Thursday, April 19, 2012

Passing on the Baton to a New Generation of Leaders

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable [faithful] men who will also be qualified to teach others.(2 Timothy 2:1-2, NIV)


At the conclusion of the 2008 Olympic Games, there was formal, ceremonial passing of the baton from Beijing to London which is already busy preparing to host the 2012 Olympics. The work of the Olympic Games never ends. Likewise, leadership is never meant to end when a servant leader moves on but should be passed to a new generation. This happens when a leader realizes the temporary nature of his or her tenure and embarks on the business of developing other servants.

In 2 Timothy 2:1-2 the apostle Paul demonstrates what it means to develop new leaders. In this exhortation to his son in the faith, Paul tells Timothy to entrust whatever he has learned from him to reliable [faithful] persons who will also be qualified to impart the same on others. Consequently, Timothy would be replicating the Apostle Paul’s leadership development model. 

In the author’s quest to learn more about leadership in order to encourage and equip other leaders, he studied contemporary leadership theory and found five theories particularly applicable to leadership today. They are:  a) Charismatic Leadership, b) Transformational Leadership, c) Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX), d) Ethical Leadership, and d) Path-Goal Theory.  These are examined in the paragraphs below. 

Theory #1:  Charismatic Leadership

“‘Charisma’ is a Greek word that means ‘divinely inspired gift,’ such as the ability to perform miracles or predict future events.”[1] Thus, when we refer to a leader as being charismatic, we are describing “someone with a special gift that gives him/her the capacity to do extraordinary things.”[2] In this viewpoint we see an emphasis on charisma as a personality characteristic.

Charisma is not only divinely endowed but it is also humanly developed. John Hull explains this idea further in his discussion of the qualities of a national leader. He is convinced that “to build charisma, you need to be others minded. Leaders who think of others and their concerns before thinking of themselves quickly develop charisma.” [3]  

Generally, a charismatic leader uses his / her behavior (such as the ability to articulate goals), skill, and keen knowledge of certain situations to exercise influence on others. But the followers will only catch the vision if they see the leaders living it out and passionately articulating it.   

Whenever there was a social or spiritual crisis during the initial formulation of this leadership theory, only the charismatic leader would rise to the occasion. He was considered the primary person to give a word of knowledge or encouragement, perform miracles, and inspire people through vision casting. But with the new synergy of Charismatic Leadership whereby the leader and follower work together, we are likely to see the follower responding to God’s call to preach God’s Word and to perform miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit.  

When leaders and followers work together in harmony, the former find it fitting to work themselves out of the job by doing the real work of the ministry—equipping the latter. The fourth chapter of Ephesians tells us that God has given team leadership to the church for this reason:

“to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:12-13).

The apostle Paul exhibited Charismatic Leadership in the way he planted churches and strengthened them through a follow-up ministry. In Acts 13:1ff, Paul visited the churches with Barnabas and John Mark. Paul (the charismatic leader) and Barnabas argued over John Mark in the next missionary journey. This pinpoints one of the weaknesses of charismatic leadership—a tendency to be impatient with the weaknesses of others. Charismatic leadership that does not have the support of other leaders will be dictatorial, and that is what we do not want to see happen in a church, community or country leadership.  

Theory #2:  Team Leadership

“Teams are organizational groups composed of members who are interdependent, who share common goals, and who must coordinate their activities to accomplish these goals.”[4]  In the team leadership model, it is the team that is in the driver’s seat as far as effectiveness is concerned.  If the team fails, the leadership is a failure.

Billy Graham in his world-wide evangelistic crusades was a great team leader.  On his team, he had evangelistic directors, music directors and prayer coordinators. He realized right from the start of his ministry that he could not do the work alone. Knowing that the success of his leadership depended on a team he would develop, he “chose his team very carefully. He brought together his early team of Cliff Barrows, Grady Wilson, and George Beverly Shea, then effectively led it and kept it dynamic for more than half a century.” [5]

While Billy Graham’s team leadership worked together with amazing results, we should not assume that it will work the same way with every team. Graham and his hand-picked group did not encounter problems that interfered with their teamwork because of their maturity, strength, and support. This teaches us that if we want to pass on a Godly legacy to a new generation of leaders, we need to work as an orchestra to produce good harmony despite our differences. But the key is for each leader to play their part in relation to the other leaders.

Personality differences, lack of maturity and unresolved issues are potential pitfalls for any team: they threaten cohesiveness of the team. This is where a team leader comes in handy but he needs to heed this good advice: Determining your own leadership style and understanding the style of your fellow leaders can transform the way you work together.”[6]  

In example of Paul, Barnabas, and John Mark, mentioned above, Paul was impatient, and as a result conflict arose between them. This can be fixed with team leadership that recognizes that we are different in terms of our strengths, weaknesses, and leadership approaches. Through team leadership we also learn to be patient with others when we realize that we are all seeking to be conformed to the Image of Christ (Romans 8:29). Christ helps us to maturely deal with the conflicts that arise between us and others. It is great to read that the conflict that arose between Paul and Barnabas had a good ending—Paul told Timothy to bring John Mark, “for he is useful to me for the ministry,” in 2 Timothy 4:11. What an excellent inspiration for team leadership! 

Theory #3:  Leader-Member Exchange Theory

Working together with others requires strong relationships. Thankfully, this is the theory that helps leaders develop a relationship with their followers. Peter Northouse puts it this way, “LMX theory makes the dyadic relationship between leaders and followers the focal point of the leadership process.”[7] In this theory, the making of leaders moves through three phases, namely: stranger, acquaintance, and partner. This involves different roles, influences, exchanges, and interests. It takes time to move followers from the stranger to the partner phases.  

There is a need to work on communication between leaders and followers in order to bridge the gap between them.  The fact that this theory divides the work unit into two groups—the in-group and the out-group—gives the appearance of discrimination.[8] The goal, therefore, is to develop high-quality exchanges between leaders and followers and to eventually eliminate the out-group.  

Michael Z. Hackman and Craig E. Johnson reveal that the LMX researchers confirmed that “differentiated relationships do exist and that in-group followers are better performers… [In fact] followers in mature relationships begin to act as leaders themselves, shouldering more responsibility for the success of the group.”[9] 

In practice the two groups are distinct from each other. Northouse reiterates that “the in-group members are willing to do more than what is required in their job description and look for innovative ways to advance the group’s goals.”[10] On the other hand, out-group members “operate strictly within the prescribed organizational roles.” [11] 

Theory #4:  Ethical Leadership

John C. Maxwell notes that the higher an individual wants to climb, the more he or she needs leadership abilities and the greater the impact he or she wants to make, the greater his /her influence needs to be.[12] And to influence others we need good ethical leadership, that is, leaders with a good reputation. 

How can we decide if a leader is moral or immoral? It all has to do with his/her values. Leadership as a process is influential and amoral. Here are some examples of unethical and ethical leaders:

“As leaders, Hitler was immoral; Abraham Lincoln was moral. What does this tell us? The difference between the two was their values. Thus leaders’ values make all the difference in the kind of influence they exert.”[13] 

In ethical leadership, it is important to distinguish between the ethics of an individual and the ethics of the organization. How the two relate to each other is a good study to do. How does this relate to leader development? 

Theory #5:  Path-Goal Theory

The basic idea behind the path-goal theory is the fact that there is a path through which leaders seek to lead their followers.  This path has a valuable end goal of productivity. However, there are obstacles in the way and leaders must help the followers to navigate around them. It is therefore the responsibility of the path-goal leadership to define goals, clarify which path to take, remove obstacles, and provide support to the followers. “The path-goal theory is based on a theory of an organizational motivation called expectancy theory.”[14] In other words, there are certain expectations that leaders have of their followers, and their accomplishment result in rewards.  

A great example of this theory is found in 2 Timothy 4:1-8 where the apostle Paul gives a charge to Timothy. In this charge, he outlines what he expects Timothy to do in order to finish well or receive a reward:

  1. Preach the Word (v. 2)
  2. Be prepared in season and out of season (v. 2)
  3. Correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction (v. 2)
  4. Endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry (v. 5)
The apostle Paul communicated clearly to Timothy regarding the anticipated goal. If Timothy is faithful, he will also be able to look forward to, “the crown of righteousness” (v. 8). 

The expectations must be communicated to each follower in a manner that fits their motivational need. The theory proposes four leadership communication styles or behaviors to address the needs of the followers, namely: directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented.[15] 

In the Los Angeles Crusade of 1949, Billy Graham exemplified the four leadership communication styles of the Path-Goal theory as he dealt with his team. He provided direction to the team by writing down the purpose statement for the crusade and giving them support when they needed it. When faced with some criticisms concerning mass evangelism and evangelists in general, Graham assembled his team and asked for their input (participative leadership) in addressing the problems. Together they came up with a strategic plan on how to address the problems once and for all. At the end of the crusade, their goal had been accomplished through God’s presence in their midst. Graham never forgot to give God the glory. He wrote, “I feel so undeserving of all the Spirit’s done,” as he reflected on the crusade, “because the work has been God’s and not man’s. I want no credit or glory. I want the Lord Jesus to have it all.” [16] 

Concluding remarks

In order to pass on the baton to new generation of leaders or to ensure that those who come behind us finish well, this article has noted five leadership theories that helpful for doing so. The usage of each leadership theory will depend on the circumstances that both developing leader and the one being developed are facing. From this article, we draw five concluding remarks that for the trainer and/or the trainee in the leadership training process: 

First of all, if the leader being prepared to assume leadership has a leaning toward the charismatic leadership, he or she needs to be informed of the pitfalls that go with this kind of leadership. The charismatic leader has the ability to articulate goals and rally support as far as the mission of the organization. But he also has a tendency to be impatient, especially in relation to the weaknesses of others. It is, therefore, crucial that in the training process all these thoughts are considered and the concerned is warned that “pride comes before a fall.” 

Secondly, in utilizing the team leadership concept, it is important to teach the leader to-be that his success or the means through which he is going to work himself out of the job depends on how he works with the team. Billy Graham’s illustration as to how he chose his team and worked with it for more than 50 years is noteworthy. 

Thirdly, in dynamics that feature the LMX theory the leader maker should help the protégé to ensure that strong relationships are focal point of his relationships with those he leads in future. Though he will have an in-group and an out-group, as far as leaders he works with are concerned, he should aim at being a leader to all and cultivating meaningful relationships with them. 

Fourthly, the goal with ethical leadership should be to help the apprentice to understand that what makes a leader moral or immoral are the values that he or she espouses. The closer the values of the individual leader are to those of the organization he leads, the closer the relationship between them. The latter point needs to be explored in future studies. 

Lastly, the new leader must seek to employ the path-goal theory by communicating or behaving in directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented ways before the followers. Overall, his desire must be bring glory and honor to His Creator and not to be self-serving in any way.


End Notes:



[1] Gary Yukl, Leadership in Organizations (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002), 241

[2] Peter G. Northouse, Leadership Theory and Practice, 4th edition (Thousand Oaks, London: Sage Publications), 2007, p. 177

[3] John Hull’s Qualities of a National Leader. Retrieved on October 9, 2008 from http://www.leadershipmoment.org/site/c.egLNI0OCKrF/b.4486247/

[4] Northouse, p. 207

[5] Harold Myra & Marshall Shelley, The Leadership Secrets of Billy Graham (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005), p. 39

[6] An overview of Sue Mallory’s book, Leadership Styles: Retrieved on August 12, 2008 from http://www.buildingchurchleaders.com/downloads/assessmentpack/leadershipstyles. 

[7] Northouse, p. 151

[8] Northouse, p. 160.

[9] Michael Z. Hackman & Craig E. Johnson, Leadership: A Communication Perspective (Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc, 2004),  p.78

[10] Northouse, p. 158

[11] Northouse, p. 158

[12] John C. Maxwell, The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998),  p. 6

[13] Samuel Kirui, “The Leadership Principles of the Good Shepherd: An Inductive Study of John 10 with Practical Implications for the Contemporary Church.” M. Div., Wesley Biblical Seminary, 1998, p. 10.

[14] Hackman & Johnson, p. 70.

[15] Ibid.

[16] John Pollock, Billy Graham: The Authorized Biography (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966), p. 64.


      [This was one of the papers I wrote for Leadership Theory course that I took as part of  graduate studies at Regent University's School of Global Leadership & Entrepreurship in the summer of 2008. Please do not reproduce or repost it in another website without my permission. If I can answer any questions for you, please  don't hesitate to e-mail me. Thanks!]




Thursday, April 12, 2012

Q & A on Servant Leadership for Personal Reflection!

Q.     1.  Who came up with the leadership concept of “servant leadership”; what is its history?

Servant leadership as a leadership theory is about four decades old. However, as a leadership concept, it has been in existence since Bible times. Hackman & Johnson (2004) trace its history and define the importance of this leadership theory:
Contemporary interest in leaders as servants was sparked off by Robert Greenleaf. He coined the term “Servant-Leader” in1970 to describe a leadership model that puts the concerns of followers first. Greenleaf later founded a center to promote servant-leadership. His ideas have been adopted by businesses …., non-profit organizations, and community and service-learning programs. Servant-leaders put the needs of the followers before their own.” (Leadership: A Communication Perspective, 4th ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc., p. 32)
Cunningham, in his 2008 doctoral dissertation, sheds more light on the origin of servant leadership. He also links it directly to its biblical roots:
The term “servant-leadership” first appeared in the leadership literature in the 1970s. It is attributed to Robert Greenleaf, “who believed that effective leadership emerges from a desire to help others” (Marzano et al., 2005, p. 16). Greenleaf, who is considered the father of servant-leadership, coined the term in 1970 (Spears, 1995), after reading Hermen Hesse’s story Journey to the East. In the story, the main character (Leo) considered himself a servant even though he was the leader of an Order. However, the practice of servant-leadership tenets may in fact date to a much earlier time (Marzano et al., 2005; Spears, 1995) as during his recount of Jesus Christ’s last days, Mark quotes Jesus saying, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all”(NIV, 1994, p. 1067).
Q.     2. What is servant leadership?

As already noted in its history, Servant Leadership is concerned about serving others and taking care of their needs. Thus, it is other-oriented rather self-centered. McCuddy and Cavin, referencing Greenleaf, note that the servant leader is one who serves first, and by whom those served “while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants.” This is in line with Patterson’s identification and definition of servant leaders:
Servant leaders are those who serve with a focus on the followers, whereby the followers are the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral. The servant leader constructs are virtues, which are defined as the good moral quality in a person, or the general quality of goodness, or moral excellence.
Q.      3. What are the characteristics and/or constructs of servant leadership?

“Operationally, servant leadership has been characterized according to ten points: active listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth, and community-building (McCuddy & Cavin quoting Larry Spears who articulated them as a recapitulation of Greenleaf’s work). The co-authors indicate that the ten characteristics of servant leadership “proffer a framework for the identification and measurement of servant leadership characteristics within an individual [servant-leader].”

 As a follow-up to the work of  Larry Spears, other researchers such as Patterson, a professor at Regent University, have done extensive studies on servant leadership. In her doctoral dissertation, Patterson made known seven component constructs or virtues of servant leadership. According to Patterson, a servant leader serves and leads with:

1.       agapao love, and

2.       acts of humility, and

3.       is altruistic

4.       is visionary for the followers

5.       is trusting

6.       is serving, and

7.       empowers followers.
Q.     4. What’s unique about servant leadership over other forms of leadership?

One of the unique features of servant leadership is its ability to combine both service and leadership. Those who serve are granted leadership by the led by virtue of the fact that they are servants at heart.

Even though there are differences in the way servant leadership maybe viewed or articulated, all researchers are in agreement in terms of its relevance. In each case, they lift up “servant leadership as a practice antithetical to autocratic leadership in an organizational setting.” This is due to the fact that, servant leadership characteristics have significant impact on the individual’s ability to effectively lead others and serve the organization, community, or context.” (McCuddy & Cavin).



References:
1.       Bible. New International Version. 1994, p. 1067

2.       Cunningham, Ryan L. (2008). "An examination of the relationship between servant-leadership behavior of the elementary school principal, school climate and student achievement as measured by the 4th grade Mathematics and Reading Michigan Educational Assessment Program.”  Masters Theses and Doctoral Dissertations. Paper 139. http://commons.emich.edu/theses/139

3.       Hackman. M. Z. & Johnson, C.E. (2004). Leadership: A Communication Perspective (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc., p. 32

4.       McCuddy & Cavin. Online resource.

5.       Patterson, K. (2003), “Servant leadership: a theoretical model”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate School of Business, Regent University.

Monday, April 9, 2012

Praise the Lord for Christmas AND Easter!

In the Barnabas Leadership Ministries’ newsletter for this month, I shared an article on the inter-relationship of Christmas and Easter. I would like to post it here too so it has a chance to reach a wider audience:

Easter is a great time of the year.  Christ-followers around the globe gather to celebrate the death and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ! It’s so true that Christ is alive, “…an empty grave is there to prove our Savior lives…” !

Comparatively, Easter is of more importance to us than Christmas; however, the two are inter-related. Though the love (mercy) and justice of God are evident in these two historical events, the birth of Jesus introduces them and we see their ultimate display on the cross. In other words, Christmas shows how much God loved the whole world by sending His one and only Son. Easter, on the other hand, demonstrates the price Jesus willingly and lovingly paid to make eternal life possible. As a result, if we believe in Him, we pass from death to life.  John 3:16-18 captures the nature of the relationship between Christmas and Easter so well:
"16God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son so that whoever believes in him may not be lost, but have eternal life. 17 God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world guilty, but to save the world through him.18 People who believe in God's Son are not judged guilty. Those who do not believe have already been judged guilty, because they have not believed in God's one and only Son.” (New Century Version).
Additionally, the testimony of John the Baptist further clarifies the relationship between Christmas and Easter. In John 1:29, John had this to say about Jesus, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (NIV).  When Jesus came, He came as the Lamb of God.  Mary, therefore, “had a little lamb” that would later die for the sins of the whole world. The verse reveals three essential features about Jesus, THE LAMB OF GOD, namely:  1) The SOURCE of the Lamb (He is from God, cf. John 3:16); 2) The SIGNIFICANCE of the Lamb (He “takes away sin”); and 3) The SCOPE of the Lamb’s ministry (Jesus atoned for “the sin of the world”). Bruce Milne presents a full discussion of the three points in “The Message of John” (a 1993 book published by Inter-Varsity Press, p. 53).
Thankfully, God’s story of redemption does not stop at the Cross; it starts to become crystal clear at the Resurrection of Jesus. In fact, Jesus is the only founder of a major religion who claimed to be God and He could substantiate it.  For example, in John 11:25, He said, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies.”  After making this statement, He demonstrated the truthfulness of His claim by raising Lazarus from the dead, thus proving that He was God—the Life-Giver.  {Taken from Kirui Kronicle, April 2012}
In response to the truths shared in the article, above, take time to PTL for Christmas and Easter!

Sunday, April 1, 2012

listening enhances service!

In the hustle and bustle of life, we must learn to listen to the Lord. It is in listening to Him that we are enabled to listen to our employees, followers, church members, constituents, relatives, neighbors, and family members. As a leadership student, I’m interested in how the aspect of listening goes hand in hand with servant leadership. I believe listening empowers us, i.e. it gives us the ability to appropriately meet the needs of others.

The world today needs listening servant leaders who seek to leave a lasting legacy by emulating the excellent example of Jesus Christ, the greatest servant leader the world has ever known. Concerning His own mission on earth, Christ had this to say: “For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and give us life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45, NIV). The best way we can serve Christ is to listen to Him. Likewise, the best way we can serve others is to listen to them.