I see that people are discussing the training and qualification of leaders, and I think that is very important. I'd like to share my perspective (esp. since I just finished assisting and teaching at a Nichiren Order of North America Lay Leaders Workshop and attending a Ministers Workshop).
When I look for Buddhist teachers I am looking for several qualities, some professional and some personal.
On the professional level I am looking for people who really know what they are doing insofar as having a working knoweldge of the teachings and an ability to facilitate and lead Buddhist practice. I am looking for somone who has gone to a credible source, been trained by that source, and then given a stamp of approval by that source so to speak (teaching certificate, ordination, transmission - whatever). This does not guarantee that they will be the most knowledgeable person around or the most skilled or dediated practitioner and it certainly doesn't guarantee that they are enlightened or holy or anything like that. But it does mean that they at least made the effort to go through a training program, that they at least met certain standards and qualifications, and that they they have been vouched for by other teachers and practitioners that one respects or at least finds credible. I personally think it is even better if such a teacher continues to be responsible or answerable to the community as a whole and aren't just set up as independent autocratic authorities in their own right. On that path madness lies in my view.
Now I have sought out and found several teachers over the course of my life who were ordained as teachers by groups that I found credible and admirable (if not necessarily perfect in every respect). In fact, I have gone through such a training and qualification process myself with Nichiren Shu, so I can now speak as an insider about these things. So here's the deal from my side:
I have been checked to make sure I generally knew basic Buddhist doctrines and of course Nichiren Buddhist doctrines. In fact, I know quite a bit more than just the basics due to my own private studies - BUT no one has been in a position to vouch for that. If I want to receive a higher ranking in Nichiren Shu (i.e. recognition of that further knoweldge) I will have to take a formal test and prove to the satisfaction of Nichiren Shu that I do know more. This will hopefully happen one of these days when the advanced test and preparatory materials are translated into English (if I were fluent in Japanese I could have taken it some time ago).
I think to presume to set oneself up as a Buddhist teacher or "senior leader" or "minister" one should at least have basic knowledge of Buddhist teachings. In other words, let's say there is someone who is set up as a "Zen Master", someone that others will perceive as being a trustworthy source of Dharma teaching but it turns out that they make mistakes about the Dharma (hey, it happens), then those mistakes will get perpetuated with the authority of a "Zen Master." Such a person should, therefore, be very careful not to make mistakes and esp. when writing a book or article take the time to doublecheck their work or have someone more knowledgeable check their work.
Or suppose there are "senior leaders" in a Buddhist lay organization who are also set up as authority figures, but who don't know any Buddhism and make ridiculous claims about what is or is not in the sutras, even the Lotus Sutra, without having ever read any sutras for themselves - rather they are simply touting a party line. There is something seriously wrong there too.
So at the very least I expect a Buddhist teacher or leader to have some basic knowledge of Buddhism and the teachings of their own lineage. They don't have to be masters or experts or Ph.D.s Just a practical working knowledge will suffice. BUT they should also be the kind of people who can admit when they have reached the boundaries of their knowledge and are able to say to someone, "I don't know" or "I am not sure, let me get back to you on that." There is no disgrace in that, and it is infinitely better than making something up or taking a stance on ignorance.
As, or perhaps even more important, than being knowledgeable in Buddhist teachings as a Buddhist teacher, the teacher or leader should know how to facilitate practice. This of course presumes that they are proficient practitioners themselves. Proficient enough to know what works and what doesn't, and how the dynamic of practice (even a simple practice like chanting Odaimoku) can change over time. They should be able to model good practice, demonstrate good practice, point out pitfall in practice, encourage people to practice, and so on and so forth. If they can't do this - how can they possibly be a Dharma teacher?
It is important to note however that being a good practitioner doesn't necessarily mean that one is anymore enlightened or holy than anyone else. It just means one has a certain proficiency, skill, and experience in whatever practice methods the lineage they represent makes use of. And a leader or teacher doesn't necessarily need to know all the methods a lineage keeps in its treasury of practices - but they must at least know the basic primary and essential practice of that lineage. So for instance, I think I am at least fairly proficient in leading the chanting of Odaimoku, Shodaigyo meditation, and a Nichiren Shu service. Certainly I would not put myself on the level of those who are even more experience and able than myself - but I at least meet basic requirements and people seem to come away pleased with my efforts. However, there are several auxiliary practices I would not presume to put myself forward as a leader of, for instance the Hokke Sembo (a practice that I experience in Shingyo Dojo but which I haven't done since then and anyone interested will have to ask Rev. Faulconer or Rev. Barrett about). So again, a leader or teacher should know how to lead basic practice but should know and admit their limitations.
A leader (whether minister or lay leader) also needs to understand how to deal with basic group dynamics as facilitators of meetings and point people for building up a Sangha. They need to know how to handle difficult people who try to monopolize a groups time or dominate discussions or who bully others (hopefully not physically but I can imagine some crazy situations). One needs to be able to keep one's cool, have an even hand, be able to read people and situations, and respond in a firm and fair way in order to maintain not just harmony but good feelings in a group. This takes a certain amount of people skills and maturity. I am sure some basic techniques can be taught, but it really takes experience, maturity, and havng good examples to follow. At least that has been my experience at "learning" the art of facilitation. I am still learning of course and I have been doing it in different ways and capacities for 20 years now.
Now I have never been given training in pastoral counseling, but it is something that I really feel the lack of. I hope that someday I will have the time and money to attend a program and get whatever certifications one needs to get to do patoral counseling. Personally I think all ministers and perhaps even lay leaders should get this kind of training. But the fact is that at this point we don't, and I don't know of any Buddhist organizations in America where this is regularly provided much less made a requirement. And yet, we do end up or will eventually end up having to deal with things like divorce, substance abuse, mental illness, mental and physical abuse, sexual abuse, and of course the death of loved ones and other such tragedies. This is hard stuff. So we should try to read up on how to deal with these things, and perhaps do some volunteer work at clinics or hospices if we possibly can. But at the very least - what I expect a leader to do is do their level best to just be a good friend, to be a calm and compassionate presence, a good listener, and above all to avoid manipulating or being manipulated, and also to aboslutely avoid giving advice they are not qualified to give. A good leader MUST KNOW THEIR LIMITATIONS AND NOT PRESUME OR ASSUME EXPERTISE THEY DO NOT HAVE. A good leader MUST KNOW WHEN THEY ARE IN OVER THEIR HEADS AND KNOW HOW TO REFER TO THOSE WHO ARE CAPABLE OF HELPING. I say that in caps because this cannot be emphasized enough. Too much damage has been and continues to be done by people who presume or pretend that they know all the answers. What they really need is the maturity to admit that they don't know and must therefore refer to a hotline number when needed. They need to be a good friend and not a poser expert on everything with a magical spiritual silver bullet for every problem. It is the extremely immature and fanatical idealogues who presume to give advice when they should just be listening, who presume to have the magical solution when they should be referring someone to a counselor, a rehab or clinic, or perhaps calling the police or social workers.
So in a nutshell I exepct leaders to be vouched for by the other leaders of a credible community insofar as they have met certain basic standards and requirements (i.e. put in their time in training and done their homework) so that they can:
1. Present Buddhist teachings without making mistakes or going beyond what they know and presenting their ignorance and guesswork as the teachings.
2. Teach and lead Buddhist practice without setting themselves up as some kind of saint.
3. Facilitate group meetings without enthroning themselves as some kind of autocrat with unlimited authority over members.
4. Be a good friend and listener who can be there for others without presuming to have any answers they don't have and can refer people to the help they need when they need it instead of just resorting to wishful thinking or magical solutions.
5. All in all a leader should be someone with the maturity to confidently impart what they do know and know how to do with the maturity to admit their limitations.
6. A leader should also be open to learning more from the teachings and examples of those who are even more experienced, trained, educated, and mature than themselves; and in fact, they should also be open to learning from those they are leading who in some cases might have better qualities or experience or insight or caring than the leader.
As my sensei, the Ven. Ryusho Matsuda, likes to say, "Let us learn together."
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei