team.