Spiritual Leadership

Spiritual leadership occurs at the intersection of spirituality and leadership. Leaders can be highly spiritual without demonstrating leadership, and conversely may demonstrate leadership characteristics without spirituality. Spiritual leaders not only led others in organizational goals, but also lead others into greater personal spiritual development; consequently, spiritual leaders have a strong commitment to their own personal spiritual development.

The role of the Christian leader, and ministry leader, is to not only lead an organization using biblical principles, but also to grow continually, developing his or her own personal commitment to God, model to others this growing commitment, and lead others to a more mature relationship with God. The spiritual leader’s character often influences and determines the follower’s commitment to both leadership behaviors and espoused spiritual views. A leader’s religious orientation (intrinsic, extrinsic, or quest religiosity) is also a predictor of leadership orientation and influence how leaders frame and understand organizational complexities (structural, political, human resource, and symbolic) and make decisions.

How do you think your spiritual views affect the organization with which you are associated? Would your co-workers and reports share your same opinion?

Works Cited
Bird, J. V., Ji, C. C., & Boyatt, E. (2004, Fall). Christian leadership and religiosity reexamined: The evidence from college student leaders. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 13(2), 225-250.
Borek, J., Lovett, D., & Towns, E. (2005). The Good Book on leadership: Case studies from the Bible. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.
Nelson, A. E. (2002). Spirituality and leadership: Harnessing the wisdom, guidance, and power of the soul. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.

Moral Leadership

The role of the authentic transformational leader has been closely associated with that of the moral leader. Krishnan demonstrated through his research a significant and positive relationship between all five transformational leadership characteristics—idealized influence attributed, idealized influence behavior, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration – and moral leadership. Krishnan also demonstrated a significantly negative relationship between moral leadership and laissez-faire leadership.

Any leader who endeavors to lead an organization exercises social power thus making his or her leadership endeavor a moral task (Thompson; Quick & Normore). As the transformational leader genuinely and selflessly uses his or her position of influence to address the real needs of followers, the leader acts in the role of a moral agent (Quick & Normore). Consequently, leaders should be “guided by a moral compass and driven by a moral imperative” (Bernhut, 2004, p.1). Moral leaders are keenly aware that decisions have consequences, and moral leaders consciously and intentionally make decisions in the best interest of the authentic needs of the followers (Greenfield). Sankar asserts the leadership crisis in many organizations is a result of the lack of character in organizational leadership.

Moral leaders have demonstrated integrity and trustworthiness, and gained authority as they have aligned convictions, actions, and speech. Kouzes and Posner claim honesty is the most important characteristic followers looked for in a leader. Malphurs further strengthens this assertion by stating that in ministry, honesty is a more important characteristic for a leader than vision, strategy, or ability to communicate biblical truths. While many leaders in the Bible possessed seemingly unrealistic visions and expectations, other individuals followed these leaders because these leaders possessed honesty and integrity (Woolfe). A leader’s ability to lead over time rests upon his or her integrity and reputation (Steward & Shook) and the leader’s behavior permeates and affects the organizational culture (Verschoor).

Works Cited

Bernhut, S. (2004). What makes a leader the most. Ivey Business Journal Online, London, 1.
Greenfield, W. D., Jr. (2004). Moral leadership in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(2), 174-196.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The Leadership Challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Krishnan, V. R. (2003). Power and moral leadership: Role of self–other agreement. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5/6), 345-351.
Malphurs, A. (2003). Being leaders: the nature of authentic Christian leadership. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Quick, P. M., & Normore, A. H. (2004). Moral leadership in the 21st century: Everyone is watching—especially the students. The Educational Forum, 68(4), 336-347.
Sankar, Y. (2003). Character not charisma is the critical measures of leadership excellence. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(4), 45-55.
Steward, D. L., & Shook, R. L. (2004). Doing business by the Good Book: Fifty-two lessons on success straight from the Bible. New York: Hyperion.
Thompson, L. J. (2004). Moral leadership in a postmodern world. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(1), 27-37.
Verschoor, C. C. (2006, January). Strong ethics is a critical quality of leadership. Strategic Finance, 87(7), 19-20.
Woolfe, L. (2002). The Bible on leadership: From Moses to Matthew—management lessons for contemporary leaders. New York: AMACOM.

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership is another leadership orientation at the higher range of Bass’s full range of leadership. The transformational leader’s role is to influence and elevate the attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and values beyond the individual self-interests of those they are leading and to create moral agents among these followers in the organization . Similar to the transactional leader, the transformational leader also initiates contact with followers based upon the leader’s personal values and beliefs; however, the contact does not involve an exchange of valued commodities motivated by self-interests. The transformational leader “asks followers to transcend their own self-interests for the good of the group, organization, or society” (Bass, 1990, p. 53).

In addition to leading others, the transformational leader improves the values and priorities of others and views improvement as part of the leadership goal. The transformational leader motivates followers to commit to and realize performance outcomes that exceed their own expectations. According to Bass (1990), transformational leaders have four distinguishing characteristics (the four I’s): (i)dealized influence (charisma), (i)nspirational motivation, (i)ntellectual stimulation, and (i)ndividualized consideration.

Banerji and Krishnan (2000) claimed charisma as the most important component of transformational leadership. Self-confidence, the ability to be enthusiastic about everyday assignments, and the ability to see and translate the vision of the organization to followers are all key to the charismatic leader.
Inspirational motivation by leadership involves setting goals followers want to obtain by communicating purpose and rationale and by envisioning a successful future. Intellectual stimulation by leadership involves leaders encouraging followers to think of problems in new and innovative ways. Individualized consideration by leadership involves leaders demonstrating respect to all followers and giving personal attention to each follower according to the follower’s needs. A leader’s individualized consideration is demonstrated through interpersonal feedback, development of individuals within the organization, and quick, concise communication throughout the organization.

Some leadership theorists assert that the local church pastor’s transformational leadership style should be evidenced by the increasing maturity in the lives of the people in the pastors congregation and sphere of influence.

Works Cited:
Banerji, P., & Krishnan, V. (2000). Ethical principles of transformational leaders: An empirical investigation. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 21(8), 405-413.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9-34.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X). Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.
Conger, J. A. (1999, Summer). Charismatic and transformational leadership in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 145-170.
Cooper, M. (2005, Spring). The transformational leadership of the Apostle Paul: A contextual and biblical leadership for contemporary ministry. Christian Educational Journal, 2(1), 48-61.
Humphreys, H., & Einstein, W. O. (2003). Nothing new under the sun: Transformational leadership from a historical perspective. Management Decision, 41(1/2), 85-95.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246-255. Retrieved August 16, 2006.

Laissez-faire Leadership?

Laissez-faire leadership is found in an environment where leadership responsibilities are ignored by the leaders and decisions are avoided or neglected by the leadership. Laissez-faire leaders avoid their own supervisory responsibilities and avoid trying to influence their subordinates (Bass, 1990). These leaders usually set no clear goals, allow organizational drift, and do not help in the group decision-making processes (Bass & Avolio, 2004). They generally allow great freedom of action to their subordinates, rarely make evaluative comments, and refrain from participating except when asked direct question. Laissez-faire leadership is consistently found to be the least satisfying and least effective of the three leadership styles measured by the MLQ (Bass, 1990; Cooper, 2005). Ministry leaders who only want to focus their attention on the preaching and teaching ministry of the local church, while ignoring or neglecting their leadership responsibilities, are often functioning as laissez-faire leaders.

The avoidance displayed by the laissez-faire leader is consistently negatively related to follower satisfaction, organizational efficiency and productivity, and group cohesiveness. Bass (1990) discussed the strong negative correlation of several studies of laissez-faire leadership and transformational leadership. Significant to ministry leadership, Bass (1990) discussed the negative correlation reported by 28 religious ministers with laissez-faire leadership styles and organizational effectiveness. Parry and Proctor-Thomas’ (2002) research demonstrated a high correlation between high displays of laissez-faire leadership and low perceptions of integrity. Similarly, Krishnan’s (2003) research demonstrated a significant negative relationship between laissez-faire leadership and moral leadership.

Now I do not know French, but I do not think it is a coincidence that “Laissez-faire leadership” sounds like “lazy leadership?” To me, the ideal of a “lazy leader” is an oxymoron anyway. Is there any question why then this style is the least satisfying, least effective, and least productive style of leadership?

Works Cited
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X). Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.
Cooper, M. (2005, Spring). The transformational leadership of the Apostle Paul: A contextual and biblical leadership for contemporary ministry. Christian Educational Journal, 2(1), 48-61.
Krishnan, V. R. (2003). Power and moral leadership: Role of self–other agreement. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(5/6), 345-351.
Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2002). Perceived integrity of transformational leaders in organizational settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, 75-96.

Executive Coaching Makes Cents!

(I’m taking a break today from the academic leadership theory, and talking about the bottom line effect of executive coaching.

It seems everyone is trying to reduce organizational costs and achieve more productivity from their existing resources. I have even heard some say that they cannot afford coaching in our current economic environment. For those organizations that want to propel themselves forward in these challenging times, I would ask how can you afford not to have coaching as part of your organizational game plan?

Bradford Smart asserts that turning over good people in an organization can cost the organization up to 24 times the individual’s annual salary. You think about that! Let us say an executive in your organization earns a modest $175k a year. If you multiply that executive’s annual salary by six (instead of 24, which Bradford Smart suggests), the cost of losing that executive is over $1 million dollars to your organization. Now imagine the savings to your organization if you not only reduce the turnover rate of your company by 3-4%, but also increase the productivity of those you are keeping!

Bottom line, coaching can help. Coaching is not all qualitative, soft issues. Coaching can have a direct impact on the quantitative, ROI, bottom line issues of your organization’s profit/loss sheet. The costs associated with coaching 3 – 5 executives in your organization are significantly less than the costs associated with the turnover or loss of one executive in your organization. Are you or your organization focused on the pennies and losing the dollars? This is a no brainer. Coaching makes sense (and cents!).

Works Cited
Smart, Bradford (2005). Top Grading: How leading companies win by hiring, coaching and keeping the best people. Penguin Group: New York, NY.

Transactional Leadership

Transactional Leadership
Burns’ (1978) seminal work on leadership defined and differentiated transactional and transformational leadership. Burns (1978) was limited in his original discussions of transactional and transformational leadership to explaining the differences of political leaders. Transactional leadership was the result of a leader initiating contact with another individual or group “for the purpose of an exchange of valued things” (p. 19). The transactional leadership approach involved a social exchange of mutual influence and benefits such as promises for votes or favors for campaign contributions (Greenfield, 2004).

As part of the full range of leadership, Bass introduced transactional leadership into the organizational setting in 1985 (Parry & Proctor-Thomson, 2002). Transactional leadership characteristics included contingent reward, management by exception (MBE) (active), and MBE (passive). Contingent reward was the social exchange between leader and follower that occurred when success in achieving goals was rewarded (implicitly or explicitly) and failure was punished (through negative feedback, threats, or disciplinary action). MBE (active) occurred when leaders actively monitored followers for mistakes or deviations from the agreed-upon goals, while MBE (passive) occurred when leaders waited passively until a mistake was called to the leader’s attention before becoming involved and taking corrective action with reprimands or negative feedback (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Leaders who fear organizational conflict may limit the success of their organization by passively waiting for problems to be brought to their attention before becoming involved and taking corrective action.

Works Cited:
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X). Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden, Inc.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Greenfield, W. D., Jr. (2004). Moral leadership in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(2), 174-196.
Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thomson, S. B. (2002). Perceived integrity of transformational leaders in organizational settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 35, 75-96.

Contingency Theory

Though controversial, Fiedler’s contingency model of leadership has been the most widely researched model on leadership (Bass, 1990). Fiedler used three dimensions to describe the leadership situation: leader-member relations, task structure, and leader’s positional power. The most important variable in Fiedler’s research was the least preferred co-worker (LPC) scores. Fiedler, through his model, showed that low LPC (task-oriented) leaders performed better when leader-member relations, task structure, and leader’s positional power (the three dimensions used to describe the leadership situation) were all either highly favorable or unfavorable to the leader. High LPC (relations-oriented) leaders performed better when the three dimensions of leadership were neither high nor low, but moderate (Bass, 1990). Fiedler found that low LPC (task-oriented) leaders were more likely to perform in a dominant manner regardless of the leadership dimensions.

Fiedler’s Contingency Model posited that leader LPC scores (high or low) and leadership styles (relations-oriented or task-oriented) remain relatively consistent (Rice & Kastenbaum, 1983). Fiedler’s Contingency Model suggested that by using LPC scores (high or low), leaders would be placed in positions of leadership best suited for their leadership style. Different leaders should be chosen for different situations, or the leader can change the climate of the organization to fit best his or her leadership style. If leaders were able to control organizational situations such as leader-member relations, task structures, and formal positional power, it was possible for the leader to create an environment favorable to his or her style of leadership (Rice & Kastenbaum, 1983). According to Fiedler’s Contingency Model, pastors who were aware of their own leadership style should be able to determine whether their best leadership style was a fit for the local church.

References:
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Rice, R. W., & Kastenbaum, D. R. (1983). The contingency model of leadership: Some current issues. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4(4), 373-392.

Situational Leadership

In contrast to the great man theory and the trait theory, situational theorists suggested that leaders, especially great leaders, were developed as a result of situations and circumstances. Leadership has not resided in a person’s heredity or personality traits, but as a “function of the occasion” (Bass, 1990, p. 39). A relatively well-known situational leadership model was Hersey’s Situational Leadership Model. Originally called the Life Cycle Theory of Leadership, the Situational Leadership Model was developed from Reddin’s 3-D management theory and Blake and Mouton’s Management Grid (Marion, 2002). Theorists who advocated the situational leadership model suggested that leader effectiveness was dependent on follower maturity (circumstances) and that a leader would vary his or her leadership style accordingly. These same theorists also implied that organizational success is contingent upon the leader selecting the leadership style that matched the circumstances. Proponents of the situational leadership model would assert the reason for the large number of plateaued and declining churches is that local pastors have failed to vary their leadership style to match the organizational circumstances.

Works Cited:
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Marion, R. (2002). Leadership in education: Organizational theory for the practitioner. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Leadership: Trait Theory

Trait Theory
In the early 20th century, proponents of the trait theory, like proponents of the great man theory, addressed leadership in terms of personality traits and characteristics. Trait theorists posit that leaders possess different attributes and personality traits than non-leaders, which led to studies attempting to discover those leadership traits. Trait theorists also suggested a leader’s traits and characteristic response patterns were stable and occur independent of situational context.

While some argued there were simply no such things as leadership traits or characteristics, others continued to postulate that leaders possess particular traits associated with success. However, the concept of a pure trait theory was rejected by the situational theorists who argued that great leadership was a balance of personality and situation. Trait theorists may assert the reason for the large number of plateaued and declining churches is that local pastors either do not possess or do not consistently demonstrate the attributes and personality traits of leaders.

Works Cited:
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and others don’t. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Drucker, P. F. (1990). Managing the non-profit organization: Practices and principles. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Journal of Managerial Psychology (1997). Leadership: An overview. 12(7/8), 435-436.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The Leadership Challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Leadership Styles

Bass (1990) states that “the study of history has been the study of leaders – what they did and why they did it” (p. 3). From the instruction of Ptahhotep in 2300 B.C., to Confucius, to Plato, to Machiavelli, and to Collins, the scholars of leadership study have focused on influence (Bass, 1990). Leadership theories (great man theory, trait theory, situational leadership, contingency theory, transactional leadership, transformational leadership, moral leadership, and spiritual leadership), definitions, and processes of influence will be discussed in the coming weeks in an effort better to understand the complex nature of leadership and leadership implications for effective leadership, specifically leadership in the local church.

Great Man Theory
The great man theory of leadership became popular as great men were observed throughout history that rose to the position of leadership and led in spite of challenging and difficult circumstances. Proponents of this theory drew attention to leaders such as Martin Luther King, Lee Iacocca, and others who Collins (2001) described as individual leaders who build greatness through a blend of personal humility and professional will. The great man theory contained a position that leaders differ from followers because of hereditary influences (Bass, 1990). Simply stated, leaders are born and not made (Cawthorn, 1996).

Prior to the mid-twentieth century, the great man theory was the predominant theory for understanding leadership. With the rise of the behavioral sciences, the great man theory has been replaced with the notion that leadership is a science, and can be learned. From this perspective, leadership has little to do with hereditary or natural forces.

Cawthorn (1996) suggested that while the concept of nurturing leadership traits among anyone aspiring to positions of leadership is attractive, this concept denies the reality that not all individuals are born with equal talents and abilities. Contemporary theorists supported the great man theory by demonstrating the influence of the seratonin levels of the brain on an individual’s ability to lead others. There appeared to be an impact of individual’s personality on their ability to lead others (Cawthorn, 1996).

Proponents of the great man theory may assert that the reason for the large number of plateaued and declining churches in the United States is that there are not enough natural born leaders serving as pastors in local churches.

References:
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Cawthorn, D. L. (1996). Leadership: The Great Man Theory revisited. Business Horizons, 39(3), 1-4.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . and others don’t. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.