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?

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.