Leadership Theory At Work

It is important that leaders work to function within the culture of the organization. Many leaders have failed because their leadership style was a poor fit for the organizational design in which they are engaged. One thing that will help the leader find the “right fit” is to make a distinction between Transactional and Transformational Leadership Theory at work in the organization. Transactional leadership is based on the assumption that people are motivated by reward and punishment and that systems work best with a clear chain of command. Transformational Leadership works on the assumption that people will follow a person who inspires them. Once this is considered, the leader will benefit by understanding the leadership style at play. Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. There are many but let’s consider the Authoritarian and the Participative Styles. The Authoritarian Style is foundationally autocratic and is a more classical in nature. This style is used when leaders tell their employees what they want done and how they want it accomplished, without getting the advice of their followers. The Participative Style is foundationally democratic and is more delegative in nature. This style involves the leader including one or more followers in the decision making process; however, the leader maintains the final decision making authority. The leader may allow the followers to make the decisions while remaining responsible for the decisions that are made. Embracing the appropriate leadership style will help the leaders be productive within the confines of the Leadership Theory at work in the organization.

Organizational Values in Leadership

While in Ephesus, Timothy receives a letter from his mentor. Paul has chosen his closest spiritual child (1 Tim. 1:2) to set forth the organizational values and leadership expectations that would guide the church of Christ and cause it to grow. Timothy was, no doubt, chosen because of Paul’s confidence in him as a leader (Phil. 2:19-22). In verses 14 and 15 of 1 Timothy chapter three, we see the purpose of the passage. Paul wants to establish the organizational values and draw a picture of what a leader in this “church of the living God” is supposed to look like. Leadership selection in Paul’s day seems to indicate a new direction. The world surrounding Paul and Timothy was undergoing significant change. A shift in spiritual and Old Testament values began demanding change when Jesus developed His ministry on earth. The profound nature of this man attacked the ideals and beliefs of people throughout the Mediterranean. Paul, a Greek Jew and Roman citizen, became an apostle after the ascension of Jesus and the Pentecost event in Acts chapter two. Even Paul's selection was a radical departure from how the original twelve received their commission (Acts 22:6-10). Roman occupied Palestine became a breading ground for followers of a new faith in God through the teaching and preaching of apostles about a Jew named Jesus they came to believe was the Messiah, in Hebrew, or Christ, in Greek. Jewish lawgivers considered Jesus a threat to their law (Matthew 22:18, Mark 12:16, Luke 20:26), and these radical Jesus followers were equally threatening (Acts 8:1, 11:19). It was in this context that Paul establishes value based expectations for leaders in this newly formed church. His selection and ordination of Timothy follows this new pattern and sets a standard for subsequent leadership appointments.

Matthew 4:1-25: Jesus establishes Himself as an effective leader.

Mathew builds a progression in the text that shows a natural establishment of Jesus as a leader. First Jesus establishes credibility in verses 1-11 showing that a Christian leader is proven. Second, He strategically positions Himself in verses 12-17 presenting a Christian leader as relevant. Third, Jesus builds a coalition to fulfill God’s purpose in verses 18-25 proving that a Christian leader influences others to accomplish God’s plan. The influence progresses from one (Jesus develops credibility), to a few (Jesus builds His coalition) to many (Jesus influences the multitudes). Matthew presents Jesus as a servant leader that is transformational in His approach. Notice in Verse 19: “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.” . Jesus' call to leave profession and family was radical, the sort of demand that only the most radical teacher would make. This text provides us several examples of servant-leadership and shows His transformational style. Jesus' seeking out disciples himself represents a serious breach of custom as Jesus is seen "coming down to their level" socially. This challenging of the “status quo” process is a quality of great leadership. Notice also that Jesus relates to his followers in terms they can understand. Jesus did not call professionally trained rabbis to be his followers. He called fishermen and encouraged them that the skills they already had were serviceable in the kingdom. These disciples leave their fishing nets, but they do not stop fishing. They are now, in the service of the kingdom of heaven, fishers for people. Their lives have been transformed by Jesus' call to follow. Jesus is an effective leader because He seeks to improve His followers (from fishing for fish to fishing for people). This is transformational leadership. Transformational leaders seek to improve and influence their followers.

Traditional vs Contemporary

Leaders must work to develop a leadership style that is a “fit” with the organizational style of our church or corporation. We must understand that there is no one size fits all theoretical approach to organizational structure; however, classifying our organization as traditional or contemporary will help us in this process. Traditional organizations tend to be more bureaucratic and are identified by characteristics such as autocratic authority, adherence to a legal code, expectation of uncompromising obedience, compartmental specialization among workers, and a clearly defined hierarchy of offices. Contemporary organizations are less formal. They tend to embrace the idea that the organization is best served by adapting to its environment. The value here is to strive for a fit between the organization's structure, its size, its technology, and the requirements of its environment. The dominate thinking in the contemporary type is that organizations whose structures are not fitted to the environment (which includes other organizations, communities, governments, etc.) will not perform well and will fail. Further clarification of this distinction can be gained by seeing traditional organizations as having a rigid structure with an expectation that the environment will adjust to it. Contemporary organizations are more fluid and place a value on adapting itself to the environment.

Leadership Adaptability

We are living in a day of multiple organizational structures and complex leadership styles and approaches. Gone are the days of the “one size fits all” approach to leadership. The evolution of society has broadened the organizational field to the extent that we are faced with a range from ultra traditional to hyper contemporary and everything in between. This is especially true in the church. This broad diversity has confronted today’s leader with a crucial question. What solutions are most effective in a particular organization? First, we must understand Organizational Type. In comparing organizational theories, a natural distinction appears between classical and more contemporary thought. According to Taylor, Fayol, Weber and other classical theorists, there is a single best way for organization to be structured. The problem is organizations vary considerably on structural attributes. Many theorists today believe that there is no one best way to organize. What is important is that there be a fit between the organization's structure, its size, its technology, and the requirements of its environment. This perspective is known as "Contingency Theory" and contrasts with the perspective of classical theorists who thought that there probably was one way to run organizations that was the best. We, as leaders, must develop the ability to adapt if we hope to be effective in this day of organizational diversity.

Reference:


Wren, Daniel A. (2005). The History of Management Thought. John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Are Leaders Born or Made?

There are many theories of leadership that have been identified during the course of the formalization of leadership studies in the last fifty years. One such theory is the Great Man Theory. The basic assumption in this ideology is that leaders are born and not made. Great leaders will arise when there is a great need. Early research on leadership was based on the study of people who were already great leaders. These people were often from the aristocracy, as few from lower classes had the opportunity to lead. This contributed to the notion that leadership had something to do with breeding. The idea of the Great Man also strayed into the mythic domain, with notions that in times of need, a Great Man would arise, almost by magic. This was easy to verify, by pointing to people such as Eisenhower and Churchill, let alone those further back along the timeline, such as Jesus or Moses. Gender issues were not on the table when the 'Great Man' theory was proposed. Most leaders were male and the thought of a Great Woman was generally in areas other than leadership. Most researchers were also male, and concerns about bias were a long way from being realized. There have been great strides made in our understanding of leadership, but most all our progress finds its genesis in this construct. Looking at his theory does beg the fundamental question: Are leaders born or made?

Components to Transformational Leadership

God has called us to transform lives. There are many components that will help the leader become transformational, but here we will consider risk and trust. The transformational leader must be willing to put himself on the line in order to develop the kind of relationship that will ensure influence. This can be a risky proposition because it goes outside the boundaries of conventional relationship. Briscoe, Larson, and Osborne spoke of leadership in terms of risk taking in there book: Measuring up: The need to succeed and the fear of failure. They assert: “Highly successful leaders ignore conventional wisdom and take chances. Their stories inevitably include a defining moment or key decision when they took a significant risk and thereby experienced a breakthrough.” Trust is another key component. There can be no productive relationship without it. Trust can only be built on the foundation of integrity and must be cultivated with care. . God puts an emphasis upon trust when He challenges all people to “Trust in the Lord…” (Psalm 37:3) God places further importance upon trust as He makes it a requisite to blessing. “Blessed are they that put their trust in the Lord.” (Psalm 2:12) Jeswald Salacuse in his book: Leading Leaders: How to Manage Smart, Talented, Rich, and Powerful People, brings this into focus by attaching trust in the relationship to productivity with his assertion that: “Positive relationships engender trust, and trust in a leader is vital in securing desired action from followers.” Certainly the components necessary to becoming a transformational leader are not limited to these, but learning to take a risk and developing trust is a good start.

Building Transformative Organizations

It would seem that success in building transformative organizations has more to do with people than traditional procedures. Jesus broke all the stereotypes by seeking out his followers and building a transformational relationship with them. This was the key to our Lords successful discipleship. This makes sense when you consider the fact that how we treat people is a key concept of transformational leadership. In his book Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation, B. M. Bass indicates that a transformational leader seeks to transform an organization by transforming the people who operate the organization. Working for a transformational leader can be a wonderful and uplifting experience. They feel they are a vital and appreciated part of productivity. Transformational leadership starts with the development of a vision, a view of the future that will excite and motivate followers because they see themselves as a part. This understanding would tend to suggest that transformational leadership is conducive to building transformative organizations.

Distinguishing Discipleship from Mentoring

Recently I have been on a journey to discover the intricacies that distinguish discipleship and mentoring. I wonder if we could draw a parallel with the depth of relationship necessary to accomplish each one. Jesus influenced multitudes, taught many, and only directly discipled a few. As you look at the ministry of Christ on earth, it would seem that the depth of the relationship defined each level of influence he had on others. With the twelve He had a deep intimate relationship that qualified them as disciples. If the ministry of Jesus is the standard for measuring discipleship, relationship cannot be ignored. Making discipleship a category that is visible through the lens of relationship helps us understand the difference that distinguishes levels of influence. Is this what Warren Blank was suggesting in his book (The 9 Natural Laws of Leadership) when he asserts: “Because the personal relationship defines the existing quality of interpersonal interaction between the leader and would-be followers, followers will not join the leader without the requisite relationship. Leadership is the relationship.”? This is certainly not the only definition, but I think the depth of relationship is one means that can be embraced in our efforts to distinguish discipleship from mentoring.

Jesus Redefines Leadership

Jesus said: “The greatest one among you must be your servant.” (Matthew 23:11) This sounds a lot like servanthood. R. K. Greenleaf, in his book Servant Leadership, attached servanthood to leadership as an ethical issue by encouraging leaders to empathize with their followers and by working to take care of them and nurture them. He goes as far as to assert that an individual emerges as a leader by first becoming a servant. In his book entitled Leadership, J. M. Burns supports this concept with his notable discussion on transformational leadership. His contention is that transformational leadership is distinguished from other leadership theories by its strong emphasis on meeting the needs of the follower. This sounds a lot like the greatest leader who ever lived. Jesus redefined leadership in His day. It was radical for Jesus to define great leadership in terms of servanthood because in His day Jewish free persons, like their Gentile counterparts, considered slaves socially inferior. Shelly, in his book Empowering Your Church Through Creativity and Change, brings this idea of servant leadership home when he states: “I’m becoming more and more convinced that God’s leader will never be allowed to get too comfortable … God’s call to leadership is not a call to privilege and displays of power but a call to servanthood and humility.”

Leadership That Challenges the Status Quo

Jesus challenged the cultural status quo in Mathew 28:18 when He gathered the eleven disciples on the Mountain and told them: (All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.) The Roman Empire, in the first century, represented a growing dynasty, which combined superiority with cruelty and could abruptly change from civilization, strength and power to fear, totalitarianism and self-indulgence. Rome was a beautiful nation with a great deal of inequality at its core. A few people were extremely rich while others lived in severe poverty. It encouraged a very rigid hierarchical system in which the emperor is at the summit of the social economical pyramid, and the further one falls to the base of the pyramid the more difficult life becomes. Authority followed this pyramid in such a way that those at the bottom were expected to be totally submitted to those at the top. Matthew shows Jesus moving counter to this cultural reality by establishing His authority outside this system. Jesus authority came from within as opposed to without. Romans, while they encouraged their own religion, were not intolerant to other religions. Rome had accepted into its pantheon deities from the Italian tribes and from Asia Minor. In the provinces, the great territorial gods-such as Saturn in North Africa and Jehovah among the Jews-were accepted as legal religions on the grounds that their rites, even if barbarous, were sanctified by ancient tradition. The cultural expectation was that religious authority be subservient to civil and military authority. Jesus assertion that He had “all” authority was radical and contradictory to the accepted culture. Jesus, in declaring His ultimate authority, offers an alternative vision of the world.