Leadership Theory of A Protestant Minister

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies
http://jlo.sagepub.com Leadership Theory Of A Protestant Minister

Carl C. Green Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 2001; 8; 77 DOI: 10.1177/107179190100800107 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/1/77
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Midwest Academy of Management
Additional services and information for Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://jlo.sagepub.com by Tomislav Bunjevac on August 4, 2008 2001 Baker College. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Leadership Theory Of A
Protestant Minister
Carl C. Green
Church
of the Nazarene
Executive
Summary
"Leadership Theory of a Protestant Minister" traces the evolution and articulation of a personal theory of leadership that incorporates secular learnings of leadership with spiritual dimensions of leading as vocation. Also discussed are specific issues and challenges facing leaders who serve in religious institutions. Using personal accounts, case studies, and substantial self reflection, the author presents a theory of leading which suggests that effective leaders will 1) learn the culture, 2) use creative imagination, 3) employ adaptive work strategies, 4) close gaps and uncover values 5) shape a shared vision, and 6) transform work into a "ministry partnership."
About the Author: Carl C. Green pastored for 21years prior to becoming, in 1993, the assistant district superintendent for Northwest District, 73 Nazarene churches in Eastern Washington, North Idaho, and North Central Oregon. His duties include working with leadership teams - pastors and lay leaders - to develop and execute leadership strategies in the local church. He is presently engaged in doctoral studies at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington.
78
Introduction
The world in which my theory of leadership tests itself and evolves is a Protestant denomination. Most of the ministry resources-people, time and money-over which the pastor presides are volunteered, meaning the pastors primary leverage is good will. Additionally, the congregation may exercise its prerogative to vote its pastor out for any reason deemed valid by two-thirds of the membership. Further, the pastor is expected to function as both prophet and priest, roles not easily synthesized. In scripture the priest stands squarely inside the community (Hebrews 5:1, NIV). In contrast, prophets, protecting their credibility for critique (and perhaps their courage), always maintained distance from the established authorities-both the kingly courts and the formalized religion of the priestly tribe. Heifetzs (1999) analysis of leaders &dquo;with&dquo; (pp. 67-180) and &dquo;without authority&dquo; (pp. 181-232) parallels this understanding of priest and prophet.
compete and sometimes conflict populate the environment in which the functions. This kind of environment stimulates my need to please (Daloz, pastor Keen, Keen, & Daloz, 1996, p. 181). I sometimes wonder to what extent my need for personal approval and for institutional or congregational approval find expression as a collaborative approach to leadership, built on empathetic strengths and caution. The need to please, however, is finally a subcategory of divine leadership. Daloz et al.s (1996) etymological summary of vocation and commitment-&dquo;a response to some outside force: being called or sent on a task&dquo;-describes my understanding. Sometimes a &dquo;fierce holding on,&dquo; my service is, because it is vocation, more &dquo;an open hand and discerning heart&dquo; than &dquo;a white-knuckled grip and clenched teeth&dquo; (p. 196).
Issues that
Springing from this operational context, my leadership preference, emphasizing &dquo;the interdependence between people and organizations,&dquo; is a human resource style. I have an affinity for rational systems in regards to organizational goals and roles (Bolman & Deal, 1984, pp. 2-3). Additionally, believing that wise leadership understands and responds to follower aptitudes and capabilities (Jacques, 1994, pp. 35-36), I am strongly influenced by contingency theory, which applies particular leadership styles to variant developmental levels (Heifetz, 1999, p. 16; Timm & Peterson, 1993, pp. 169-170; Bolman & Deal, pp. 2-3). I can strengthen my leadership repertoire by discerning &dquo;the depth and complexity of organizational life&dquo;, more readily using the olitical and symbolic frames identified by Bolman and Deal (p. 5).
with Burns (1979) that leadership is &dquo;inseparable from followers needs and goals&dquo; and becomes &dquo;genius&dquo; when the &dquo;values and motivations&dquo; of leaders and followers are congruent (p. 19). Indeed, the challenge and target of much of my current work is to identify fertile soil for a cooperative relationship between pastors and congregations. GE and Xerox, as described by Deal and Kennedy (1982), demonstrate that two equally successful cultures may be very different (pp. 16-17). One can never guarantee a perfect match between pastor and followers in the congregational setting, but careful analysis of the congregational culture and pastoral preferences may reduce the risk of failed partnerships and maximize the possibility that pastors and congregations will &dquo;stand firm in one spirit, contending as one [persons] for the faith of the gospel&dquo; (Philippians 1:27, NIV). My leadership theory envisions this kind of partnership and case studies in the addendum attempt to connect the theory to reality.
I
concur
Leadership Theory of
a Protestant Minister
79
80
Learn the Culture
congregation has a distinctive culture with a variety of factions (Heifetz, 1999, p. 119), sub-cultures, or even contradictory cultures, the prudent leaders first step is understanding, not action (Gardner, 1990, p. xiv). Fiedler
Because every
argues that three factors are essential to render a situation favorable for action: positional power, clarity of goals, and personal power (Timm & Peterson, 1993, pp. 167-168). Task activities can be successfully approached when all three factors exist. Cohesion-building activities should be engaged when some mixture of positives and negatives exist. Action taken prematurely may produce miscues: misdiagnosis of constituent felt-needs and values, for example, or ignorance of patterns that are important clues to systemic problems (Heifetz, p. 255), or the readiness of followers to address the issues identified by the observant leader (Hersey & Blanchard, 1995, p. 207). Leadership is an interaction, not an impartation. Leaders and followers influence each other profoundly (Heifetz, p. 17).
a repository of hope. Pressure may be solve issues that are on hold but, unless the situation is very applied quickly unstable, the newly arrived leader can probably survive until clarified understanding and the urgency of the situations is established (Heifetz, 1999, p. 237). Thus, the skillful leader scans the environment (Daloz et al., 1996, pp. 133-134) and reads cues (Hackman & Johnson, 1991, p. 13) like the following: To what extent does the culture fail &dquo;to address the problems arising from [itsJ own values and purposes&dquo;? What &dquo;painful trade-offs and adjustments [will be] required to narrow the gap between current conditions and purposes&dquo;? What &dquo;values and purposes&dquo; are in competition with each other (Heifetz, p. 25)? What potential exists for responsiveness (and resistance) to the leaders leadership methodology?
new
pastor, simply by arriving, becomes

to
The leader generally has three strategic leadership options: ( 1) Circumvention, with the risk of backing into a potential crisis; (2) frontal challenge-~-getting out in front and becoming the &dquo;bearer of bad tidings&dquo; by introducing the crisis; or (3) riding the wave&horbar;staying just in front of the crisis, anticipating the wave and trying to direct the power as it breaks (Heifetz, 1999, p. 166). The third
option is typically preferable. The other two suggest heightened instability, with heightened risk or danger for the leader.
&dquo;Seven
some
level of
practical suggestions for bearing the responsibility that comes with leadership without losing ones effectiveness&dquo; are useful during this stage: (1) &dquo;get on the balcony&dquo; and &dquo;see the key patterns,&dquo; (2) keep oneself and ones leadership role differentiated, (3) keep the attention on issues rather than persons, (4) build relationships with various &dquo;allies close to the frontline&dquo; and gather perspective from them, (5) intentionally compensate ones own biases when interpreting the perspectives registered by the various allies, (6) schedule opportunities to gain perspective by reflecting, and (7) &dquo;preserve a sense of purpose&dquo; (Heifetz, 1999, pp. 252-274). The leader should approach issues identified as essential to the organizations improvement only when a cogent view of the organization has taken shape.
81
Creative
Imagination
Intentional acquaintance with the culture and its factions or sub-cultures breeds a context in which the leaders creative imagination goes to work. Five &dquo;habits of the mind&dquo; (Daloz et al., 1996, pp. 107) are indispensable for any leader, both within the working culture and between the working culture and the larger, external environment in which a particular organization is lodged and on which the organization desires to exert influence.
. &dquo;The habit of dialogue.&dquo; Ongoing dialogue between the leader and others is essential (Daloz et al., 1996, p. 108). Non-dialogic decision-making, in contrast, infers that leaders &dquo;have little to learn&dquo; (Heifetz, 1999, p. 150). . &dquo;The habit of interpersonal perspective-taking.&dquo; The ability to &dquo;see the eyes and respond to the feelings and concerns&dquo; of others (Daloz et al., through 1996, p. 108) is indispensable to casting a vision that &dquo;track~s~ the contours of reality&dquo; (Heifetz, 1999, p. 24). . &dquo;The habit of critical, systemic thought&dquo; (Daloz et al., 1996, p. 108). Effectively &dquo;put[tingJ things together which belong together&dquo; (p. 132), seeing the &dquo;big picture&dquo; (p. 113) and its components, and seeing &dquo;coherent patterns&dquo; in &dquo;the connections among them&dquo; are all essential (p. 108). 0 &dquo;The habit of dialectical thought&dquo; (Daloz et al., 1996, p. 108). The leader seeks to orchestrate synergistic synthesis by inviting persons with different, even conflicting, perspectives to the vision-casting table (p. 120). 0 &dquo;The habit of holistic thought.&dquo; Viewing life as an interconnected, interdependent whole produces practical wisdom-the &dquo;ability to see the big picture without missing the details, to recognize our connections to one another while acknowledging our distinctness, to celebrate the whole without losing a grasp of the particular&dquo; (Daloz et al., 1996, pp. 108, 123).
imagination, in my experience and practice, is not the charismatic leaders compelling vision of the future, articulated powerfully and, perhaps, with a measure of seductivity. Creative imagination, instead, stays close &dquo;to shifting circumstances and proceed[sj as the way opens&dquo; (Daloz et al., 1996, p. 205), planting the idea of partnership and cultivating the idea that the working vision will be forged as a community; it is transformational, not technical or transactional. The communitys response to this symbiotic relationship may give the leader an early clue whether partnership in ministry can occur. The leader, having identified the arenas of adaptive work through careful observation and analysis, then bids &dquo;farewell to naivete...without reverting to the luxury of cynicism&dquo; (Daloz et al., p. 174).
Creative
Adaptive Work
&dquo;The work of the imagination,&dquo; Daloz et al. (1996) assert, &dquo;is to create the real.&dquo; This is done, both individually and collectively, by &dquo;sorting and shaping the disparate elements of our world into one [unified and unifying vision, using images, symbols, stories, theories, and rituals&dquo; (p. 132). The imaginations palate is its environment, both internal and external. The imaginations work is to craft solutions to the miscalculations and flawed design of the internal environment so the organization can more adequately respond to the reality of change imposed by the external environment.
82
McFarland, Senn, and Childress (1994), remind us that the Fosbury Flop displaced the scissors kick, once the standard technique in world class high jump competition
(p. 184). This becomes a useful metaphor for the inevitability of change and the necessity of adaptation. Vision, tethered firmly to reality, has to have &dquo;accuracy, and not simply imagination and appeal&dquo; (Heifetz, 1999, p. 24). Heifetzs definition becomes a useful working definition for establishing accuracy:
An adaptive challenge is a particular kind of problem where the gap [between values and circumstances] cannot be closed by the application of current technical knowhow or routine behavior. To make progress,... invention and action [must] change circumstances to align reality with values, [and] the values themselves may also
have to The
change. (p. 35)

news
is that &dquo;human beings have faced critical transitions in the past with...stamina, wit, and moral courage&dquo; (Daloz et al., 1996, p. 5). Nevertheless, learning new skills produces disequilibrium and &dquo;social systems under threat try to restore equilibrium&dquo; (Heifetz, 1999, pp. 35). To compensate, the wise leader, understanding that frustration typically accompanies disequilibrium and its related adaptive work, seeks to pace the work. This, Heifetz alerts us, is a bit like &dquo;regulating a pressure cooker&dquo; (p. 85).
good
Three types of situation occur: In Type I situations, one can go to somebody and &dquo;get the problem fixed.&dquo; In Type II situations, the problem is definable but effective solution requires cooperation among multiple parties. Type III situations are the most difficult: &dquo;Technical fixes are not available.&dquo; &dquo;Learning is required both to define problems and implement solutions&dquo; (Heifetz, 1999, pp. 74-76). When old tools and familiar approaches no longer work, one is clearly in a Type III situation.
specific role of the leader in Type II and Type III situations is to function as a temporary repository of pain, giving the pains back in a paced manner (Heifetz, 1999, p. 82). Holding pains that exceed the current adaptive capacity lets readiness ripen (p. 207). Giving back the pains engages those affected in solving their problem. For these reasons, the perceptive leader rejects the invitation (and temptation) to &dquo;make hard problems simple.&dquo; Insisting that &dquo;no simple, painless solutions&dquo; exist and positioning her constituents to face the problems, she helps them learn new ways, not with easy answers but through alliance (p. 2).
The
The difficult task of mobilizing &dquo;people to face, rather than avoid, tough realities and conflicts&dquo; (Heifetz, 1999, p. 23) is accomplished by pacing-a savvy combination of intervention and failures to intervene, all designed to shift expectations from the leader to the community (p. 83). The leader should remain alert while pacing because he will slip on what Heifetz calls the &dquo;razors edge&dquo; if he miscalculates which expectations to meet and which to fail. &dquo;Challenge people too fast and they will push the authority figure over for failing their expectations for stability. But challenge people too slowly, and they will throw him down when they discover that no progress has been made&dquo; (p. 126). Pacing is clearly an art. The goal is for the leader to promote adaptive work without forfeiting the confidence of constituents and without squelching their hope and enthusiasm.
83
The call for
leadership and the opportunity for leadership is most pronounced when problems having no precedent in a communitys experience occur. The perceptive leader then looks for the primal cause, often starting some place distant from the expressed problem. Heifetz (1999) illustrates: &dquo;A mechanic rarely locates the problem [in a car that fails to start] in the key switch itself, but several feet away in the battery, starter, an electrical connection, or the alternator.&dquo; The analysis of the problem must include the &dquo;patients environment&dquo; and the problems &dquo;larger system&dquo; (pp. 3-5~-i.e., the &dquo;particularities of the constituents, their networks of support, and the harshness of the news&dquo; facing them (p. 115). If no frame of reference exists for interpreting or solving the new set of conditions, new tools must either be located
or
invented.
Paradoxically, the conflict and distress typically produced by disequilibrium produce a fertile environment for learning. Why, then, do people commonly appear ambivalent about change, even when they believe it is necessary? T.S. Eliot (1968)
grow older / The world becomes stranger, the pattern complicated&dquo; (p. 17). Overwhelmed by the complication and longing for the familiar, people want the situation to change but they dont want to absorb any negative effects of that change, and they fear anything that threatens to render the already strange world even more strange. This poses a confusing dilemma for the leader (Heifetz, 1999, p. 239); it poses both an opportunity and a danger for the voices the fear of many:
more
&dquo;As
we
congregation.
Part of the corresponding complexity the leader expects to navigate occurs at the boundaries of the competing, sometimes contrary, interests of the factions that exist in every collection of people. Daloz et al. (1996) refer to these factions as &dquo;tribes,&dquo; acknowledging their legitimacy as sources of personal and collective identity but warning against &dquo;tribalism&dquo; (pp. 64-65). Tribalism often resists change in order to protect tribal boundaries. In search of adequate solutions, then, the discerning leader invites members of the various tribes to the table, giving each of them a voice. He encourages them to give ear to the voice of others, then to place themselves under obligation to each other (p. 130). Two responses to this opportunity are available: work avoidance and a stream of positive responses that produce harmonious productivity rising out of a shared vision.
Work Avoidance
Work avoidance is a negative response to the changes imposed by the current environment. Preference for the familiar ways of doing things is relentless and refusal to accept any blame for the failure of the familiar ways is also relentless (Heifetz, 1999, pp. 37-38). T.S. Eliots (1968) poignant lines describe a work avoidance response: &dquo;There is only the fight to recover what has been lost / And found and lost again and again&dquo; (p. 17). Sadly, a frantic pursuit of the familiar past often reveals that what has really been lost is the congregations entrepreneurial ability to innovate. Perhaps it was this realization that prompted Victor Pentz, in his inaugural sermon at Peachtree Presbyterian Church in Atlanta, Georgia, to ask the question, &dquo;How can we be true to the past of this church if we do not go forward?&dquo;
84
In
a work avoidance scenario, the assertion inferred in Pentzs question is overwhelmed by the impulse signaling flight to an idealized past; it refuses to recognize that an &dquo;end- is ~a~ beginning&dquo; (Eliot, 1968, p. 17). Consequently, the leader will be blamed for any adaptive discomfort-for all the things lost and for the failure of the familiar. Expected to give answers and provide stability, the leader is not supposed to raise questions and permit or foster disequilibrium. Authority, given so long as the desired service is performed, may be withdrawn when decisions made no longer fulfill the groups expectation (Heifetz, 1999, p. 57). The leaders direction and pace is expected to ring the groups bell, not its alarm.
Collusion
or
Exit
If the alarm is sounded too persistently, conformity to the old norms will be demanded and threats to depose the leader may be issued. Even if no formal decision is made about the leaders position, the substance of the leaders rationale for engaging in adaptive work will typically be ignored when authority is withdrawn and her right to press or even raise the issue will be attacked (Heifetz, 1999, p. ~~5). Work avoidance is exerted as pressure on the leader to reproduce an acceptable level of equilibrium (p. 225),
The signal of work avoidance may be subtle, like the uncomfortable silence Sue Drucker experienced when sharing her reflections at a reception following a return from Africa: &dquo;The room fell silent,&dquo; she recalls. My family and friends &dquo;wanted it to stop.... Everything I said was so far apart from what their assumptions had been that they couldnt go further.... I was aware of a huge gap&dquo; (Daloz et al., 1996, p. 105), Regardless of the specific manner in which work avoidance is signaled, when refusal calcifies, the leaders options are narrow: either collude or exit.
Exit is indicated whenever the values of leader and
congregation are not in alignment regarding adaptive work (Wofford, 1999, pp. 62-65). The sources of nonalignment vary. Entrenched values sometimes make adaptation unlikely or of no net benefit. Sometimes the differences between pastor and congregation are amoral-an incompatibility rooted in underlying values or drives that simply differ. A sagacious leader seeks to attempt to distinguish between adaptive work that is necessary and work that is merely preferred. If adaptive work is merely preferred, a leader is needed whose values more closely approximate that of the constituency.
not be defeat or easy escapism. Conventional wisdom often insists that the solution is technical-replace the pastor. Seeds may begin to sprout, however, if the problems remain when the pastor is gone (Heifetz, 1999, p. ~38). Several pastoral departures later, dots may begin to connect in the minds of people who originally saw no connection. An exiting pastor, therefore, seeing &dquo;key patterns&dquo; and posing &dquo;right questions,&dquo; may plant the &dquo;systemic causes of the problem&dquo; in the congregational subconscious. Gestating there, timing and an accumulation of future events may ripen responsiveness to adaptive work that the now departing pastor knows must occur and that the congregation, at present, refuses to acknowledge (pp. 253-255).
Exit, when indicated, may
85
Uncover Values
In contrast to work avoidance, a positive stream of responses, leading to a partnership rooted in a shared vision, is possible if two connected tasks are engaged: an assessment of reality and the clarification of formative values. Values are the standards by which we measure our success. &dquo;Core values serve as internal gyros&dquo; (Wofford, 1999, p. 37). &dquo;Values are shaped and refined by rubbing against real problems, and people interpret their problems according to the values they hold&dquo; (Heifetz, 1999, pp. 22-23). Values are the talk behind the talk; they are also the unwritten rules and expectations that shape our actions and decisions. One may be unaware of the values but, operating in the background, values are always
expressed.
Close
Gaps
&dquo;People
with competing values [always] engage one another [and] ... confront a shared situation from their own points of view&dquo; (Heifetz, 1999, pp. 31-32). Thus, two kinds of gap may occur: A gap may appear &dquo;between the values people stand for and the reality they face&dquo; (p. 22) or because of individual preferences and differences. These gaps can be closed or successfully navigated by taking others and their variant points of view seriously, and by framing a new vision that includes others (Daloz et al., 1996, pp. 37, 75, 77). Solution always involves &dquo;clarifying] what matters most, in what balance, [andJ with what trade-offs&dquo; (Heifetz, 1999, p. 22); it sometimes involves discovering or designing tools that lie outside the current repertoire (p. 47). Closing the gaps between competing viewpoints and aligning behaviors with stated values is always a necessary step in forging a shared vision that is connected to reality.
Shared Vision
In 1982 Deal and Kennedy reported that &dquo;companies that did best over the long haul were those that believed in something&dquo; (p. 6). Shared vision clearly arises from and expresses beliefs that are deeply and widely held. The leader, in any attempt to
forge a shared vision, typically brings everyone with a vested interest in the adaptive outcome to the table, though parties that generate intolerable levels of disruption may, for strategic reasons, be excluded from the problem-solving process (Heifetz, 1999, p. ~40). Dale Galloway (1990), understanding the pastors ministry impulse, nevertheless concurs, suggesting the following pastoral response to negativity:
Never,
surrender your vision to negative thinkers.... Realize that a glass ceiling can be put on an entire congregation by a few negative thinkers. Be pastoral to them, but do not allow them to pollute your spirit or contaminate your faith. Since negative thinkers usually do not or cannot change much, it is usually not advisable to spend much time trying to fix them. (p. 75)
never
Great
should be taken to not overuse exclusion, however, because &dquo;the dissenter may be sharing the leadership task&dquo; (Gardner, 1990, p. xiv). responsible Dissent and negativity are not synonyms. Heifetz (1999) sounds the caution more
care
86
pointedly: &dquo;Deviants&dquo;-persons who challenge the leadership assumptions-&dquo;may be the seniors best sources of leadership&dquo; (p. 271). The responsible dissenter and the deviant both protect the leadership team from the dangers of groupthink (Janis, 1971, pp. 43-50, 74-76).
Individual expressions of vision, however, must harmonize into a shared vision or the variant visions fragment the community instead of unifying it. Multiple individual visions are as devastating to corporate health as multiple personalities are to individual psyche. DePrees (1992) description of a jazz band as a collection of different instruments and personalities that make beautiful music by subjecting themselves to the director and a common score is a useful metaphor (pp. 8-9).
core values. Communicated the shared vision can influence the strategy&dquo; (Heifetz, 187), larger community. Put into practice as &dquo;programs and policies&dquo; (Sashkin, 1989, p. 223), the constituent population has the opportunity, and very often the will, to endorse and support the adaptive agenda.
Vision, then, should stretch horizons without violating

as an
&dquo;educative
1999, p.
Transformation into
It is my view that
Ministry Partnership
ministry finds its fullest expression when pastor and people in ministry partnership, their.. individual, God-given strengths flowing into engage relevant ministry activities. Transformational theory (Burns, 1979, pp. 19-20) is well suited to a vision of the local church that pictures ministry taking shape around the gifts (core competence) of pastor and people. The most appropriate leader in this kind of scenario &dquo;is one who can lead others to lead themselves&dquo; (Manz and Sims, 1991, p. 18). Manz and Sims designate this leader a SuperLeader, a discomforting designation in most church settings. Greenleafs (1977) servant leader model (pp. 715, 46-48) is more comfortable theologically. Nevertheless, if the substance of the SuperLeader model can be embraced (and the discomfort imposed by the designation neutralized), pastors have the opportunity to expand and extend their ministry. Pastors can benefit from a cadre of partners, released into ministry. The pastors role (as SuperLeader) is to assess the developmental levels of parishioners, and to inspire their discovery and development of gifts through training, encouragement, and praise. SuperLeadership requires a significant adjustment of relationship to others because SuperLeaders differ from heroic and transactional leaders. The need for adjustment pressed itself on me in my early ministry. I took care of all the office output in my first pastorate. Then, newly arrived at my second pastorate, my wife, an executive secretary, volunteered to spend a day a week at the office. accomplished On her first day, as she typed a letter I had given her, I asked, &dquo;Why did you set the margin at 23 instead of 25?&dquo; She responded, &dquo;Do you want to do this yourself? If you want the margin set at 25, tell me and Ill set it at 25. Otherwise, trust me to I was instantly aware that this conversation prepare the letter acceptably.&dquo; referenced my ministry as a whole, not just this specific incident. I could micromanage every detail or delegate wisely, then trust people even if their creative methodology and output did not precisely match mine.
87
The
SuperLeader does not lead from a distance; he &dquo;takes into account the employees time and experience on the job, as well as the degree of the employees skill and capabilities&dquo; (Manz & Sims, 1991, p. 31 ). Sometimes he leads directly and sometimes indirectly, but always the goal is to release the leadership potential of his followers (Robinson, 2000). Followers, thus, become leaders, exercising leadership in specific arenas. Situational and contingency theory (Timm & Peterson, 1993, pp. 163-174) both provide the pastor with important tools, useful for the effective unleashing of parishioner devotion and skills, and for the development of parishioners as whole persons. This extension of redemptive grace seems to me consistent with the gospels upward, redemptive thrust.
Transformational theory dovetails with my earliest ministry impulses, which, with modification, remain active today. In my first assignment after seminary, I was a youth pastor. A musical group was scheduled to spend several days at our church. The junior and senior high teenagers and I began to plan an itinerary of activities, agreeing on tasks each would complete. I monitored progress with meetings and personal conferences. On the morning of the first days activities I took the group sponsor to the airport. Trapped in traffic, I returned late to the church and found the parking lot empty. I proceeded to the shopping mall where the musical group was scheduled to perform and was surprised to see the group singing as scheduled. The contact with the mall manager was mine but the teens, because of our planning, had improvised and covered my absence. They were proud of themselves and I experienced great joy broadcasting their improvisational achievement. This formative experience gave early shape to my first experiment with building &dquo;a culture of leadership&dquo; (Kotter, 1990, p. 109).
Burns, according to Couto (1995), believes that leaders and followers transform each other (p. 104). Acknowledging that the transformational theory is attractive, Couto concludes it is unattainable in practice (p. 107), seemingly preferring Basss adaptation of Burns theory: &dquo;Transformational leaders transform followers.... Influence is one-way&dquo; (p. 104). Couto and Bass may be right much of the time. &dquo;Human nature and the power of self-interest&dquo; (Wesche, 2000) clearly play critical roles in the ability of a pastor and people to achieve a satisfying and productive partnership. Further, when implementation is attempted, transformational theory, hybridized with situational and contingency theory, invokes a level of complexity for leaders that transactional methodologies may avoid. On certain magical Burns proves right: &dquo;Followers [sometimes] transform leaders occasions, however, by the interaction of leaders and followers&dquo; (Couto, p. 104)---influence can be twoway. As described earlier, a group of teens shaped my theory of leadership by reinforcing my confidence in two-way influence. Later, my secretary exposed a blind spot, giving further shape to transformational theory and to my practice. Other examples can be added. The moment is always profound when purposes that &dquo;started out as separate...become fused&dquo; (p. 102).
Conclusion &dquo;All life,&dquo; Martin Buber said, &dquo;is meeting&dquo; (Daloz et al., 1996, p. 25). Participating in that meeting, I intend to do my best to create conditions so that people can function at their best (p. 51) and to make heroic effort less necessary for all who &dquo;step into the fray&dquo; (Heifetz, 1999, p. 235). Accepting the penalties and rewards of leadership (Smith, 1994, p. 9), I embrace with enhanced understanding my daily engagement in
88
&dquo;impression management&dquo; and accelerate my preparation to perform with increased vigor before my particular &dquo;packed house&dquo; (Hackman & Johnson, 1991, p. 16). With Gods help, I can hold steady while &dquo;engaging turmoil&dquo; in my many-layered world of complexity (Daloz et al., p. 147)References
Bolman,
L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1984). Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass & Blanchard, K. H. (1995). Situational leadership. J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leaders companion (pp. 207-211). New York: The Free Press. Notes: Adapted from course materials at the United States Military Academy.
Hersey, P.,
Publishers.
Burns, J. M. (1979). Leadership. New York: Harper

& Row. M. M. (1984). The social, organizational, and cultural context of effective leadership. B. Kellerman (Ed.), Leadership: Multidisciplinary erspectives. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Chemers,
Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. (1993). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons experience. Homewood, Illinois: Irwin. Jacques, E.,
&
J. of
Cason,
K.
(1994).
Human
capability.
Falls Church, VA: Cason Hall & Co. Publishers.
Janis, I. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today,

Couto, R. A. (1995). The transformation of
transformational leadership. J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leaders companion (pp. 102-107). New York: The Free Press. Notes: Excerpted from a paper delivered at the 1993 Annual Meeting of the Political American Science Association, Washington, D.C., September 2-5, 1993.
5(6), 43-50,
74-76.
Harvard
Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Business Review, (6), 142-148.

P. (1990). What leaders Harvard Business Review, (3), 103-111.
Kotter, J.
really
do.
Daloz, L. A. P., Keen, C. H., Keen, J. P., & Parks, S.

D.
(1996). Common fire. Boston: Beacon Press.

(1992). Leadership jazz.
New York:
Manz Charles C., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (1991). SuperLeadership: Beyond the myth of heroic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 18-35.
De Pree, M.
Currency.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate
cultures.
McFarland,
L.
J., Senn, L. E., & Childress, J. R.
(1994). 21st century leadership: Dialogues with 100 top leaders. New York: The Leadership Press.
Robinson, W.
Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.

T. S. (1968). East Coker. Four New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.
Eliot,
quartets.
(2000). Ethics in leadership. Spokane, Washington, Westcoast Hotel River Inn: Leadership Connection breakfast. Notes: President, Whitworth College
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. New York: Praeger.
M. (1989). Visionary leadership: A perspective from education. W. E. Rosenbach, & R. L. Taylor (Ed.), Contemporary issues in leadership (pp. 222-234). Boulder: Westview Press.
E. (1985). Generation to generation: Family process in church and synagogue. New
Friedman,
York: Guilford Press.
Sashkin,
Galloway, D. (1999). Leading with vision. Kansas City, Missiouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City.
J. W. The Free Press.
Gardner,
(1990).
On
leadership.
New York:
Smith,
New
R. B. (1994). Talent and training leadership. Executive Speeches, 8(4), 6-9.
for
Goleman, D. (1997). Emotional intelligence.

York: Bantam Books.
Timm,
work
P. R., & Peterson, B. D. (1993). People at (4th ed.). Minneapolis/St. Paul: West
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant York: Paulist Press.

Hackman,
M.
leadership.
C. E.
New
Publishing Company.
Wesche,
L.
(hecs@juno.com). (2000,
E-mail
to
Z.,
&
Johnson,
Leadership: A communication Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Press of Harvard University Press.
answers.
(1991). perspective.
Election.
Carl
(cgnwdnaz@dmi.net).
Notes:
November 8). C. Green Professor, Ph.D.
(retired), Northwest Nazarene University.
Heifetz, R. A. (1999). Leadership without easy

The
Belknap
Wofford, J. C. (1999). Transforming Christian leadership. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.
89
Addendum
Applied Detail: A Beginning

Theories
reality.
studies
can be created in ivory towers, then remain disconnected from lifes gritty I offer three case studies as an attempt to combat this temptation. These
beginning attempt to test my theory in the crucible of experienced reality. I have camaflouged the subjects but the leadership strategies employed in each of the three settings were transformational in both philosophy and thrust.
are a
Case
Study
1:
Church A
Church A was located in a community that was grieving over its metamorphosis from a rural community to a major urban citys bedroom. The church, roughly 75 years old, participated in that grief Known in town as a closed congregation, ingrown and with a reputation of unfriendliness, the churchs attendance had been in plateau for more than a decade. The church called a new pastor under whose ministry adaptive work was identified and successfully addressed. The church subsequently relocated and within 15 years average attendance had more than
quadrupled.
An
Analysis of the Adaptive Work
The pastor under whose ministry Church As adaptive work was identified and successfully addressed arrived to a church that was stuck in a plateau in a growing
community
where
new
residents
were
looking
for
church home.
The
pastor,
within the first six months of his arrival, asked the churchs administrative board to identify the last stretching step of faith the congregation had taken. The answers included major maintenance on the facility seven years earlier, the building of the facility 18 years earlier, and other issues that dated back as many as 40 years. Listening and observing, the pastor noted a system of congregational values that, citing a concern for purity, excluded everyone not &dquo;like us.&dquo; The leadership team validated the pastors perceptions, identifying the churchs reputation for unfriendliness and significant constraints imposed by the physical facility as ministry inhibitors. First steps to address both issues, cooperatively designed by the leadership team, produced reasonable progress. Visitors were returning and making the church their home.
As the
implementation phase unfolded, one leadership team member began to express anxiety to the pastor. He routinely approached the pastor after board meetings, either isolating him in a room or initiating a phone call the next morning. Reporting that decisions made were improper or imprudent, the person insisted that &dquo;everyone agrees.&dquo;
In the first of these encounters, noting that the team member had voted for the action he was now trying to informally overturn, the pastor sought to clarify the reason the member voted in the affirmative. &dquo;I thought the recommended actions were pastoral directives and didnt know a negative vote was acceptable,&dquo; the board member explained. The pastor clarified that pastoral recommendations were not directives, then instructed the board member that a motion to reconsider any action
90
always in order at any subsequent board meeting. He offered to call a special board meeting so the board member could move the boards reconsideration. When the board member declined, the pastor explained that the boards action would
was
stand.
At the next board meeting, in the interest of building an informed partnership, the pastor clarified that no pastoral recommendation was intended as a directive and outlined the avenues of appeal each board member could activate. The discontented board members aptitude for applying informal pressure remained, however, undiminished. The pastor began polling all other board members in casual conversations and received no hint of dissatisfaction with any actions taken. He
implemented an escalating strategy of response, eventually responding to every post-meeting lobby by the board member, saying, &dquo;Im not going to talk with you about it now. This is not the time or place; last night was the time and place. You can make your appeal to the next board meeting or, at your request, I will call a special board meeting.&dquo; The offer was always declined and no motion to reconsider
was ever
then
made.
The pastor then began to receive visits from parishioners who, sent by the discontented person, urged the pastor to make peace. Each time, the pastor patiently explained the situation and detriangled (Friedman, 1985), encouraging the emissaries to also detriangle. This, he instructed the emissaries, could be done by explaining to the board member their expectation that he conform to Jesus instructions for processing relationships (Matthew 18: 15-17, NIV). This was done and the discontented members avenue of leverage was eliminated.
head at a board meeting more than a year after the pastors arrival. The board member exploded, verbally assaulting the pastor for his management of a decision made by the board the previous month. The pastor responded to the eruption, apologizing for the discomfort the board member had experienced and appealing to the church board to correct him if he had improperly applied the boards decision. No correction was offered and two subsequent eruptions prompted from the pastor repeat apologies and appeals.
Everything
came
to
The next day each board member stopped by the pastors office, saying they had never before seen the board member the way they had the previous evening. One by one, the pastor rehearsed his history with the disenchanted board member and closed the conversations, saying, &dquo;This congregation has a decision to make. Who will be the pastor of this church? If this member is going to informally function as pastor, do everyone a favor: call him to be your pastor and vote on him. Otherwise, pastor and people alike need to play by a common set of rules. When this board member-or any one of us-begins to play out-of-bounds, you need to lovingly say, We love you but your behavior is inappropriate.&dquo;
That evening, the pastor reported the events of the day to his wife: &dquo;I dont know what they will decide,&dquo; he told her. &dquo;I may not be the pastor six weeks from now.&dquo;
The various emissaries soon returned to the pastors office, telling stories that clarified a 25-year history. This was not new behavior. Across the length of 25 years, the discontented person, always working behind the scenes and never executing his actions publicly, had managed the departure of previous pastors. Their conclusion: &dquo;We should have done this 25 years ago.&dquo;
91
The Outcome of the
Adaptive Work
For 25 years every pastor had privately experienced this persons manipulative eruptions. This pastor, effectively managing the pace of this piece of the adaptive work, flushed out the behavior for all to see. Observing the behavior for the first time, key leaders found it intolerable and adjusted their responses to the board member. The board member was never excluded from the life of the church but the terms of engagement, from that point forward, were different. Based now on the common good rather than the self-interest of any particular person, the church was free to meet an enlarged variety of needs. By the time the pastor had been there three years, average attendance had doubled. The church subsequently solved the physical constraints by relocating and has experienced an extended period of congregational growth and ministry vitality.
Case
Study 2:
Church B
Church B was located in a mid-sized city. When roughly 75 years old, the church relocated to a wonderful location, into a sanctuary with a capacity nearly four times
the size of the worshipping congregation. A brief burst of growth occurred during the first decade in the new facility, then a sustained time of decline began under two pastors. The church called a new pastor under whose ministry adaptive work was identified and resisted. Three pastors and ten years later, the churchs decline continued.
An
The pastor under whose ministry Church Bs adaptive work was identified arrived to a situation where every parishioner was paying for three empty seats. Congregational despair and internal strife compounded a heavy debt load. During the interview process, the pastor identified that the churchs adaptive work was going to involve two issues-the oversized sanctuary and fractured relationships. He addressed this perception during the interview process, ascertaining that the leadership team (and presumably the congregation) shared his conclusion. and observing during the early months of his pastorate, his early conclusions were reinforced. He was frequently asked, &dquo;When will we be able to operate in the black instead of the red?&dquo; The answer seemed clear-cut: &dquo;We need to minister in such a way that an increasing number of people desire to make this their church home.&dquo; Unfortunately, because of the nature and extent of the fractured relationships, the answer, clear-cut on paper, was less clear-cut in reality.
Listening
The too-heavy debt load set fixed parameters and continuing congregational erosion accelerated the urgency of the adaptive work. Meanwhile, signs of work avoidance began to appear. One family, for example, informed the pastor that they were leaving the church because they didnt want to attend a large church. The pastor conceded that they needed to go elsewhere if they wanted a small church because smaller was eliminated as an option when the current facility was built.
The
pastor consistently sought to engage the leadership team in formulating a response to their situation, both relationally and in regards to the physical factors. Efforts by the pastor to engage persons in solving relational stresses were declined.
92
One parishioner explained, &dquo;We have skeletons in the closet and we keep the door closed. You should do the same.&dquo; The congregation also resisted changes to their historic ways of worshipping and doing ministry. The pastor, agreeing that things could be done in the old ways, once asked, &dquo;Who do you know that is looking for a church home, who wants to worship and minister as you do?&dquo; &dquo;We dont know anyone,&dquo; they answered. &dquo;All the people like us are already going to a church.&dquo; The pastor responded that, in order to operate in the black, it would be necessary to minister to persons unlike &dquo;us.&dquo; Strong resistance continued to be exerted against any change of approach.
subsequently attempted to engage the leadership in times of brainstorming and learning, for the purpose of forging a shared vision on how to shape ministry and to craft a creative response to the oversized facility. He did this, in part, because his early attempts to learn the culture informed him that his predecessor was criticized for formulating solutions, then &dquo;springing them&dquo; on the congregation. &dquo;If,&dquo; one person said, &dquo;your predecessor had involved us in the process, we would have cooperated.&dquo; In contradiction to this objection, voiced often in the new pastors early months at the church, the leadership team began to object to the hard work of involvement. &dquo;Youre the expert,&dquo; they told him. &dquo;You tell us
The pastor what
we
should do.&dquo;
was
clearly in a Type II or III situation but the congregation was technical (Type I) fix. The pastor eventually gave in, put an initiative insisting on the table, invited feedback, and the board voted to adopt the initiative. The then spent the next two years defending the plan of action to the pastor congregation (in both collective and individual settings) and, most significantly, to the church board. Meanwhile, board members continued to ask the pastor, &dquo;What do you think we should do?&dquo; The pastor finally began to answer, &dquo;You know what I think. The issue is no longer what I think; the issue now is, what do you think about what I think?&dquo;
This church
on a
demanded technical fixes from the pastor, resisting attempts to engage any solution that threatened their customary way of doing things. The church was clearly engaged in work avoidance. Unwilling or unable to participate in addressing the issues the pastor had inherited, congregates increasingly blamed the pastor for their disequilibrium (Heifetz, 1999, p. 236).
The church
persistently
the pastor gave the church board permission to facilitate of the churchs situation and to craft a proposed solution. The its own assessment solution, when complete, duplicated the plan outlined by the pastor two years earlier-the same plan that had been in continual dispute since that time. The pastors decision to resign was solidified when the church board presented its proposal to the congregation. The tentative nature of the presentation made it clear that the hearts of the lay leaders were either not in the solution or that they anticipated insurmountable resistance from the congregation. The message the pastor had repeatedly heard during the years of his pastorate remained unchanged: &dquo;Fix it but dont change anything.&dquo;
Shortly
before
resigning,
93
The Outcome of the
Adaptive Work
Unwilling to engage in work avoiding collusion and knowing that the demand for a technical fix would not cease if he attempted collusion, the pastor chose to exit. Within a few months he resigned. Partnership had never evolved. Instead, the church presented so many impediments to leadership that leadership proved impossible (Heifetz, 1999, p. 49) and progress proved elusive. Nothing in the decade that followed altered the accuracy of the pastors adaptive assessment.
Case
Study 3:
to
Church C
Church Cs
administrative board assigned to a subsidiary board the the recreational ministry of the church. The subsidiary board, authority manage over a period of two years, drafted a master plan, regularly presenting the evolving project to the primary board for feedback. Little feedback was given until the subsidiary board asked for permission to begin fund-raising for the proposed recreational facility. The primary board then expressed resistance to the project as proposed. The presentation was suspended and a meeting was scheduled for the purpose of forging a shared vision. Two years later, the two boards had cooperated and a beautiful new facility, completed in record time, was in use.
primary
An
Church C illustrates that transformational theory does not take shape neatly in a linear sequence. Sometimes the leader has to circle back. The subsidiary board had made multiple presentations of its vision and progress, extending to members of the primary board periodic invitations to attend planning meetings. When no one from the primary board acted on the invitations, the subsidiary board reasoned that the primary board would be &dquo;on board&dquo; when the request to authorize fund-raising was made. However, it became quickly apparent that strong dissenting opinions existed regarding the shape, scope, and function of the proposed project.
The
subsidiary boards spokesperson intuited that the primary boards support was going to be more important to the project than their formal approval. Approval could be granted without practical support but this project might never come to fruition without the primary boards support. Sensing the strength of the primary boards hesitation, the subsidiary board spokesperson suggested postponement of the proposal for the purpose of more completely addressing the concerns being voiced by the primary board. The pastor then suggested a meeting of both boards and all agreed. A date was set, essential participants were identified, and relevant
materials
were
distributed.
The subsidiary spokesperson facilitated the daylong event. Following a review of the meeting purpose, the proposed project was described and a brief history of the proposals genesis was given. The group was then strategically divided into small groups for guided brainstorming, following which each groups conclusions were presented. A synthesizing segment followed for the purpose of harmonizing divergent ideas, opinions, and directions. Two questions guided this time: What vision must be forged to drive the changes this church needs to make? What does this group need to do to work together like a team?
94
As the
day progressed, synergy occurred, excitement began to build, support gathered behind an alternative structure, and the initial proposal was displaced. By the time of dismissal, everyone was energized. Values had been unpacked. Gaps were identified, then closed, and a shared vision emerged.
The Outcome of the Adaptive Work

One member of the primary board later told the subsidiary board spokesperson that he could have pushed the proposal through during the initial presentation to the primary board if he hadnt backed off The wisdom of the spokespersons position was demonstrated, however, when fund-raising efforts fell short of the necessary goals. If the primary board had remained detached from the project, the primary board members would have concluded that the subsidiary board never had their act together and the project would have stalled indefinitely, perhaps completely. Instead, the primary board, fully invested in the project, moved the project to completion, playing the key role in overcoming the fund-raising deficit. This would not have happened if approval had been gained without the primary boards support.
&dquo;Home,&dquo; Douglas Meeks says, &dquo;is the place where there will be a place for you at the table, what is on the table will be shared, and you will be placed under obligation&dquo; (Daloz et al., 1996, p. 130). This occurred in Church C. People with divergent points of view were invited to the table. This set the stage for success. Placing themselves under obligation to each other at the common table, the leadership team
positioned itself to contend with each other (Philippians against each other to complete the project envisioned at the
was
1:27, NIV) instead of table. A shared vision
essential.
The effect of transformational leadership, as experienced at Church C, may have been more tactical (specific) than strategic (global) in scope. This does not negate the significance of what occurred, however. Transformational leadership most often shapes a transformational context tactically-one step at a time-and each tactical transformation becomes a bridge to increased partnership. Case
Study Conclusion
Transformational leadership is not universally applicable; it is dependent on the union of a pastor and people who are both able and willing to walk and work together transformationally. This does not always occur; indeed, it may not occur often. These case studies illustrate that a pastor can, by skill and intuition, identify adaptive work and offer to facilitate it; he can produce transformational partnership only with the active cooperation of the congregation (Chemers, 1984, pp. 107-108; Kelley, 1988, pp. 143, 146-14l; Rost, 1991, pp. 107-109). Nevertheless, transformational leadership, augmented by useful tools from other leadership theories, remains a worthy model because, when it occurs, the results are highly satisfying for participants and productive for the advance of the gospel (Philippians
1:1~,
NIV).
95
A Primer for
Progress
as a
Leader
(PPL)
Several issues presented themselves in sharpened focus during the framing of this theory, each representing &dquo;a new beginning, [and] a raid on the inarticulate&dquo; (Eliot, 1968, p. 16). Pushed to the surface by reading, dialogue, and experience, each of the following issues represents an opportunity to articulate something that is presently, to some degree, inarticulate, and each articulation (strengthening) of the inarticulate (weakness) will further evolve my working theory.
.
. . .
Understand and better utilize all the tactics of power and influence (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 1993, p. 109). Perfect the art of pacing (Heifetz, 1999, pp. 79-85). Perfect the art of persuasion (Daloz et al., 1996, pp. 186, 191). Receive acceptance and forgiveness (Daloz et al., 1996, pp. 106, 191,
196).
Because of the personal nature of these matters, I have chosen to enlarge my discussion of these points and my conclusions in a separate document. However, believing that my engagement in this personal adaptive work will improve my leadership-quotient by continually reshaping my attitudes and behaviors, I respectfully suggest that every person who drafts or amends a leadership theory consider developing a personal PPL.

Leadership Theory of A Protestant Minister

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leadership Theory of A Protestant Minister

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies

http://jlo.sagepub.com Leadership Theory Of A Protestant Minister

Midwest Academy of Management

Learn the Culture

pastor, simply by arriving, becomes

change. (p. 35)

The call for

Exit is indicated whenever the values of leader and

Exit, when indicated, may

Vision, then, should stretch horizons without violating

Burns, J. M. (1979). Leadership. New York: Harper

Falls Church, VA: Cason Hall & Co. Publishers.

Janis, I. (1971). Groupthink. Psychology Today,

Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Business Review, (6), 142-148.

Daloz, L. A. P., Keen, C. H., Keen, J. P., & Parks, S.

(1996). Common fire. Boston: Beacon Press.

J., Senn, L. E., & Childress, J. R.

Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.

E. (1985). Generation to generation: Family process in church and synagogue. New

York: Guilford Press.

R. B. (1994). Talent and training leadership. Executive Speeches, 8(4), 6-9.

Goleman, D. (1997). Emotional intelligence.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant York: Paulist Press.

Leadership: A communication Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.

November 8). C. Green Professor, Ph.D.

(retired), Northwest Nazarene University.

Heifetz, R. A. (1999). Leadership without easy

Applied Detail: A Beginning

Analysis of the Adaptive Work

The Outcome of the

Analysis of the Adaptive Work

The Outcome of the

Analysis of the Adaptive Work

The Outcome of the Adaptive Work

1:27, NIV) instead of table. A shared vision

You might also like