Let's Talk Leadership

Identifying Leadership Styles

2011-11-15T06:43:00.000-08:00

The twenty-first century has revealed a complex and diverse organizational climate that is resistant to narrow and simplistic leadership approaches. A narrow application of leadership theory can polarize followers and stagnate an organization because it does not adequately interact with a broad range of organizational factors at play in the organization. A productive leader in this environment must be open to and engage, as well as embrace, many different leadership styles as are brought forth in the different leadership theories. We can answer the question, of how should we decide which leadership approach to use when, by identifying four leadership styles:
1. Telling/Directing Leader — a leader provides detailed instruction and closely coaches the follower. 
2. Selling/Coaching Leader — a leader provides explanations and principles, engages the follower in a discussion of the work, and coaches as needed.
 3. Facilitating/Counseling Leader — the leader assists the follower with goal clarification and ideas, then coaches as needed 
4. Delegating Leader — the goal is clarified and the work turned over to the follower.

We can further assert that determining the level of follower readiness will help indicate which style will be most effective. For instance:
* People who are both unable and either unwilling or too insecure to take responsibility to do something. They are neither competent nor confident. These need clear and specific directions. So the appropriate style is Telling/Directing.
* People who are having less skill level, but willing to do necessary job task and are motivated but currently lack the appropriate skills need both high-task and high-relationship leadership or Selling/Coaching.
* People who are able but unwilling or too apprehensive to do what the leader wants need low-task and high-relationship or Facilitating/Counseling.
* People who are both able and willing to take responsibility and do what is asked of them require low-task and low-relationship style or Delegating.

Tannenbaum, Robert & Schmidt, Warren. HOW TO CHOOSE A LEADERSHIP PATTERN. (2008) Boston MA: Harvard Business Review

Hersey, Paul & Blanchard, Kenneth H. & Johnson, Dewey E. (2005). Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources (8th Edition). Prentice Hall

Engaging The Appropriate Leadership Style

2011-09-29T07:05:00.000-07:00

One thing I have learned in this process is that leadership requires different approaches, methods, skills and tasks for different situations. We must resist the temptation to view leadership in a narrow and oversimplified way. Certainly various approaches, skills and tasks are contingent upon the present situation the leader experiences. But, understanding this legitimate need for situational leadership should never be used as a motive or excuse to mistreat or casually discard other people. Today church organizations must exist to serve, and that not only includes their members, but also their community and all followers in general. Any organization today that doesn’t get this essential point may ultimately find themselves wondering aimlessly in the forest of extraneous ineffectiveness. The ability to engage multiple theoretical approaches on a situational basis will help us to lead in a way that will enrich all our lives. Gastil addresses this and recommends we pay attention to three things: 1) Ownership: Problems and issues need to become a responsibility of all with proper chances for people to share and participate. 2) Learning: An emphasis on learning and development is necessary so that people can share, understand and contribute to what’s going on. 3) Sharing: Open, respectful and informed interaction is essential. Leaders must insure an atmosphere conducive to genuine growth if the organization is to be healthy and productive. Engaging the appropriate leadership style in each situation will go a long way in accomplishing this.

Gastil, J. (1997). A definition and illustration of democratic leadership in K. Grint (ed.) Leadership, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Applying a Historical Perspective

2011-07-26T08:45:00.000-07:00

There are many ideas afloat in the arena of effective leadership. In addressing the question of why it is important to know all the theories of leadership, a historical perspective must be applied. In the past, most researchers believed in a “one best way” or universal approach to leadership. Many also held the opinion that leaders were those who simply had the “right stuff” to lead others. Of course, one hundred years ago many assumed that great leaders were simply “born” to lead and the “right stuff” was unavailable to others! As other researchers studied farther, a different model was developed that viewed good leadership as contingent upon the given situation or environment. In other words, leaders are “made" as opposed to “born”. Widely varying circumstances typically require different qualities of leadership. These became known as contingency theories. It is important to undergird each theory with the bedrock of values. There is always a best way to treat people under any circumstance. That is with respect, fairness and dignity. The fact of the matter is organizations are changing at such a pace that the leader can ill afford to lock down on one theory or leadership approach. If we are to be effective in this diverse organizational climate, we must have the theoretical understanding to be adaptable while maintaining a sure foundation in regards to values.

Blake, R. and Mouton, J.S., (1969) Building a Dynamic Corporation Through Grid Organizational Development. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K.H., (1977) The Management of Organizational Behavior (3rd ed.), Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall

What's Next?

2011-06-08T15:14:00.000-07:00

If we are to affect real change we must keep moving forward. John Kotter offers a “What’s next” by laying out a process to implementing change in an organization. He places an emphasis on the processes by encouraging eight steps to be followed by the change agent. The process begins with developing a desire for change by examining the market and competitive realities and identifying and discussing potential crises, or major opportunities. Next, the change agent would create a guiding coalition by putting together a group with enough power to lead the change and encouraging the group to work together like a team. This coalition would develop a vision and strategy to help direct the change effort. The coalition would also communicate the change vision by using every vehicle possible to constantly communicate the new vision and strategies and model the behavior expected of stake holders. The change agent would then empower broad-based action by changing systems or structures that undermine the change vision and encouraging risk taking and nontraditional ideas, activities, and actions. Next it is important to generating short-term wins by visibly recognizing and rewarding people who made the wins possible. These wins lead to consolidating gains and producing more change by reinvigorating the process with new projects, themes, and change agents. The last step is important as the change agent must work to anchor new approaches in the culture by creating better performance through relational behavior, more and better leadership, and more effective management and developing means to ensure leadership development and succession.

References:
Kotter, John P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press

Assessing The Political Climate

2011-04-14T05:41:00.000-07:00

It seems as though every time I watch the news, in the United States, the emphasis is politics. This caused me to wonder; What role does organizational politics play in leading organizational change? There are two schools of thought. First, the idea that organizational change is best accommodated by working to lessen politics in the organization. This philosophy is embraced by Easterby-Smith and Araujo as they argue: that “good learning takes place in a climate of openness where political behavior is minimized”. I am not sure that this is not an idealistic view that borders on being unrealistic. The truth is, no matter how we feel about it, politics are a part of every organizational structure. A second school of thought is that organizations are inherently political and that it is important to recognize this. Bolman and Deal contend that organizations can be seen as coalitions of various individuals and interest groups and assert that: “Organizational goals, structure and policies emerge from an ongoing process of bargaining and negotiation among major interest groups”. Perhaps we could better facilitate change by looking to the political nature of structures within the organization and implementing action steps that are more effective in that particular political climate. This viewpoint would hold that it would be better to incorporate politics into organizational learning, rather than to eradicate it. What do you think?

References:

Bolman, L. G. and Deal, T. E. (1997) Reframing Organizations. Artistry, choice and leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Pg. 175)

Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. (1999). Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization. London: Sage. (Pg. 13)

Dealing With Resistance To Change

2011-03-11T18:32:00.000-08:00

Usually, when change is in the air there is resistance to that change. In an earlier post, I spoke of Lewin's model of change that is found in his Unfreeze-change-refreeze theory. Lewin encourages leaders to beware of two kinds of resistance. They are resistance that comes from social habit or custom and group oriented resistance based on created values. The leaders challenge is to break the habits, challenge the interests or `unfreeze' the customs of the grouping order to overcome the forces of resistance. Lewin's change management model is linked to force field analysis. He considered that, to achieve change effectively, it is necessary to look at all the options for moving from the existing present to a desired future state, and then to evaluate the possibilities of each and decide on the best one, rather than just aiming for the desired goal and taking the straightest and easiest route to it. He identified two questions to ask when seeking to make changes within the organization. First, the change agent would ask: Why does a process continue at its current level under the present circumstances? Secondly, the one desiring to overcome resistance would ask: What conditions would change these circumstances? These questions will help “unfreeze” the resistance in the group dynamic. As leaders, we can effectively deal with resistance to change by asking the right questions.  

References:

Cartwright, Dorwin. (1963) Field theory in social science. London: Tavistock Publications

Hartley, E. L. & Newcomb, T. M. (1947) Group decision and social change: Readings in social psychology. New York, NY: Holt

Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving Social Conflicts. Selected papers on group dynamics, New York: Harper and Row

When Change Is Unavoidable

2011-02-08T18:22:00.000-08:00

What does a leader do when change is unavoidable? John Kotter in his book Leading Change lays out a process to implementing change in an organization. He places an emphasis on the processes by encouraging several steps to be followed by the leader. The process begins with developing a desire for change by examining the market and competitive realities and identifying and discussing potential crises, or major opportunities. Next, the leader would create a guiding coalition by putting together a group with enough power to lead the change and encouraging the group to work together like a team. This coalition would develop a vision and strategy to help direct the change effort. The coalition would also communicate the change vision by using every vehicle possible to constantly communicate the new vision and strategies and model the behavior expected of followers. The leader would then empower broad-based action by changing systems or structures that undermine the change vision and encourage risk taking and nontraditional ideas, activities, and actions. Next it is important to generating short-term wins by visibly recognizing and rewarding people who made the wins possible. These wins lead to consolidating gains and producing more change by reinvigorating the process with new projects, themes, and change agents. The last step is important as the leader must work to anchor new approaches in the culture by creating better performance through productivity-oriented behavior, more and better leadership, and more effective management. These steps should be effective in developing means to ensure leadership development and succession in the organization.

Reference:

Kotter, John P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press

The Leader As An Interventionist

2011-01-07T20:35:00.000-08:00

Sometimes, as leaders, we are called upon to be interventionists. In his Intervention Theory and Method, Argyris asserts thatan interventionist has three primary tasks: to generate validinformation, to foster free choice, and to achieve internalcommitment. Accomplishing these necessitates an understanding that people have mental maps with regard to how to act in situations. This involves the way they plan, implement and review their actions. His assertion is that it is these maps that guide people’s actions rather than the theories they espouse. Argyris suggest that two theories of action are involved. He makes a distinction between those theories that are implicit in what we do as practitioners, and those on which we call to speak of our actions to others. The former can be described as theories-in-use. They govern actual behavior and tend to be unspoken structures. The words we use to convey what we do can then be called espoused theory. When someone is asked how he would behave under certain circumstances, the answer he usually gives is his espoused theory of action for that situation. This is the theory of action to which he gives allegiance, and which, upon request, he communicates to others. However, the theory that actually governs his actions is his theory-in-use. Making this distinction allows us as interventionists to better anticipate behavior and reaction to change.

References:

Argyris, C. (1980). Inner Contradictions of Rigorous Research. San Diego CA: Academic Press.

Argyris, C. (1994). Knowledge for Action. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley

Organizational Change As A Process

2010-11-04T13:22:00.000-07:00

Nobody likes change. Not really. We grow accustomed to a certain way of doing things and change can be uncomfortable. Sometimes however, staying the same renders us both stagnant and impotent. Change may be necessary to be effective. Change can be difficult, often attracts resistance, and is time consuming. Change in terms of organizational development must be seen as a process and not an event. What good does it do for the leader to yell charge and rush to the top of the hill only to find he arrived there alone? A more progressive approach to change is the better part of wisdom. This takes adequate planning and this is how we, as leaders, can become change agents. French and Bell speak of organizational development in terms of organizational improvement through action research. Leadership is confronted with circumstances that make the necessity of change obvious. A change agent becomes essential for the following reason: external pressure, competition, new technology, cost, and failing systems. Furthermore, economic and social conditions as well as cultural flux can escalate the necessity of long-term change. The first step is arguably the most important and where the leader can be most effective; this is the planning stage. Proper planning can reduce the resistance that change sometimes encounters. Proper planning would involve in depth investigation in order to develop a preliminary diagnoses as well as a data gathering effort designed to ensure clear and precise status reports that can be used to develop an action plan. In the language of systems theory, this is the input phase, in which the member system becomes aware of problems as yet unidentified, realizes it may need outside help to effect changes, and participates with the leader in the process of problem diagnosis and affective change.

References:

French, Wendell L. & Bell, Cecil (1973). Organization development: behavioral science interventions for organization improvement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall

Johnson Richard A. (1976). Management, systems, and society : an introduction. Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear Pub. Co

When Change Is Necessary

2010-10-27T06:02:00.000-07:00

Change is the only constant in an organization. The environment is always in flux. Churches who refuse to address the changing culture are in jeopardy of becoming irrelevant. Leaders today must become change agents or interventionists in order to insure proper adjustment to the changing landscape. In certain instances, some among the leadership, as well as the members are frozen in past traditions and intervention is required to facilitate the change. The leader may be called upon to orchestrate this intervention. If you find yourself in this position, I recommend Argyris & Schön’s change model as a guide. They recommend the change agent or interventionist move the process through six phases.

Mapping the problem. This includes the factors and relationships that define the problem, and the relationship with the living systems of the organization.
The internalization of the map by members. Through inquiry and confrontation the interventionists work with members to develop a map for which members can accept responsibility.
Test the model. This involves looking at what ‘testable predictions’ can be derived from the map – and looking to practice and history to see if the predictions stand up. If they do not, the map has to be modified.
Invent solutions to the problem and simulate them to explore their possible impact.
Produce the intervention. Make the change.
Study the impact. This allows for the correction of errors as well as generating knowledge for future designs.

References:

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. (pp. 220-221)

The Leader As A Change Agent

2010-09-22T07:06:00.000-07:00

There is one thing in any church that will never change…and that is the fact that everything changes. This makes change leadership essential. Factors that necessitate proper change management include external pressure; which can encompass competition, new technology, cost, and culture changes, as well as constantly changing economic and social conditions. Many organizational change management theories and models are based on Lewin’s unfreeze-change-refreeze theory. Lewin believed that the motivation to change was strongly related to action: If people are active in decisions affecting them, they are more likely to adopt new ways. He embraced the idea that change management proceeds in a circle of steps. The steps embrace the idea of:

Unfreeze - becoming motivated to change: Faced with a dilemma or disconfirmation, the individual or group becomes aware of a need to change even though there may be resistance to said change
Transition (or Change) - change what needs to be changed or moving to a new state: The situation is diagnosed and new models of behavior are explored and tested.
Refreeze - making the change permanent: Application of new behavior is evaluated, and if reinforcing, adopted

The cycle begins with a series of planning actions initiated by the leader who works as a change agent. This model can be adopted by church leaders as they become change agents in order to be effective in a constantly changing culture.

References:

Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving Social Conflicts. Selected papers on group dynamics, New York: Harper and Row

Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science, New York: Harper and Row

Will God Use Ordinary People?

2010-08-05T13:32:00.000-07:00

Recently, I was reading John MacArthur’s book: Twelve Ordinary Men. He points out how in Matthew Chapters 8, 9, and 10 Jesus shares leadership responsibilities with his disciples. Our Lord chose ordinary men and trained them to become extraordinary leaders. There are four natural progressions in their training. First, they simply followed Jesus. These followers grew as they listening to and learning from his teachings. A fundamental principle of discipleship and leadership training is that you cannot be trained as a leader if you are not interested in learning and following. In other words, difficult to lead others if you have not first learned to follow. How can you lead if you do not understand being led? Second, there must be commitment. When Jesus called these men, they left everything to follow him. You cannot be trained to lead others if you fail to commit. If there is absence of self-sacrifice, there is absence for service. There is a connection between dying to self and service to God and for God. Third, there is internship. The Twelve had wonderful opportunities and were privileged to spend premium time with Jesus being mentored and taught by him. Think of it. How would you like to be mentored personally by the Son of God! Such education and experience can not be obtained in Seminary. It is through the process of internship that their character was shaped and their destiny fashioned. The final step of leadership training is empowerment for specific service. This is primarily the work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus instructed followers to stay in Jerusalem until they receive the dynamic power from the Holy Spirit so that they might fulfill the Great Commission (Acts 1:8). These were ordinary men. The lesson here is God uses ordinary people to do extraordinary things so that He can be glorified. John MacArthur says, “God’s favorite instruments are nobodies, so that no man can boast before God.”

Reference:

John MacArthur, Twelve Ordinary Men (Nashville: Nelson, 2002), 15-19.

Jesus: The Servant Leader

2010-07-19T08:38:00.000-07:00

In Matthew 4:19: Matthew shows how Jesus establishes Himself as an effective leader. Matthew builds a progression in the text that shows a natural establishment of Jesus as a leader. “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.” . Jesus' call to leave profession and family was radical, the sort of demand that only the most radical teacher would make. This text provides us several examples of servant-leadership and radical discipleship. Jesus' seeking out disciples himself may represent a serious breach of custom as Jesus is seen "coming down to their level" socially. Kouzes and Posner identify this challenging of the “status quo” process as a quality of great leadership. Notice also that Jesus relates to his followers in terms they can understand. Jesus did not call professionally trained rabbis to be his followers. He called fishermen and encouraged them that the skills they already had were serviceable in the kingdom. Great leaders use persuasive rhetoric and can motivate followers through rhetorical lens’. Bass points out that transformational leaders “move followers to go beyond their own self-interests” (fishing) “for the good of their group, organization or community, country or society as a whole” (fishing for men).

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation. New York: Free Press

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Jesus: The Compassionate Leader

2010-06-30T11:41:00.001-07:00

I love the characterization of our Lord as a compassionate leader. Second to “love” the word “compassion” may be the clearest description of the nature of Christ as a leader. What is a compassionate leader? I read an article by Christine Zust where she attempted to define a compassionate leader as someone who: 1) Communicates openly, 2) Is flexible, 3) Isn't afraid to show emotion, and 4) Leads by example. I would like to add one more characteristic. A compassionate leader is one who is driven to action. It is possible to be concerned and do nothing. This happens all the time. We are moved by the hungry children we see on television or by the needs we see in our own neighborhood but…what do we do about it. It is possible to be concerned and do nothing but real compassion demands action. Jesus was “moved with compassion toward them” when He saw the multitude in Matt. 14 and He “healed their sick”. In Luke 19 Jesus shows His compassion by weeping over Jerusalem and it was this compassion that compelled Him to the cross. Jesus wasn’t just concerned, He had compassion and that compassion demanded action. Jesus was, indeed, a compassionate leader.

References:

The Compassionate Leader by Christine W. Zust: http://www.emergingleader.com/article19.shtml

Leading With Love

2010-04-19T14:39:00.000-07:00

The nature of our Lord’s leadership can be summed up in one word. That word is “Love”. We see this in Mark 12:30-31. Let’s look at this passage using the principles of intertextual texture analysis. In response to the scribe’s question of priority, Jesus places the emphasis on love. He also prioritizes our application of love in the order He presents the commandment.

Notice:

“Love” God with all your heart

“Love” God with all your soul

“Love” God with all your mind

“Love” God with all your strength

“Love” your neighbor

“Love” yourself

The repetition of the word “Love” shows the importance while the progression of the application shows the priority: God first…others second…me last.

Love as a leadership style is supported by Winston who declares that “Leadership is first of all love”. It is further supported by Hoyle who goes as far as to assert: “If you can’t love, you can’t lead.” Jesus used many leadership styles during His earthly ministry; however, in identifying one that can qualify as the “Nature” of our Lord’s leadership, it would have to be love. Love embodies the very essence of God’s plan and purpose. This is personified through Christ as He imparted this into His followers.

Hoyle, R. John. (2002). Leadership and the force of love. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Winston, Bruce. (2002). Be a Leader for God’s Sake. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University

The Heart of Leadership

2010-03-17T15:38:00.001-07:00

It is impossible to consider the nature of our Lord Jesus’ leadership without the scope of its long lasting effect. Jesus imparted Himself in the lives of His followers in a way that ensured the plan of the Father would be fulfilled. David DeSilva supports this in his book (An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, and ministry Formations) with his observation: “After Jesus’ ascension his disciples, whom Luke describes as “eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Lk 1:2 NRSV) and who were clearly not limited to the twelve (see Acts 1:15,21-23), proclaimed his death and resurrection, and sought to make disciples through passing on Jesus’ teachings and example. Sayings of Jesus, parables, stories of his confrontation with members of various groups all served this catechetical purpose (that is, the task of instructing and shaping disciples and communities of disciples). Stories about Jesus’ acts of healing and miracles both enhanced the community’s appreciation of Jesus’ authority to prescribe a way of life and opened them up to the possibilities of God’s power in their midst to heal and deliver.” This progression prioritizes impartation as a major factor in understanding Jesus’ leadership and its support of the over-arching purpose of God. The nature of our Lord’s leadership style was to duplicate Himself in respect to plan and purpose. Leadership can never stop with “me”. We must place our eyes upon the horizon of others. Deep down in the center of our motivation is the God given call to multiply. My prayer is that what God has done in me will be imparted to others and will make a difference for generations beyond my earthy journey. This is the heart of leadership.

References:

DeSilva, David A. (2004). An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, and ministry Formations. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press

Finding the Right Fit

2010-02-03T10:35:00.000-08:00

Effective leaders must make certain that they utilize a leadership style that is a good fit with the motives at play in the organization. For instance, whether the leader engages an Authoritarian Style or Participative Style depends upon the motives observed. To help us, let’s look at Bruce Winston’s classifications of motive:
1) “Me” motives rest in the desire by the leader to see his/her image enhanced or his/her vision/goals achieved.
2) “We” motives focus the efforts of all for the good of the organization and drives the persuasive behavior of the leader to gain compliance from the follower.
3) “Thee” motives are concerned with the goals and needs of the follower. Here the pattern is sometimes reversed. The leader does not set out to persuade the follower to achieve the leader’s goals but rather the follower sets out to discover the leader’s goals and works to achieve them in an altruistic manner.
4) “It” motives show that sometimes the leader’s motive is not about relationship but about task only.
These can be divided into two categories. I will call them intrinsic motive and extrinsic motive. Intrinsic has to do with motives that are developed through an inward lens and are more “self” oriented. Extrinsic, on the other hand, deals with motives that are seen through an outward lens and are more “others” oriented. . “Me” and “It” motives are intrinsic while “Thee and “We” are extrinsic in nature. Once this is discerned, the leadership style needed becomes clearer. Using Lewin and White’s distinction of leadership styles we see the Authoritarian Style as foundationally autocratic and more classical in nature. This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. The Participative Style is foundationally democratic and is more delegative in nature. This style involves the leader including one or more followers in the decision making process. An intrinsic motive would call for an Authoritarian approach while an extrinsic motive would find the Participative Style a better fit.

References:

Winston, Bruce. Leadership Style as an Outcome of Motive: A Contingency ‘State’ Rather than ‘Trait’ Concept. Regent University School of Leadership Studies

Lewin, K., LIippit, R. and White, R.K. (1939). "Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates." Journal of Social Psychology

Rajiv Mehta; Alan J Dubinsky; Rolph E Anderson. Leadership style, motivation and performance in international marketing. European Journal of Marketing; 2003; 37, 1/2; ABI/INFORM Global

Leadership Theory At Work

2009-11-09T07:07:00.000-08:00

It is important that leaders work to function within the culture of the organization. Many leaders have failed because their leadership style was a poor fit for the organizational design in which they are engaged. One thing that will help the leader find the “right fit” is to make a distinction between Transactional and Transformational Leadership Theory at work in the organization. Transactional leadership is based on the assumption that people are motivated by reward and punishment and that systems work best with a clear chain of command. Transformational Leadership works on the assumption that people will follow a person who inspires them. Once this is considered, the leader will benefit by understanding the leadership style at play. Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. There are many but let’s consider the Authoritarian and the Participative Styles. The Authoritarian Style is foundationally autocratic and is a more classical in nature. This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. The Participative Style is foundationally democratic and is more delegative in nature. This style involves the leader including one or more followers in the decision making process; however, the leader maintains the final decision making authority. The leader may allow the followers to make the decisions while remaining responsible for the decisions that are made. Embracing the appropriate leadership style will help the leaders be productive within the confines of the Leadership Theory at work in the organization.

Organizational Values in Leadership

2009-10-29T05:51:00.000-07:00

While in Ephesus, Timothy receives a letter from his mentor. Paul has chosen his closest spiritual child (1 Tim. 1:2) to set forth the organizational values and leadership expectations that would guide the church of Christ and cause it to grow. Timothy was, no doubt, chosen because of Paul’s confidence in him as a leader (Phil. 2:19-22). In verses 14 and 15 of 1 Timothy chapter three, we see the purpose of the passage. Paul wants to establish the organizational values and draw a picture of what a leader in this “church of the living God” is supposed to look like. Leadership selection in Paul’s day seems to indicate a new direction. The world surrounding Paul and Timothy was undergoing significant change. A shift in spiritual and Old Testament values began demanding change when Jesus developed His ministry on earth. The profound nature of this man attacked the ideals and beliefs of people throughout the Mediterranean. Paul, a Greek Jew and Roman citizen, became an apostle after the ascension of Jesus and the Pentecost event in Acts chapter two. Even Paul's selection was a radical departure from how the original twelve received their commission (Acts 22:6-10). Roman occupied Palestine became a breading ground for followers of a new faith in God through the teaching and preaching of apostles about a Jew named Jesus they came to believe was the Messiah, in Hebrew, or Christ, in Greek. Jewish lawgivers considered Jesus a threat to their law (Matthew 22:18, Mark 12:16, Luke 20:26), and these radical Jesus followers were equally threatening (Acts 8:1, 11:19). It was in this context that Paul establishes value based expectations for leaders in this newly formed church. His selection and ordination of Timothy follows this new pattern and sets a standard for subsequent leadership appointments.

Matthew 4:1-25: Jesus establishes Himself as an effective leader.

2009-09-02T07:48:00.001-07:00

Mathew builds a progression in the text that shows a natural establishment of Jesus as a leader. First Jesus establishes credibility in verses 1-11 showing that a Christian leader is proven. Second, He strategically positions Himself in verses 12-17 presenting a Christian leader as relevant. Third, Jesus builds a coalition to fulfill God’s purpose in verses 18-25 proving that a Christian leader influences others to accomplish God’s plan. The influence progresses from one (Jesus develops credibility), to a few (Jesus builds His coalition) to many (Jesus influences the multitudes). Matthew presents Jesus as a servant leader that is transformational in His approach. Notice in Verse 19: “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.” . Jesus' call to leave profession and family was radical, the sort of demand that only the most radical teacher would make. This text provides us several examples of servant-leadership and shows His transformational style. Jesus' seeking out disciples himself represents a serious breach of custom as Jesus is seen "coming down to their level" socially. This challenging of the “status quo” process is a quality of great leadership. Notice also that Jesus relates to his followers in terms they can understand. Jesus did not call professionally trained rabbis to be his followers. He called fishermen and encouraged them that the skills they already had were serviceable in the kingdom. These disciples leave their fishing nets, but they do not stop fishing. They are now, in the service of the kingdom of heaven, fishers for people. Their lives have been transformed by Jesus' call to follow. Jesus is an effective leader because He seeks to improve His followers (from fishing for fish to fishing for people). This is transformational leadership. Transformational leaders seek to improve and influence their followers.

Traditional vs Contemporary

2009-08-24T06:41:00.000-07:00

Leaders must work to develop a leadership style that is a “fit” with the organizational style of our church or corporation. We must understand that there is no one size fits all theoretical approach to organizational structure; however, classifying our organization as traditional or contemporary will help us in this process. Traditional organizations tend to be more bureaucratic and are identified by characteristics such as autocratic authority, adherence to a legal code, expectation of uncompromising obedience, compartmental specialization among workers, and a clearly defined hierarchy of offices. Contemporary organizations are less formal. They tend to embrace the idea that the organization is best served by adapting to its environment. The value here is to strive for a fit between the organization's structure, its size, its technology, and the requirements of its environment. The dominate thinking in the contemporary type is that organizations whose structures are not fitted to the environment (which includes other organizations, communities, governments, etc.) will not perform well and will fail. Further clarification of this distinction can be gained by seeing traditional organizations as having a rigid structure with an expectation that the environment will adjust to it. Contemporary organizations are more fluid and place a value on adapting itself to the environment.

Leadership Adaptability

2009-07-07T07:43:00.000-07:00

We are living in a day of multiple organizational structures and complex leadership styles and approaches. Gone are the days of the “one size fits all” approach to leadership. The evolution of society has broadened the organizational field to the extent that we are faced with a range from ultra traditional to hyper contemporary and everything in between. This is especially true in the church. This broad diversity has confronted today’s leader with a crucial question. What solutions are most effective in a particular organization? First, we must understand Organizational Type. In comparing organizational theories, a natural distinction appears between classical and more contemporary thought. According to Taylor, Fayol, Weber and other classical theorists, there is a single best way for organization to be structured. The problem is organizations vary considerably on structural attributes. Many theorists today believe that there is no one best way to organize. What is important is that there be a fit between the organization's structure, its size, its technology, and the requirements of its environment. This perspective is known as "Contingency Theory" and contrasts with the perspective of classical theorists who thought that there probably was one way to run organizations that was the best. We, as leaders, must develop the ability to adapt if we hope to be effective in this day of organizational diversity.

Reference:

Wren, Daniel A. (2005). The History of Management Thought. John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Are Leaders Born or Made?

2009-06-03T09:36:00.000-07:00

There are many theories of leadership that have been identified during the course of the formalization of leadership studies in the last fifty years. One such theory is the Great Man Theory. The basic assumption in this ideology is that leaders are born and not made. Great leaders will arise when there is a great need. Early research on leadership was based on the study of people who were already great leaders. These people were often from the aristocracy, as few from lower classes had the opportunity to lead. This contributed to the notion that leadership had something to do with breeding. The idea of the Great Man also strayed into the mythic domain, with notions that in times of need, a Great Man would arise, almost by magic. This was easy to verify, by pointing to people such as Eisenhower and Churchill, let alone those further back along the timeline, such as Jesus or Moses. Gender issues were not on the table when the 'Great Man' theory was proposed. Most leaders were male and the thought of a Great Woman was generally in areas other than leadership. Most researchers were also male, and concerns about bias were a long way from being realized. There have been great strides made in our understanding of leadership, but most all our progress finds its genesis in this construct. Looking at his theory does beg the fundamental question: Are leaders born or made?

Components to Transformational Leadership

2009-05-20T06:15:00.000-07:00

God has called us to transform lives. There are many components that will help the leader become transformational, but here we will consider risk and trust. The transformational leader must be willing to put himself on the line in order to develop the kind of relationship that will ensure influence. This can be a risky proposition because it goes outside the boundaries of conventional relationship. Briscoe, Larson, and Osborne spoke of leadership in terms of risk taking in there book: Measuring up: The need to succeed and the fear of failure. They assert: “Highly successful leaders ignore conventional wisdom and take chances. Their stories inevitably include a defining moment or key decision when they took a significant risk and thereby experienced a breakthrough.” Trust is another key component. There can be no productive relationship without it. Trust can only be built on the foundation of integrity and must be cultivated with care. . God puts an emphasis upon trust when He challenges all people to “Trust in the Lord…” (Psalm 37:3) God places further importance upon trust as He makes it a requisite to blessing. “Blessed are they that put their trust in the Lord.” (Psalm 2:12) Jeswald Salacuse in his book: Leading Leaders: How to Manage Smart, Talented, Rich, and Powerful People, brings this into focus by attaching trust in the relationship to productivity with his assertion that: “Positive relationships engender trust, and trust in a leader is vital in securing desired action from followers.” Certainly the components necessary to becoming a transformational leader are not limited to these, but learning to take a risk and developing trust is a good start.

Building Transformative Organizations

2009-04-01T06:18:00.000-07:00

It would seem that success in building transformative organizations has more to do with people than traditional procedures. Jesus broke all the stereotypes by seeking out his followers and building a transformational relationship with them. This was the key to our Lords successful discipleship. This makes sense when you consider the fact that how we treat people is a key concept of transformational leadership. In his book Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation, B. M. Bass indicates that a transformational leader seeks to transform an organization by transforming the people who operate the organization. Working for a transformational leader can be a wonderful and uplifting experience. They feel they are a vital and appreciated part of productivity. Transformational leadership starts with the development of a vision, a view of the future that will excite and motivate followers because they see themselves as a part. This understanding would tend to suggest that transformational leadership is conducive to building transformative organizations.

Distinguishing Discipleship from Mentoring

2009-03-18T06:20:00.000-07:00

Recently I have been on a journey to discover the intricacies that distinguish discipleship and mentoring. I wonder if we could draw a parallel with the depth of relationship necessary to accomplish each one. Jesus influenced multitudes, taught many, and only directly discipled a few. As you look at the ministry of Christ on earth, it would seem that the depth of the relationship defined each level of influence he had on others. With the twelve He had a deep intimate relationship that qualified them as disciples. If the ministry of Jesus is the standard for measuring discipleship, relationship cannot be ignored. Making discipleship a category that is visible through the lens of relationship helps us understand the difference that distinguishes levels of influence. Is this what Warren Blank was suggesting in his book (The 9 Natural Laws of Leadership) when he asserts: “Because the personal relationship defines the existing quality of interpersonal interaction between the leader and would-be followers, followers will not join the leader without the requisite relationship. Leadership is the relationship.”? This is certainly not the only definition, but I think the depth of relationship is one means that can be embraced in our efforts to distinguish discipleship from mentoring.

Jesus Redefines Leadership

2009-02-23T08:07:00.000-08:00

Jesus said: “The greatest one among you must be your servant.” (Matthew 23:11) This sounds a lot like servanthood. R. K. Greenleaf, in his book Servant Leadership, attached servanthood to leadership as an ethical issue by encouraging leaders to empathize with their followers and by working to take care of them and nurture them. He goes as far as to assert that an individual emerges as a leader by first becoming a servant. In his book entitled Leadership, J. M. Burns supports this concept with his notable discussion on transformational leadership. His contention is that transformational leadership is distinguished from other leadership theories by its strong emphasis on meeting the needs of the follower. This sounds a lot like the greatest leader who ever lived. Jesus redefined leadership in His day. It was radical for Jesus to define great leadership in terms of servanthood because in His day Jewish free persons, like their Gentile counterparts, considered slaves socially inferior. Shelly, in his book Empowering Your Church Through Creativity and Change, brings this idea of servant leadership home when he states: “I’m becoming more and more convinced that God’s leader will never be allowed to get too comfortable … God’s call to leadership is not a call to privilege and displays of power but a call to servanthood and humility.”

Leadership That Challenges the Status Quo

2009-02-13T10:55:00.000-08:00

Jesus challenged the cultural status quo in Mathew 28:18 when He gathered the eleven disciples on the Mountain and told them: (All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.) The Roman Empire, in the first century, represented a growing dynasty, which combined superiority with cruelty and could abruptly change from civilization, strength and power to fear, totalitarianism and self-indulgence. Rome was a beautiful nation with a great deal of inequality at its core. A few people were extremely rich while others lived in severe poverty. It encouraged a very rigid hierarchical system in which the emperor is at the summit of the social economical pyramid, and the further one falls to the base of the pyramid the more difficult life becomes. Authority followed this pyramid in such a way that those at the bottom were expected to be totally submitted to those at the top. Matthew shows Jesus moving counter to this cultural reality by establishing His authority outside this system. Jesus authority came from within as opposed to without. Romans, while they encouraged their own religion, were not intolerant to other religions. Rome had accepted into its pantheon deities from the Italian tribes and from Asia Minor. In the provinces, the great territorial gods-such as Saturn in North Africa and Jehovah among the Jews-were accepted as legal religions on the grounds that their rites, even if barbarous, were sanctified by ancient tradition. The cultural expectation was that religious authority be subservient to civil and military authority. Jesus assertion that He had “all” authority was radical and contradictory to the accepted culture. Jesus, in declaring His ultimate authority, offers an alternative vision of the world.

Lifestyle Mentoring

2008-11-12T08:22:00.000-08:00

1 Timothy Chapter 3 is a leadership manual. While in Ephesus, Timothy receives a letter from his mentor. Paul has chosen his closest spiritual child (1 Tim. 1:2) to set forth the organizational principles and leadership expectations that would guide the church of Christ. Timothy was no doubt chosen because of Paul’s confidence in him as a leader (Phil. 2:19-22). In verse 15 we see the purpose of the passage. Paul wants to draw a picture of what a leader in this “church of the living God” is supposed to look like. Paul had already modeled this and now formalizes it with this letter. Smith and Goetz describe this type of mentoring as “Lifestyle Mentoring”. This has a focus on the lifestyle of the leader (modeling) and defines the principles of living (the letter). Paul let Timothy observe him at work then he promoted him to the churches. In this letter he gives the qualifications for the organizational structure previously set up. In the broad sense, we could call Paul a lifestyle mentor to Timothy. Again, Smith and Goetz speak to this by asserting: “This type of mentoring is a kind of parenting without the typical parental responsibilities. The real responsibility falls on the younger to absorb and to observe correctly.” Paul trusts Timothy to insure quality in leadership.

References:
Smith, F., & Goetz, D. L. 1999. Vol. 5: Leading with integrity : Competence with Christian character. The pastor's soul series . Bethany House Publishers: Minneapolis, Minn.

Learning in Discipleship

2008-11-05T06:18:00.000-08:00

When Jesus gave His great commission just before He ascended to heaven, He placed an emphasis on learning in discipleship. Notice Matthew 28:19-20 “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, … teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (NIV) Here Jesus identifies “teaching” as a key component in making disciples. In his book (Managers as Mentors), Chip Bell speaks of learning when he declares: ”The best mentors recognize they are first and foremost, facilitators and catalysts in a process of discovery and insight. This is supported by Lois Zachary, in her book (Creating a Mentoring Culture), who asserts: “Learning is the fundamental process and primary purpose of mentoring.” She further states: “One of the principle reasons that mentoring relationships fail is that the learning process is not tended to and the focus of learning is not maintained.” When seeking to understand both discipling and mentoring the common denominator of learning cannot be ignored. This begs the question: Can you have discipleship or mentoring without the basic component of learning? If this question is answered in the negative, then it is incumbent upon us as disciplers and mentors to build a safe environment where real learning can take place.

Give Me Passion!

2008-10-29T06:44:00.000-07:00

Building transformative organizations has more to do with who than what. In his book The Human Equation, Jeffrey Pfiffer used Wal-Mart and Southwest Airlines as examples that there is no connection between organizational success and industry characteristics such as conventional strategies. He goes on to note seven practices for successful organizations. (pg. 64-65) When I read these, it occurred to me that these are only effective if you have the right personnel in place. It’s all about the people. It is incumbent upon the leader to ensure that the organization is staffed with the right kind of employee. Proper training can improve capacity only if the “raw material” is willing to expand. When looking for the right “who” there are many components to consider. In my opinion, passion would be among the most important. Proper mentoring can improve skills, but passion comes from the inside. In his book Managers as Mentors, Chip Bell credits passion for giving followers and leaders a feeling of being inspired, incensed, and ennobled which ultimately leads to a sense of being renewed and revitalized. Passion unbridled can certainly be counterproductive but all rudder and no oar can cause an organization to grow stagnate. Passionate leadership keeps the fires of passion burning in the organization. As Bell puts it: “Passionate connections invite passionate responses.”

Leadership as a Process

2008-10-22T06:07:00.000-07:00

In Matthew 9:14-22 Jesus shows leadership as a process in His continuing efforts to develop His followers. This episode in the life of our Lord has great insight especially in the arena of leadership. The passage is presented in the form of a narration with threads of healing, teaching, and transformation. Here, actions and faith are interwoven to demonstrate deity and a clear command to follow Christ at all cost. This sounds like a great illustration of leadership for all to see. When I look further into this passage I see several key components of leadership. John Maxwell, in his book, (Becoming a Person of Influence), points out that leadership is a process which grows by stages. He says it looks like this: Modeling, Mentoring, and Motivating. Notice in the text:

1) Modeling: He heals Peters Mother-in-law. (vs. 14)
2) Mentoring: He speaks of sacrifice. (vs. 20)
3) Motivating: He challenges them to action. (vs. 22)

Jesus mentioned sacrifice in leadership in verse 20. Briscoe, Larson, and Osborne spoke of this in terms of risk taking in their book (Measuring up: The need to succeed and the fear of failure) as they assert: “Highly successful leaders ignore conventional wisdom and take chances. Their stories inevitably include a defining moment or key decision when they took a significant risk and thereby experienced a breakthrough.” Jesus certainly was not afraid to take a risk. Our challenge is to be the leader that Christ demonstrates in this wonderful passage.

A Collaborative Approach to Leadership

2008-10-08T08:24:00.001-07:00

It takes more than one person to transform an organization. Kouzes and Possner in their book (The Leadership Challenge) assert that leadership is the key to building transformative organizations through the development of a shared vision. The leader must work together with followers within the organization to execute the vision. This mandates a collaborative effort. A leader would be foolish to think he could transform an organization alone. All the vision in the world is useless unless there is someone to buy into it and build on it. Timothy Stagich in his book (Collaborative Leadership and Global Transformation) supports this idea by stating: “Leaders who understand how to facilitate collaboration are better able to improve performance and motivate people to learn, develop, share and adapt to changes at home, at work, and throughout the global community. The transformations which occur through this process help each individual and group to reach their highest potential and in the process generate benefits…” He goes on to emphasis the importance of a collaborative approach by defining successful leadership as: “The ability to influence people to a course of action though a collaborative or facilitative approach to organization or motivation often enabling them to achieve their highest potential and maximum performance.” If we are to be transformational leaders, we must adopt a collaborative approach to fulfilling the vision of the organization.

Jesus, The Transformational Leader

2008-10-01T11:23:00.000-07:00

Jesus shows His transformational style of leadership as He gathers His disciples together in an intimate setting. In response to their question, concerning the future Jesus prepares them for what they would face as followers. He attempts to equip them by showing a path to overcoming. This path points out the problems to be solved and encourages endurance, which leads to triumph. Terry Anderson in his book Transforming Leadership states: “Each leader needs to develop the skills to encourage others…personal applications include self examination and problem solving and assists family members to gain self understanding to solve problems they encounter.” Jesus does this as he helps His disciples prepare to deal with the problems they are to encounter in the days to come. An inner textual analysis of Matthew 24:3-13 shows this clearly:

A) Together on the Mountain “What Shall These Things Be?” (vs. 3)
B) Beware Deception “Led Astray” (vs. 4)
C) False Christ’s (vs. 5)
D) Tumultuous Times “Nation against Nation” (vs. 7)
E) Persecution (vs. 9)
D) Tumultuous Times “Brother against Brother” (vs. 10)
C) False Prophets (vs. 11)
B) Beware deception “Falling Away” (vs. 12)
A) Together in Heaven “Shall Be Saved” (vs. 13)

Jesus shows transformational leadership as He becomes the equipper and shows His followers what they are to face. Our Lord then gives them the tool to navigate the future. The tool in this case is the challenge to never give up. “He that endures to the end shall be saved.”

Pass It On!

2008-09-24T06:52:00.001-07:00

It's all about "LOVE"

2008-09-15T04:49:00.000-07:00

The nature of our Lord’s leadership can be summed up in one word. That word is “Love”. We see this in Mark 12:30-31. In response to the scribe’s question of priority, Jesus places the emphasis on love. He also prioritizes our application of love in the order He presents the commandment.
Notice:
“Love” God with all your heart
“Love” God with all your soul
“Love” God with all your mind
“Love” God with all your strength
“Love” your neighbor
“Love” yourself
The repetition of the word “Love” shows the importance while the progression of the application shows the priority: God first…others second…me last.
Love as a leadership style is supported by Bruce Winston in his book (Be a Leader for God’s Sake) who declares that “Leadership is first of all love”. It is further supported by John Hoyle in his book (Leadership and the Force of Love) who goes as far as to assert: “If you can’t love, you can’t lead.” Jesus used many leadership styles during His earthly ministry; however, in identifying one that can qualify as the “Nature” of our Lord’s leadership, it would have to be love. Love embodies the very essence of God’s plan and purpose. This is personified through Christ as He imparted this into His followers.

How We Treat People is Key

2008-09-10T06:19:00.000-07:00

Leadership is all about how we treat people. Paul emphasizes this point in his letter to Timothy. Using Socio-Rhetorical analysis we see a progression in respect to the leaders (The Bishop’s) dealing with people. The progression is in how the leader deals with:
A) One Person – “Self Controlled; Not Violent; Not Quarrelsome” (1 Timothy 3:2-3)
B) Family – “Manage his own family well” (1 Timothy 3:4)
C) All People – “Good Reputation with Outsiders” (1 Timothy 3:7)
This is, as Paul makes clear, important in the church, but it is also key in successful leadership and organizational development. This is supported by Jeffrey Pfeffer in his book (The Human Equation) as he declares: “the most important source for organizational success is how companies treat their people! This confirms what all good leaders know: people are an organization’s most important asset! Organizations need to place a premium of their people by putting them first.” Paul has a desire for his “spiritual son” (Timothy) to be successful in his leadership role as a Bishop. If we are to be successful in our organizational development we, like Timothy of old, must be mindful of how we treat people. 1 Timothy 3:2-7 is a model that can be used by leaders in any organizational construct.

Christian Leadership in Action

2008-09-03T07:34:00.000-07:00

Matthew 9:1-7 shows the leadership skills of Jesus as he places a priority on the reason for His ministry. While He is in the process of gathering His disciples, Jesus takes advantage of a situation to place an emphasis on what He wanted His followers to prioritize. On the surface, it looks as though this is a story about healing but a deeper look reveals an emphasis on forgiveness. The inner textual approach to socio-rhetorical interpretation concerns itself with features like the repetition of words. Three times in these seven verses, Jesus refers to forgiveness of sins. They brought Jesus a man sick with the palsy in order to get him healed, yet Jesus looks beyond the temporal and prioritizes the eternal by forgiving his sins. This is real Christian leadership in action. Aubrey Malpurs, in his book Being Leaders: The Nature of Authentic Christian Leadership, states: “A Christian leader is a servant with the credibility and capabilities to influence people in a particular context to pursue their God-given direction.” Jesus establishes His credibility by healing the man, but the repetition indicates that He was most interested in the mans eternal soul as well as influencing His followers to pursue their “God given direction” which was to preach the forgiveness of sins through Christ.

Which one is the most important?

2008-08-27T06:50:00.000-07:00

When I began to consider the difference between exegesis and exposition I asked my self: “Which one is the most important?” Both of these are components of the over arching discipline of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics by definition is the “science of biblical interpretation”. (Henry A. Virker. 1981. Hermeneutics. Baker Books. Grand Rapids, MI ) It is considered a science because it has rules and these rules can be classified into an orderly system. This “system” can be defined by observing the difference between these two components. Exegesis is the process of interpretation designed to find the original meaning of the verse whereas exposition address the application of the passage to modern times. The first asks: “What was the message heard by the original recipiet?” and the other asks: What is the relevence of the passage to us today?”. Can you see the system? First there is the premise which is interpretation. (Hermeneutics). Then comes the foundation which is true meaning. (Exegesis). Lastly we have the value which is application. (Exposition) First I grow (Exegesis) so that I can make others grow (Exposition). Exegesis deepens my resevior so that others can drink from the fresh waters of application. Which is the most important? They both are!

Misunderstanding the Bible

2008-08-20T06:15:00.000-07:00

When I consider the vast world of misunderstanding that invades Christian circles, I often wonder: “Are all these people reading the same Bible?” One problem is too much eisegesis and not enough exegeses. Eisegesis is a form of construal that causes someone to read his own interpretation into a given text. This approach to Biblical hermeneutics implies a subjectivity that can narrow ones view to the arena of personal experience. How shallow our understanding and narrow our world view if we were limited to our own familiarity. Contrast this to the approach using exegesis and you have a much more objective view.

Exegesis, as a term, means to “draw the meaning out of”. Exegesis is the discipline of reading out from the text what is in it, whereas eisegesis is the practice of reading into a text what the person wishes to see there. With this understanding it is easy to see how this subjective approach can be so dangerous.

The universe of hermeneutics is much larger than just this one distinction; however in light of these two I would have to conclude that (Spirit inspired) exegesis is indeed the preferred approach.

Joseph as a Leader

2008-08-13T06:31:00.000-07:00

Recently I re-read the story of Joseph and Pharaoh found in Genesis 37-41. This time, I looked at the account in the light of Leadership theories. No doubt the Pharaoh of Egypt was a top down leader that would embrace the (Great Man Theory). This theory says, in essence, that leaders are born and not made. Contrast this with Joseph as a leader and you see something that might more closely resemble the (Behavioral Theory) which includes the idea that leaders are made and not born. We see this in the development of Joseph and in how he manages the supernatural. Early on, God gives him a dream and he parlays it into disaster. Later he handles the interpretation God gives him with humility and is elevated through promotion to productivity. It could be argued that Joseph was born with inherited traits that made him an excellent candidate for leadership. (Trait Theory) In his book “Handbook of Leadership” R.M. Stogdill gives a list of such traits. Here, I have compared them to Joseph’s leadership progression:
Assertiveness – He shared his dream
Self Control – He resists Potiphars wife
Dependable – He is promoted in prison
Responsible – He is elevated to Prime Minister

Leadership is First of All Love

2008-08-06T06:36:00.000-07:00

Leadership, for too long, has been characterized by arrogance and self-righteousness that often led to hypocrisy as leaders developed a self centered agenda then strived to conceal who they really were. If leadership is tied to influence then it stands to reason that a key to effective leadership is relationship. The key to successful relationship is love. This idea of a leader being qualified through influence; influence being dependent on relationship; and relationship being enhanced by love is supported by Bruce Winston in his book Be a Leader for God’s Sake when he asserts that “leadership is first of all love!” If we want to get a clear picture of what this kind of leadership looks like, all we have to do is look at Jesus. If leadership is first of all love, then God help me to be a leader like Jesus!

The Rich Young Ruler

2008-07-30T14:38:00.000-07:00

One of the great leadership examples in all the scripture is the story of the rich young ruler. Jesus shows leadership in Matthew 19:16-22 by modeling the path to eternal life for His disciples. We see this by using the inner textural approach of Socio-Rhetorical Analysis which asks: What are the repetitions, patterns, structures, devices used? In this passage we see the will (vs 17 & 21) surrounding the question of obedience when it revolves around the commandments (vs17-20). This sets the stage for Jesus to differentiate works from grace by pushing past fleshly obedience and emphasizing the heart (vs 20-21). Notice also that the young man came to Christ on the terms of works (vs 16) but went away from Him when heart surrender was the requisite (vs 22).
Notice the pattern:
He comes (vs 16)
If you will (vs 17)
Keep commandments (vs 17)
Commandments (vs 18-19)
Kept commandments (vs 20)…….Works vs Grace (Eph. 2:8-9)
If you will (vs 21)………………..Heart (Matthew 6:21)
He goes (vs 22)

Latter on Jesus contrasts this pattern with the calling of His followers by allowing them to see that their heart surrender was evident by their willingness (unlike the rich young ruler) to “forsake all and follow you”. (Matt. 19:27) This leadership example serves as a model of commitment with an emphasis on grace. God help us to follow!

Is a Consultant a Leader?

2008-07-23T08:07:00.000-07:00

Is a consultant a leader? In many respects, I think that the attributes of leaders and consultants are paralleled. However, I would like to point out one major difference. A consultant is temporary whereas the leader must be there for the long haul. I agree that relationship is important in both arenas but more so for the leader. When it comes down to it, the buck stops with the leader not the consultant. The challenge of the consultant is to influence but there is no real necessity to have any one follow. Years ago I read a book on leadership in the ministry that points this out: “Leadership begins with one person — the leader. A thousand people may be led or a dozen management skills exercised, but ultimately the leadership equation may be reduced to a lone person, one individual whom people follow.” The leader must do the hard work of developing deep-rooted lasting relationships that a consultant can never do simply because of his temporary state. Many of the attributes necessary to be successful at one will insure success in the other, but having done both, it is my opinion that being a leader demands unique attributes.

Reference:

Briscoe, D. S., Larson, K., & Osborne, W. L. 1993. Measuring up : The need to succeed and the fear of failure. Mastering ministry's pressure points . Multnomah Books: Sisters, Oregon

Mentoring in Leadership

2008-07-15T11:58:00.000-07:00

The idea of mentoring cannot be divorced from the concepts of leadership. Chip Bell points this out in his book Managing as Mentors as he compares the two: “The way of the mentor is the way of the leader, particularly in today’s brain based economy.” Mentoring is at its core influence. Bell again points to the parallel as he defines a leader as any one in a role (short or long tern) whose primary goal is to influence another to important efforts of outcome. This is supported by Jeffrey Pfeffer who, although recognizing that there are many definitions, defines leadership in his book The Human Equation by stating: “:Leadership is influencing others to achieve a goal.” This sounds a lot like Bell’s definition of mentoring and looks a lot like what Jesus did in discipling. A consideration of the importance of influence in both mentoring and leadership leads us to the question: How can this be done? This “influence” can be accomplished by understanding the qualities of a mentor-protégé relationship and then striving to model each one in the relationship. Bell identifies six such qualities. They are Balance, Truth, Trust. Abundance (which is generosity), Passion, and Courage. These qualities will help us to be the kind of mentor that is productive in making disciples.

Relationship is the Key

2008-07-07T13:52:00.000-07:00

Our challenge to define leadership and followership has proven one thing. It is a complex issue with almost unending layers of insight. One constant that can be applied on any level is the interdependence of the two. Bass and Stogdill point this out in their book Handbook of Leadership as they observe: “leaders cannot exist without followers, nor can followers exist without leaders.” This places an importance upon relationship that cannot be ignored. Kouzes and Posner, in their book The Leadership Challenge, literally define leadership as a relationship between those who aspire to lead and those who choose to follow. This being said, it makes sense that the success of both the leader and the follower hinges on the relationship that is developed between them. May God help us invest the time and hard work necessary in developing the kind of relationships that will insure productive leadership.

Watch Out for Flying Elbows

2008-07-02T07:13:00.001-07:00

A leader can only be as affective as his ability to develop influence with followers. Influence must be developed and cannot be demanded. Successful leaders are the ones who are willing to put in the hard work necessary to develop the kind of influence that will motivate people to accomplish there goals. John Maxwell develops this idea with his stages of influence from his book: Becoming a Person of Influence. He states: “Influence … doesn’t come to us instantaneously. Instead it grows by stages.” The progression looks like this: Modeling, Motivating, Mentoring, Multiplying. Maxwell further supports this idea that influence must be developed and not demanded by asserting: “Leadership (which is a specific application of influence) is at its lowest level when it is based on position only. It grows and goes to a higher level as you develop relationships with others.” Demanding as opposed to developing influence is not only non-productive, it can also be hazardous to your health as is humorously noted by Marshall Shelley in his book: Empowering Your Church”: “I quickly found that the more a leader pressures followers to adopt an innovation, the more resistant and resentful many become. If you twist the arm of someone unmotivated to support an idea, you get an elbow in the chops.”

Peeling the Eternal Onion

2008-06-25T07:04:00.000-07:00

I originally thought that by this point in my life I would have a clear definition of leadership. I did not adequately fathom the depth of this discipline. Through my reading and, I have come to realize that defining leadership, and followership for that matter, is much like attempting to peel an eternal onion. Every time you peel back a layer, you expose twice as much to be uncovered. R.M. Stogdill in his book “Handbook of Leadership” points out this complexity by asserting that there are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are people who have tried to define it. Peter Northhouse in his book “Leadership Theory and Practice” tries to peel the onion by identifying four components that are central to, what he calls, this “phenomenon of leadership”.
Leadership:
1) is a process
2) involves influence
3) occurs within a group context
4) involves goal attainment

Thus, he concludes: “Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.” Even this broad definition seems shallow when compared to the vast amount of scholarly insight that is out there on this almost unending subject. So, how do you peel an eternal onion? Spend a lifetime peeling!

Defining Leadership the Hard Way

2008-06-09T17:54:00.000-07:00

Recently I started my Doctoral program at Regent University in Virginia. We were required to do a two week residency to start things off. There were over 100 Doctoral students there studying leadership. All of them are leaders in their respective fields. When I saw the instructions for our first assignment at residency, I thought to myself, “This will be trouble”. Casting eight or nine doctoral leadership students who have never met into the crucible of expected productivity is a recipe for chaos…and chaos we had. Personalities clashed as these leaders rattled around the project. The real issue: who would lead and who would follow. As time moved on, we became a productive team and achieved our goals with excellence. I see this as a portrait that can help us define what characterizes both a follower and a leader. One component is key to success in both the leader and the follower. It is servanthood. Calvin Miller in his book “The Empowered Leader” pointed out the value of servanthood by pointing to the teaching of Christ in Matt. 20:27. Here Jesus inserts servanthood as a prerequisite to leadership. There was conflict yet we became productive as a group as each one began to serve others in order to achieve our goal. By the tenth day, the conflict had evolved into laughter and friendship. Bruce Winston, in his book” Be a Leader for God’s Sake”, points out that “peace is not the absence of conflict but it is the manner in which conflict is addressed”.