“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)
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).
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:
- Preach the Word (v. 2)
- Be prepared in season and out of season (v. 2)
- Correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience
and careful instruction (v. 2)
- 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
[2]
Peter G. Northouse, Leadership Theory and
Practice, 4th edition (Thousand Oaks ,
London
[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
[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
[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.
No comments:
Post a Comment