Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Situational Leadership Theory

The Situational Leadership Theory is a leadership theory developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard. In the late 1970s/early 1980s, the authors both developed their own models using the situational leadership theory; Hersey - Situational Leadership Model and Blanchard Situational Leadership II Model. The fundamental underpinning of the situational leadership theory is there is no single "best" style of leadership. Effective leadership is task-relevant and that the most successful leaders are those that adapt their leadership style to the maturity ("the capacity to set high but attainable goals, willingness and ability to take responsibility for the task, and relevant education and/or experience of an individual or a group for the task) of the individual or group they are attempting to lead/influence. That effective leadership varies, not only with the person or group that is being influenced, but it will also depend on the task, job or function that needs to be accomplished. Hersey and Blanchard characterized leadership style in terms of the amount of Task Behavior and Relationship Behavior that the leader provides to their followers. They categorized all leadership styles into four behavior types: 1) Telling the task; 2) Selling; 3) Participating; and 4) Delegating. Of these, no one style is considered optimal for all leaders to use all the time. Effective leaders need to be flexible, and must adapt themselves according to the situation. Hersey states, “A good leader develops the competence and commitment of their people so they’re self-motivated rather than dependent on others for direction and guidance.”

A Small Staff

I found this article about the bonuses of having a small staff very interesting. The author Craig Groeschel argues that a small staff tends to be better than a larger staff. I found this as a very counter-cultural message in a Western Church that emphasizes success in ministry as being a growing church that leads to a growing staff. Our society is all about production and as leaders our number one mission is to produce other leaders who serve underneath us. Our picture of producing leaders in the church is having more staff underneath us. We feel that it is more efficient to have someone who specializes in a specific field (small groups, discipleship, youth, etc) in order for the Church to function most effectively. Groeschel actually says that having more staff members causes more clearly defined job descriptions. He says that this ultimately leads to a mindset of it not being my job. He also says that more staff members causes a lack of lay leaders to rise up in the church. I found this interesting because you would think that more staff members would cause better one-on-one discipleship in the church, thus growing more lay leaders. However, if you have a discipleship pastor on staff I can see the other leaders thinking discipleship is not their job. Another point Groeschel makes is that more time, money and energy go into a larger staff, thus limiting the time, money and energy spent on other issues. We talk all the time about churches that grow to be inward and no longer look outward but we never seem to talk about staff that grow inward and no longer look outward.

Well, thus ends Co Hort.

Dr. Lawson quoted Maxwell on the first day of class saying, “Leadership is Influence.” I’ve read several of Maxwell’s books and have never been a fan of any. But this isn’t about my appreciation of someone else’s positions rather a question of what one must do, to become a leader on leadership. The Miller text for this class says, “Yes, leadership owns leaders. It is not to be gained by studying books like this. It is innate.” (9) Despite the innateness, thousands of books on leadership are written annually, and somehow Maxwell gets credit for a line as, well, underwhelming as “leadership is influence.” Really, he’s the guy that ‘made up’ that saying?! At the core of this diatribe is a real curiosity about how you become an authority on leadership, and if you are how do you teach, write anything about it? Some will read this as me attacking Maxwell, or writing out of envy; I assure you this isn’t the case. I legitimately struggle with the issue of leadership as a subject to be studied as we study math or history, when we know that there are no solid answers, as Dr. Lawson said in class today. We are a class full of leaders. Some by position. Some by passion. Some by giftedness. In all cases we are leaders, and the 40 of us struggled through 10 weeks to define the very thing that we’re all doing. How can we do as Wardle said? How can we learn these principles and forget them instantly at 30+ or 50+?

Religious Leaders vs Political Leaders

Government and Christianity have always seemed to be going in opposite directions. How are we as Christian leaders supposed to navigate these dangerous waters? I grew up in MA. In this lovely state of prosperity and intellectualism the church is scorned, liberal views are not only accepted but often favored ahead of any Judeo Christian values. I have often found myself walking a fine line between the desire to see family values, Christ focused lifestyles, or even rational thinking promoted. As Christian leaders, we WILL be called upon to not only defend the poor, marginalized and minorities, but we will also be called to defend biblical truth and make sense of the political chaos in our generation. We are not called to condemn or mock our government but we are also not called to passively let truth and justice disappear. Jesus states that government is ordained and instituted by God. But this does not allow a passive stance that merely takes a back seat to irrational and reactive thought currently being promoted in our nation’s inner rooms. This article is not from the US, but from a secular news station in Australia. I found this quote very thought provoking: “It is entirely appropriate for religious leaders to have access to political leaders and to express their considered views in the same manner as other groups in a democratic polity where the doctrine of the separation of church and state, or religion and politics, prevails.” We are called to mirror Christ in this generation amidst our government. What do you think?

Monday, May 30, 2011

Truth Professed, or Believed?

In his article “Truth Professed, or Believed?” John Ortberg tackles the issue of hypocrisy in the church. He begins by noting that although the Bible says that “Love must be sincere” (Romans 12:9), it does not always seem to be the case within the church. We often say that we love each other, but are our actions really demonstrating this to each other? Or more importantly, are they really demonstrating this to the outside world? He goes on to name other teachings of Jesus, such as “love your enemies” and “it is better to give than to receive”, and wonders if the church honestly believes these commands to be true. The real way to discover if Christians truly believe these teachings is not to ask them, he argues, but to see if there actions actually match with what they say to be true. He says that the best way to find out if he truly believes if it is better to give than to receive is not to ask him, but to check his bank account. I found this article very interesting because it is an issue that not only surfaces in the congregation, but among leadership as well. How does the way in which we lead reflect what we believe to be true about Jesus, the Bible and the Church? Does it line up with our beliefs, or is our hypocrisy evident? The way to create change in our church is to begin by changing our actions as leaders. We must model authentic faith, and others will follow.

How do you communicate with your team?

In this book, the author discusses leadership as it relates to communicating with subordinates. The author gives examples of how leaders make mistakes in leading. There is the leader who tends to be ambiguous in laying out the vision but reprimands the subordinate when the plans were not carried out to the satisfaction of the leader. There is the leader who is incognito in which the subordinates feel disconnected because all communication is based on a chase to get in touch with the leader to talk. Unless the team is full of self-starters this could be disastrous. There is also the leader who has an open door policy no matter what. This could result in burn-out for the leader if the congregation is large enough to where it is next to impossible for the leader to connect with everyone. Then there is the hovering leader who wants to know everything prior to any decisions are made not giving the team any room to breathe which could result in creativity being smothered and a team that feels inadequate to do the job. Then there is the unilateral leader who is amongst other leaders but makes the decisions without consulting with any of them because they believe they are somewhat more intelligent and wiser than the rest of the team. Finally the book mentions leaders who seem to be constantly negative. They only give feedback when a situation is negative resulting in a stressful team who avoids the leader. The essence is good communication is essential in leadership.

Post-Ethnic Church

In this video Efrem Smith suggests that what the church is missing is leadership that sees ethnic diversity, in our Christian community, as both a necessity and a possibility. Smith sets forth his dream and vision for a post-racial church that embraces the value of many who see beyond race and ethnicity.

The most notable part of this video is when Smith suggests that well-known African-American, such as Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey and Collin Powell, are perfect examples of post-black leadership. He suggests, these individuals represent a group that has managed to look beyond race issues, instead pursuing their careers as people who happen to be “black.” They, according to Smith, represent a general movement of people who refuse to advocate for the agenda of “their people,” but rather are dreaming for a day when we can maintain our racial and ethnic identities, while also transcending them. Smith’s greatest concern is that the church has not achieved what the nation has achieved. In this way we [the Church] have failed to be the pacesetter in our culture. Post-racial leadership can serve as a transforming presence that can change the face of our congregations. For Smith, church leaders must look beyond the days when segregated churches were needed in order to create safe communities for minorities and first-generation immigrant. Instead we must see that people are searching for a post-ethnic church that can create an all-new vitality and hope for the future.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

The Servant Leadership of Millard Fuller - Founder of Habitat for Humanity

This is about Millard Fuller who was a true servant leader of God. The Servant leadership model focuses on seven virtues of leadership. It is a model that focuses on virtues rather than skill. The seven virtues are love, humility, unselfishness, vision, trust, empowerment, and service, virtues that Millard lived out in Jesus Christ. Millard Fuller was a millionaire who gave it all up when he decided to sell all his possessions and change his life forever. Millard lived out all of these seven virtues of leadership as he spent his life living for the vision of giving people homes to live in all around the world. It was a vision that was rooted in Jesus Christ and a vision that displayed servant leadership by Millard which showed by the focus that he had for the people. He was so focused on the people who were following Him it showed true humility and servant- hood. A servant leader must be willing to share their success and failures. They are open and they inspire others to gather together for a cause greater than themselves. Millard had created a worldwide movement that has changed the lives and empowered many community leaders to accomplish the goal of eliminating poor housing conditions. Millard used the economics of Jesus Christ. Fuller’s leadership is inspiring to me because he was a millionaire who gave up all his money to follow Christ and live a life where he truly put his life last and put others first. He was a servant.

Creating Worshippers not Workers

Britt Merrick’s video file in the Catalyst for Leadership is discussing how to create worshipers rather than workers.

He indicates in the article that leaders are about leading workers instead of creating worshipers who are in the intimate places with Christ and allowing the work to come from that. He discussed John who wrote the love Epistles and who was the intimate one reclining on Jesus during the Last Supper, he also had the longest ministry and received the greatest amount of revelation of God. He talked about when the authorities tried to boil him alive in a vat of oil and he did not burn, Merrick indicates this is because of the intimacy he had with Jesus.

In the article, he is trying to convince leaders not to worry about leading but about teaching people how to worship being intimate with Jesus and allow the work to come from that. He said “we take converts and try to make them workers, we need to take converts and make them worshipers and allow the work to come from there.”

Merrick is advising leaders to be in the “face of Christ, to taste and see that the Lord is good and become convinced with body, mind and soul that Christ is the ultimate treasure.” “To be intimate with Christ is to lead with Christ, rather than be a leader for God to become a leader of God.”

I believe that Merrick is right. If the leader is not intimate with Christ and leading from that place, then they are leading in their own strength causing themselves to become the Lord instead of Jesus.

Personality Driven Churches

Brad Abare and Phil Cooke warn pastors that if any of the following are true of their ministry, they may be at risk for being a personality driven church: 1. Do not take significant vacations 2. People do not show up when they aren't preaching 3. The fear that things would fall apart if they left today. 4. Only one person controls access to the pastor. Each one of these speaks to the different aspects of this pitfall. The first implies that the pastor cannot afford to take time off or else all the spinning plates will fall. What an immense amount of pressure for one person! This doesn't sound like an easy yoke or a light burden. The second points not just to personality, but the depth of involvement that people have in the church. They are consumer driven, and they are only interested in consuming what the "personality" has to offer. The third warning sign signifies, at the very least, the confidence that the pastor has in his or her staff and lay leaders. This lack of confidence surely plays out in a lack of empowerment and an overabundance of micromanagement. At the very most, the pastor truly has surrounded himself with "yes" men and women who could not lead if they were asked to lead. Finally, the last warning speaks to the pastor who has not only bought into the lie that only they can do it, but that because of this they deserve special treatment, rock star treatment. What are other signs?

Saturday, May 28, 2011

Team______! You fill in the blank;)

In his article, Tim Moss shares his personal story of being on a winning team as well as pointing to a very successful NBA team. While the goals of the two teams were as different as water and oil, they excelled because each team member brought something of value to the table. They were also successful because both teams had a specific vision and the ambition to accomplish their goals. While the vision may have been entirely different, the way the two teams implemented their strategies and performance were very closely matched. The NBA team was focused on the vision of becoming the NBA champions while Tim’s team focus was to seek, purchase and install a new organ by Easter, a pretty lofty goal for a small church that started the process in January. The key to success in both cases was to get the right people on the team and to work together to achieve a common goal. Tim certainly admits the he is no Michael Jordan, what church out there has a super-star like that? The point is that his team didn’t need the likes of Michael Jordon; they just needed to be committed to the process and committed to each other. Both teams were successful in reaching or achieving their vision, and both teams attribute the accomplishment to hard work and most of all the ability to work as a team. So, the next time you find yourself in a committee meeting and you think that you would much rather be somewhere else, think again. Think about what your dream team might accomplish.

5 Traits of a Great Leader

This article was written to teach leaders what the five most important qualities in a leader are so that they can practice exhibiting those qualities and thus become great leaders. The five traits listed in the article are: Honest, forward looking, competent, inspiring, and intelligent. The idea in the article is that if you can visibly display these characteristics well, then people will want to follow you. I find it very interesting that honesty is the first trait listed. It makes sense that in a world where pastors have been caught in all sorts of sin, that people do not immediately trust pastors. The best way to gain people's trust is by being honest with them. The article stresses the importance of not just gaining these five traits, but making sure everyone sees these traits in you. In this case, honesty is going to have to go a lot farther than not lying. Christian leaders must display honesty by being open with their followers about the state of the ministries they are leading. This is especially important when we mess up. We have the great opportunity every time we make a mistake to gain trust from our followers like never before. All we need to do is admit that we were wrong and apologize and move forward. Can we as leaders humble ourselves into a position where we are honest even in our weaknesses/mistakes in order to gain the trust of those we serve/lead?

Friday, May 27, 2011

A Biblical Theology of Leadership


In this article, Massimo Lorenzini attempts to lay out a biblical theology of leadership that follows the major plotlines of the Bible: Creation, Fall, Redemption, and New Creation. Lorenzini argues that God shares the responsibility of ruling over creation with humanity and has delegated authority and leadership to males, who are also given the authority to lead women. As a team of divine image-bearers, Adam and Eve were to participate in two things: dominion and multiplication. They were to multiply and reign over the earth on God’s behalf. However, the Fall disrupted this cozy relationship and now women have pain in childbirth (tainting “multiplication”) and men struggle at work (tainting “dominion”). Redemption was accomplished through Jesus, who restored the image of God in humanity, thereby allowing them to fulfill their original mission through evangelism and procreation. This work will continue in the New Creation, minus the sex and procreation.

While I appreciate this attempt to develop a biblical theology of leadership, Lorenzini fails to grasp the subtleties of the Genesis narrative that question patriarchal attitudes, which in turn questions a male-only leadership model in the church. For example, Lorenzini mentions that Adam “naming” the animals demonstrates his authority over them, just as Adam “naming” Eve demonstrates his authority over her. Curiously, however, this “naming” does not happen until after sin has entered the world. In spite of this, I do agree with Lorenzini that the most important leaders in the Bible had three things in common: faith, obedience, and calling. We should pray for the same!

Norman Brown blog post

NOTE: Norman was unable to connect to make his post. I am posting is here for him. Please reply to Norman in your comment.


 “The Wall Street Journal Guide to Management” gives tips for leadership styles.  All leadership styles can become part of the leader's repertoire.  Leadership styles should be adapted to the demands of the situation, the requirements of the people involved and the challenges facing the organization. Leadership is less about your needs, and more about the needs of the people and the organization you are leading. Leadership styles are not something to be tried on like so many suits, to see which fits. Rather, they should be adapted to the particular demands of the situation, the particular requirements of the people involved and the particular challenges facing the organization. Leadership and management must go hand in hand. They are not the same thing. But they are necessarily linked, and complementary. Any effort to separate the two is likely to cause more problems than it solves.  Leadership and management must go hand in hand.  Workers need their managers not just to assign tasks but to define purpose. Managers must organize workers, not just to maximize efficiency, but to nurture skills, develop talent and inspire results.  Still, much ink has been spent delineating the differences. The manager’s job is to plan, organize and coordinate. The leader’s job is to inspire and motivate.

How do you build trust? (Nathan McWherter)

How do you build trust?

Matt Carter believes it is through relationships. This isn’t done in the heat of the moment or in the middle of crunch time but outside the normal day to day grind. To get outside the church walls and have relationships creates a kind of trust that can’t be duplicated. It doesn’t happen overnight and it isn’t quick, but trust must be built between you and those you lead. This allows you capital in their lives when the going gets tough and you must press on through.

As we are discussing leadership and gaining trust through legitimate means, ect. I have to say that this is almost purely relational leadership. It is about mutual trust and mutual understanding. Within Matt’s response was that there was a trust that occurs in the midst of hardship. To me this also reveals a shared vision. If I need to put something I want to do on hold in the heat of the moment and do for you it is usually much easier if there is common vision. Relationships could be better understood as being on the same team. I might not be friends with those around me but if I understand that we are all working towards a common goal it becomes easier. I don’t know if the relationship or friendship that Matt is talking about is more of a friendship but a structured relationship. I don’t think it takes away from the necessity of pouring into that relationship to ensure trust occurs

Leadership: Building Trust Means Better Listening

I thought this article did an excellent job illustrating the importance of listening as a means of gaining trust. The author notes that “The organization of today will require leadership that can operate on the edge of chaos by relinquishing command and control and creating an environment of mutual trust and respect.” First, one must not assume that their position automatically makes them an expert in the eyes of employees. In terms of building trust, the way you treat people has just as much impact as your knowledge and expertise. As the author says, “You may be a whiz in your specific area, but treat people poorly and their trust in you will plunge.”Another one of the “small” things you can do to respect people is become a better listener, which is not as easy as it sounds because listening is an art, a skill, and a discipline because when others are talking we usually end up paying attention to the “noise” in our own heads. We must always be aware of which of the two noises you’re listening to. A few other small things the article mentions is: do what you say you are going to do; thank others who deserve it; expose your thinking process. “Operating on the edge of chaos goes a lot smoother when people respect and trust you. Make a commitment to better understand and build trust. Practice some of the small stuff, become a better listener and your trust levels will definitely rise.”

Systems Leadership - An Introduction

This article points out that the primary task of this theory is to establish the setting within which people can operate at their best, thus ensuring maximal effectiveness in achieving the goals of the organization. This theory assumes that work is primarily a “Social Process,” wherein different people work together to achieve their purposes. The theory is designed to analyze such social interactions. Establishing three main objectives facilitates clarity for who is to perform what tasks and how they should be carried out. The first of these objectives is to structure the work in such a way that it coheres with the abilities of those working. It is also necessary to establish a culture wherein a vision of “constructive relationships and behaviour” is shared. Finally, it is important to understand how individual behavioral choices affect the entire system at work.

This model has much to lend it credit within the leadership context of pastoral ministry. For one thing, it affirms the essentially social nature of work. This echoes Paul’s claims about the Church’s work as a unified body in 1 Corinthians 12:12. Furthermore, the drive to have people working in their areas of giftedness also seems to be in line with Paul’s thinking in this passage. It does not make much sense to assign people tasks that they are not able to carry out. Striving for clarity of responsibilities also can help the leader deal with certain conflicts that may arise. The leader has grounds for correcting someone when he is not doing what he knew was required.

The Pastor and Power, Ministry Magazine, International Journal for Pastors

In this article, Steve Walikonis argues that how pastors utilize power determines how followers respond to their leadership. Walikonis utilizes J.P. French and B. Raven's theory to describe five broad categories of power:

(1) Expert Power: The use of a leader’s credibility to exercise influence. A leader’s expert power may be undermined when an individual within the organization has credentials that surpass the leader’s credentials

(2) Referent Power: The leader exercises influence through the respect/admiration they have gained with their followers. According to Walikonis, referent power is often utilized by servant leaders and often produces loyalty and teamwork.

(3) Reward Power: The leader’s ability to influence depends upon their ability to offer rewards that motivate followers to action. When a pastor praises a volunteer’s service from the pulpit, the pastor is using reward power.

(4) Coercive Power: The leader’s ability to influence depends upon their ability to instill fear in their followers. Walikonis reveals that congregants who have a coercive pastor will often say: “It’s the pastor’s way or no way!”

(5) Legitimate Power: The leader’s ability to influence is based upon traditional expectations which “[followers] hold regarding behaviors appropriate in a given position.” Walikonis gives the example of the President of the United States. Upon being elected, the President immediately exercises great influence through legitimate power.

Which type of power do you typically use when leading? Is there any type of power which Jesus did not use? Which type of power is commonly abused? Why?