Week 6 Final

Article

Christian Education Journal:

Communication that Develops: Clarity of Process on

Research on Educational Ministry 2019, Voi. 16(2) 226-240

© The Author(s) 2019 Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1 177/0739891319829484

journals.sagepub.com/home/cej

T ransformational Leadership through Study of Effective Communication of Emotional Intelligence

USAGE

Leonard Scott Momeny Central Texas College, Alabama, USA

Michael Gourgues Webster University, Alabama, USA

Abstract Transformational leadership was once thought of as a trait-based approach to leadership rather than something that could be taught and learned, and that the process itself somehow lacked clarity. This essay sets out to demonstrate both points to be false, all the while identifying the value of educating Christian leaders on the essence and process of transformational leadership. The Momeny communica­ tion process theory explains process clarity as it relates to transformational lead­ ership, its communication, and education.

Keywords Leadership, Christianity, transformational leadership, emotional intelligence, communication, follower development, leader education, Maslow’s hierarchy

Corresponding author: Leonard Scott Momeny, Central Texas College, BLDG 4502 Kingsman Street, Fort Rucker, AL 36362, USA. Email: [email protected]

Momeny and Gourgues 227

Introduction Leadership is something that is sought after in every comer of life. No matter the activity, be it business, military, family, or ministry, there is always a need for leadership. Leaders provide vision and motivate us toward change for a future that cannot always be seen. Whether good or bad, the leaders that one might be exposed to are destined to leave an indelible mark, because leaders influence and educate, two very powerful activities (Maxwell, 1993, p. 1; Bredfeldt, 2006, p. 13). It is because of this impact that leadership remains a “highly sought-after and highly valued commodity” (Northouse, 2019, p. 1).

In fact, a recent study by the Bama Group recognized a great appreciation for meaningful leadership, all the while indicating a perceived leadership deficit that was only growing more prevalent (2013). The time has come for us to undertake the study and education of meaningful leadership within the church. This need is espe­ cially hue for ministry, as so many fill roles and responsibilities within the local church without ever undergoing formalized or at least meaningful leadership education.

It is important to note that leadership training is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Ministry is a unique pursuit with multiple roles and varying levels of responsibilities and as such is deserving of special consideration. After all, the local church popu­ lates many of its services with the very best that come forward as volunteers to fulfill the needs of the ministry. Some are small group leaders, others host Bible studies, and others still serve as Children’s Church volunteers and teachers. All share a similar situation as Christian leaders for they are people “who follow Christ and whom other persons follow” (Kessler & Kretzschmar, 2015, p. 2).

With that definition in mind it is implied that no matter the leadership solution brought forward it must incorporate tenets that align holistically with the Christian worldview. After all, if leadership is the process of influencing others toward a goal, then Christian leadership is the process of shepherding others on their journey through spiritual formation. Leaders within the local church, especially pastors that tend to large congregations, can be overtasked very easily with the needs or lead­ ership responsibilities that arise as a natural byproduct of simply “being in charge.” However, this does not have to be the norm, for effective leadership education and training for the entire ministry team, regardless the position, can greatly reduce the overall burden on the pastoral team (Stone, 1991). To that end it should also be noted that Christian leaders must be equipped with a leadership education that is just as transformative as grace through faith, because Christianity is itself transformative in nature, thus demanding leaders that are transformative in their approaches.

Interestingly enough, such a transformational approach to leadership does exist and is, funnily enough, referred to as transformational leadership. It is unique to note that once upon a time leadership was only thought of as a trait-based action, rather than a skillset and behavior that could be taught and learned. In fact, even today transformational leadership is looked upon more “as a broad-based perspective” to

228 Christian Education Journal: Research on Educational Ministry 16(2)

leadership, but the process or action of transformational leadership itself is somehow lacking clarity (Northouse, 2019, p. 177). This essay sets out to demonstrate the lack of perceived clarity within transformational leadership to be false. More impor­ tantly, this demonstration through theory-based proposal will provide incredible value in educating Christian leaders on the essence and process of transformational leadership via a simple process-based model that will increase anyone’s ability to develop better leadership skills and presence (Northouse, 2019, p. 188; Bryman, 1992, pp. 100-102). The Momeny communication process theory hopes to provide process clarity, specifically as it relates to communication, and teachability of transformational leadership, in a fashion that is generalized and simple to better support the education and application of this ideal approach to leadership. All this is suggested in hopes of improving the lives of Christian leaders through education, thereby transforming the lives of all they reach and serve.

A need for meaningful leadership education Many in the aforementioned Bama Group research on leadership noted a preference toward caring leaders that possess both a natural integrity and mentorship-like approach. This positive mentorship process is commonly filed under transforma­ tional leadership theory, placing an emphasis on intrinsic motivation and follower development (Northouse, 2019; Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational leadership does not forego the value or recognition of the leader position, as sometimes the case with misapplied servant leadership. Transformational leadership instead manages to demonstrate an approach much like servant leadership based on a perspective of leader-follower relationship and active mentorship in order to develop both subor­ dinate and leader (Lingenfelter, 2008, p. 145). It is these points of transformational leadership that seem to share similarities in the mentoring leadership model dis­ played by Jesus, as hallmarks of both methods are focused on follower development and maximizing leadership through personal relationship development (Towns, 2007, pp. 144-148). Additionally, transformational leadership seems to invoke many of the ideal tenets that surround leadership study: a) leadership as process, b) leadership involving influence, c) leadership occurring both in groups and indi­ vidually, and d) leadership involving common goals (Northouse, 2019, p. 5).

One of the key elements identified within the provided four central tenets/ele­ ments of leadership is that of process. Process implies activity, and in leadership that means that something of meaning is occurring between leader and follower, be it influence, relationship, or even education (Northouse, 2019). The process in ques­ tion can be negative, as is the case with pseudo-transformational leadership, but the desire is to harness and propagate positive leadership and mentorship interactions for all followers. Positive leadership and mentorship should ultimately seek to develop/ transform followers toward a desired end state, a sort of ideal person that has achieved full potential. In some respects, this cycle of action, process, and end state mirrors the educational process, and to that end, the teacher-student relationship

Momeny and Gourgues 229

(Estep Jr. et al., 2008, p. 16). The end goal is to achieve maximum potential of the follower or organization, ultimately continuing the purpose/mission of the organi­ zation in a much higher capacity.

Businesses, schools, ministries, and essentially all group associated activities need leaders and meaningful leadership, because those who participate in collective activities “believe [leaders] bring special assets to their organizations and ultimately, improve their bottom line” (Northouse, 2019, p. 1). (Please do not misinterpret the phrase bottom line, as it is only meant to be a generalized term in the sense that it is to draw one’s attention to the desired outcome of a leader’s effort.) On occasion leadership is viewed as “elitist because of the implied power and importance often ascribed to leaders in the leader-follower relationship” (Northouse, 2019, p. 4; Bums, 1978). However, leaders are not meant to be elitist, as they simply play a specific role in the larger organizational mission/purpose, no matter if the organi­ zation is secular or ministry oriented in nature.

In the most basic sense, the role or purpose of the leader within the organization is typically centered around an individual and his or her ability to influence a group toward the accomplishment of a shared goal (Towns, 2007; Bums, 1978; Northouse, 2019; De Pree, 2004). This generalized concept of leadership is consistent with the previously discussed four elements of leadership but can also allow for a fair com­ parison to the concept of management. A significant difference between the two activities can be found in the analysis of J. P. Kotter who noted that leadership produces “change and movement,” while management produces “order and consis­ tency” (Kotter, 1990, pp. 3-8). While both roles are significant in the lifecycle of an organization, it is the leader that forever changes the individual.

Change is a significant concept with which to focus and interact when discussing leadership, as change is a key portion of influence, one of the four necessary tenets of leadership. Stagnation is not OK, and leaders avoid it. To avoid stagnation, leaders provide both influence and vision in order to initiate necessary change. Vision is both necessary and constantly applied by leaders, because as former Secretary of Defense, Dr. Robert Gates notes, a leader is “one who guides, one who shows the way” (Gates, 2016, p. 23). An organization cannot survive on sustainment, or even simple goal achievement alone, and instead must always have its eyes on the future. This means that leaders are ultimately focusing on doing whatever necessary to move the collective forward, and this requires vision and constant energy. Addition­ ally, such organizationally minded phrasing can be more appropriately taken into ministry context by noting a Christian leader, regardless of their role, should know their congregation, or even individual Christians need to possess the necessary skill set to guide them to the desired end state.

Some would say that such activities can only be undertaken by a specific type of person. However, such a statement is only consistent with a trait-based approach to leadership—implying that leadership cannot be taught or performed by those with the capacity to learn and apply knowledge—but that would be false (Maxwell, 1993; Northouse, 2019). Many organizations are against the concept of leadership being

230 Christian Education Journal: Research on Educational Ministry 16(2)

relegated to the trait-based approach, for example the military, identifying instead various types of leaders (assigned and emergent); different types of power (position and personal), and multiple approaches regarding the action of leadership (North- ouse, 2019; Paronto, 2017). This position regarding leadership as something that others can be educated upon is critical, as it allows organizations the ability to train and develop all of their personnel in hopes of making both current and future leaders (Maxwell, 1993, p. viii).

So, no matter the type of organization or its mission, leadership is something that is highly desired. A leader is not someone that is necessarily bom with all the right stuff.; however, it sure is nice when the stars align, and that sort of person can be found and levied against a leadership role. Additionally, leadership is something that can be educated upon and trained, and meaningful leadership training is highly desired. While there are many approaches bucking for the attention of leadership enthusiasts, one theory/approach that is truly gaining in popularity is transformational leadership theory, and just as the name implies, it is focused on a recognizable change.

Transformational leadership theory and supporting tenets As mentioned earlier, there are many types of approaches to leadership and its supporting theories. The trait-based approach was previously mentioned as support­ ing the concept that leaders are bom with specific intrinsic elements that enable their value as leaders (Bryman, 1992; Northouse, 2019). Transactional leadership focuses on leader-follower exchanges, typically consistent with a quid pro quo situation, and stands in stark contrast to more popular types of leadership approaches that include servant, or service focused leadership, and transformational leadership theory (Northouse, 2019; Bums, 1978).

Transformational leadership theory was first identified in 1978 by James Mac­ Gregor Bums in his seminal publication fittingly titled Leadership. Transforma­ tional leadership is defined as “the process whereby a person engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower” (Northouse, 2019, p. 164). Two important facts to focus on regarding the aforementioned statement: 1) the fact that a connection is made, as this is indicative of a relationship process, and 2) the transformational leadership process speaks to the motivation of both leader and follower.

Bums would not have the last say on transformational leadership, and the theory would see later evolutions that included the likes of pseudo-transformational and authentic transformational leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Northouse, 2019). The first focused on the process that ultimately mirrored transformational leadership but resulted in potentially warped moral values. The second evolution, authentic trans­ formational leadership, references an adjustment to the original theory that is con­ cerned with “socialized leadership, which is concerned with the collective good.. .transcending interests for the sake of others” (Northouse, 2019, p. 165).

Momeny and Gourgues 231

Transformational leadership has four factors of focus that are indicative of the theory. Those four factors are idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellec­ tual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Northouse, 2019). Ultimately, these four factors speak to the fact that “people who exhibit transformational lead­ ership often have a strong set of internal values and ideals, and they are effective at motivating followers to act in ways that support the greater good rather than their own self-interests” (Northouse, 2019, p. 169; Kuhnert and Lewis, 1994). In brief, it is not an unreasonable extension to say that transformational leaders must possess excellent emotional intelligence and communication skills in order to provide the sort of impact that Bums and others have defined across the entirety of the theory. After all, Bennis and Nanus (2007) also noted that transforming leaders had to be like social architects within the confines of their organization, a hallmark of the emotional intelligence domain. This begs the question, what exactly is emotional intelligence, and how does its application align with this discussion/research?

Emotional intelligence (El), or Emotional quotient (EQ), is a measure of a lead­ er’s self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills (Gole- man, 1995). Emotional intelligence is easily considered supportive of transformational leadership because a transformational leader must be able to know and control his or her own emotions before they can speak to their followers in order to support each individual in a “caring and unique way” (Northouse, 2019, p. 179; Goleman, 1995). Additionally, one cannot merely possess a way about themselves and expect transformational leadership styled messaging to exude from their every pore. Instead, a leader must be able to effectively communicate authentically to their follower; specifically, in such a way as to express emotional intelligence, care, and bust, as these areas allow for follower development (Chen et al., 2012).

Understanding the fact that transformational leadership depends on authentic communication spoken in an effective and focused manner to express the appropri­ ate transformational factors is critical. Additionally, it is significant to note that transformational leadership is considered to simply “produce greater effects than transactional leadership ... and transformational leadership results in performance that goes well beyond what is expected” (Northouse, 2019, p. 171; Young, 2014). It is with this information that a communication model in support of transformational leadership can now be built in an effort to better understand leader communication that is structured in such way as to achieve meaningful development of followers.

Momeny communication process theory in support of transformational leadership

Again, the authors feel it important to note that the following portion of the essay involves very generalized terms. This is done intentionally in an effort to increase perceived utility of the presented model-oriented theory. Additionally, its presenta­ tion style is meant to increase the ability with which others could educate potential leaders on the proposed process of leadership.

232 Christian Education Journal: Research on Educational Ministry 16(2)

Figure I. Momeny communication process theory.

It would now seem that most leadership study seems to focus a great deal of time and effort upon style. Whether it is transactional, transformational, or servant lead­ ership, there is a great deal of study upon value of one over the other regarding situation and applicability. Many commentators on these leadership styles tend to focus on associated concepts and variables. While the characteristics of these styles are both well-known and regurgitated time and again, leadership process is less understood.

While the value of process cannot be overstated, it is the understanding of process within a transaction that allows for identification of key elements. Additionally, when all key elements are identified within the transaction, they can be studied, and further determination of how those elements interact can be better understood. After this, efforts within the process can be specifically targeted to optimize performance. Leadership is such a process, and once understood the elements and process can be studied together and later even instructed and trained upon.

A communication model/process can serve as an excellent tool to utilize in order to understand the process of influence that occius between leader and follower. The communication model/process is ideal because it is assumed to be the most common core experience within all leader to follower relationships, regardless the environ­ ment and approach. Nothing happens without communication. Additionally, com­ munication has the potential to be both positive and negative, as the perceived level of interpersonal characteristics within communication is incredibly dependent upon the level of emotional intelligence of the sender and receiver (Walton, 2012, p. 91).

Figiue 1 is a visual representation of effective communication in support of a follower’s development. So why select a communication model to better explain, or attempt to identify the process of transformational leadership? The leadership factors associated with transformational leadership happen to be well suited for a communication model and include the following: T) Idealized influence (charisma), 2) Inspirational motivation, 3 ) Intellectual stimulation, and 4) Individualized con­ sideration (Northouse, 2019, pp. 169-172). All the aforementioned aspects require

Momeny and Gourgues 233

some sort of medium in order to convey them to the desired audience, and so, a verbal communication model suffices nicely in support of the proposed theory. Finally, communication is indicative of interrelation development, and the process with which a relationship progresses. As the communication between leader (sender) and follower (receiver) progresses, so too does the manner both are affected by the progressive relationship exchanges.

The communication process is cast against three different communication events in order to demonstrate sequential occurrences/interactions between leader and fol­ lower. It is said that types of communication can depict “different stages of relation­ ships, showing how shared information progressively makes a relationship stronger” (Walton, 2012, p. 92). These identified communication events occur over time indicating the temporal conditions that are so critical to meaningful mentorship and so often overlooked within the study of leadership (Shamir, 2011, p. 307; Shapira- Lishchinsky & Levy-Gazenfrantz, 2015, p. 184). Additionally, the depicted com­ munication events are directed toward specific areas of a receiver’s pyramid, better known as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs/Motivation (Maslow, 1943), thereby demonstrating focused communication can make meaningful impact upon a person by speaking to their areas of motivation. After all, a leader’s motivation of a person is better known as the ability to influence, and so a leader should speak to what motivates their follower. A follower’s motivation changes with time, because as certain needs are fulfilled, or better put, levels of their pyramid are solidified, their motivations change in response to their current situation (Maslow, 1943). Hence the need to adapt the communication events with respect to temporal considerations. Finally, those communications circulate between communicator and the receiver’s pyramid, and ultimately the combination of these two items influence the outcome of that interaction in the form of a predicted output.

Communication event I: Fear Communication event 1 is obviously early in the relationship between leader and follower, and as such the communication is superficial (Walton, 2012, p. 93). In this first scenario readers are reminded of their own early interactions as new leaders with a new team member. During this relationship probationary period, both the leader and the follower are attempting to understand each other, avoiding potential disappointment at all costs. When leaders are faced with new members to a team they are apt to cautiously gauge the capability and potential of the new member through limited interactions. Opinions of the new member are typically not initially high, and instead the leader and team both enter a period of “feeling out” the new teammate.

This is all very natural, and when trust is not present, interpersonal interactions tend to be transactional. When events turn transactional for leaders the subsequent communications to team members become very “directional” in nature. Expecta­ tions are low and, regardless of output by the individual, there tends to be a

234 Christian Education Journal: Research on Educational Ministry 16(2)

perception of production being interpreted as leaving “room for improvement.” Workers and their output during this first communication event appear to take on an immature persona, and the team member seems to do “just enough not to get yelled at.” This scenario is not ideal for either party.

When this initial communication is placed into the supplied model of transforma­ tional leadership process, the signal obviously focuses on transactional exchanges, and is only received at the receiver’s pyramid base, physiological needs and safety (Maslow, 1943). The communication is direct, most likely lacking care and emo­ tional context that more refined relationships enjoy. The sender is determining key factors about potential and performance, while the receiver is attempting to accom­ plish exactly what is asked, mostly to avoid trouble.

As the relationship develops, or in the case of a particularly savvy leader, this first communication event can display initial efforts of idealized influence, aka, char­ isma. This would be done in an attempt to motivate through inspirational speech, grasping at potential initial motivation. The emotionally intelligent leader is aware of not only his or her own feelings during this period but also the feelings of the follower, thereby tailoring communication in such a way as to potentially put the receiver at ease. If a leader did this, they would certainly be making a welcome investment into the development of relationship and mentorship of the new member.

With all this taken into consideration the leader must make an effort to remove the first block in communication: fear. Fear is natural in the initial onset of such a relationship; as mentioned earlier, expectations are uneasy on both sides. The driv­ ing emotion required by the leader to overcome fear should be empathy, or the concept that they were once new, afraid, and driven to frustration by trying to meet uncommunicated expectations from a new peer group. An emotionally intelligent leader will realize this and hopefully demonstrate through his or her own mastery of stress management that they are flexible, approachable, and optimistic about the future interactions with the new team member. They must communicate confidence, understanding, and patience, thereby informing the receiver that growth and learning are to be expected. Once the follower comprehends and internalizes this communi­ cation-based cue, there will be an understanding that fear is no longer the governing emotion, thereby removing a sense of perceived threat, increasing the perceptual field which increases learning, and this directly impacts their ability to develop. Once the first block of fear is removed, communication event 1 is concluded and the pyramid levels of physiological and safety centric needs are generally addressed (Maslow, 1943). Initial growth and development have occurred and transformation is taking place between the communicator and follower.

Communication event 2: Inclusiveness The second communication event differs greatly from the first, or at least it should, as it will of course be dependent upon initial impressions by both parties during the first exchange. There is no mandatory time limit associated with the duration

Momeny and Gourgues 235

between exchanges. The duration need only to be long enough that the humanist principles and emotional intelligence of both parties be significantly piqued, so much so that they both begin to find value in the mutual relationship outside of simple transactional occurrences (Goleman, 1995; Young, 2014). When this occurs, the follower has begun to sense the leader’s individualized consideration efforts, hopefully recognizing that they are being mentored. Individualized consideration is laced with all of the aspects of the humanist characteristics of emotional intelligence (Northouse, 2019, pp. 179-180). The follower notes that the leader has taken an interest in them, and by doing so they are empowered with a feeling of value. It is in this moment that the receiver’s pyramid is becoming larger and more complete, and the follower is maturing into something greater, thereby increasing both potential and output. The level that now must be focused upon by the leader is the receiver’s sense of love and belonging (Maslow, 1943).

To accomplish this growth within the perception of the follower requires a leader that is willing to invest time into the life goals of his or her team members. The ideology of such a leader must mean that they see value within the person that they are put in charge of, and they must be considerate of all that is occurring within that member’s environment. This requires emotional intelligence qualities within the leader, and furthermore, an ability of the leader to not only communicate effectively, but also to do so strategically. This implies the leader must know how to employ his communication skills in such a way that he or she tends to the development of the follower’s pyramid. In this case, emotional intelligence skills, coupled with indivi­ dualized consideration, will communicate a sense of time invested, along with perceived value as time spent is in itself an investment. The follower will pick up on such consideration by their leader and begin to increase in their own areas of emotional intelligence, specifically self-perception.

Through this effort the leader is establishing a sense of love and belonging within the mind of his or her follower. However, this is only done when the second block of inclusiveness has been addressed. It is one thing to address others with care and interest, and quite another to express and communicate inclusivity with respect to the team and its associated peer groups. The leader/communicator must answer the call of social responsibility and communicate through interpersonal means that they understand the importance of the receiver’s perception of their place within the landscape of the team’s social dynamic. When such a level is built within the follower’s pyramid, perceptible care, inclusiveness, and encouragement have been communicated. The follower feels trust and belonging, but more important is now the follower is equipped to be further empowered by elements of charisma and motivation.

A transformation is occurring between the leader and the follower. The leader is growing in communication skills and emotional intelligence through every mentor­ ship opportunity, and the follower is growing personally, and their motivations are starting to become more beneficial to the organization. This sort of personal matura­ tion means that the follower finds value in their own person, their leadership, and

236 Christian Education Journal: Research on Educational Ministry 16(2)

their organization, hence the increase in the follower’s self-perception. Their work has become important, and they most likely feel a sense of pride and importance to not only the team but their leader as well. Now the output of the follower should be representative of a level effort required to maintain the motivation that stimulates and demands communication of value from their leader.

Communication event 3: Freedom of communication This final iteration of the communication event is the most enriched. The relationship, as gauged by the messaging of the sender, is noted as mature. This perceived maturity is evident due to the presence of care, trust, and encouragement. Additionally, the communication event is targeted much higher along the pyramid, insisting transac­ tional verbiage is far removed from the communication event and is instead replaced with mutual appreciation between the sender and receiver. The development of the receiver is achieving peak potential, and the leader is moving from coach and advisor toward a role of finalizing the receiver’s transformation into becoming a fully actua­ lized person, worker, and leader in their own right (Northouse, 2019, p. 179).

The question here becomes one of how the leader/communicator knows they have entered into communication event 3. Simple really, the receiver will have begun to feel both care and trust in the effort of the leader, and as such will respond in kind with communication that both reciprocates trust and communicates empathy to the position and responsibilities of the leader. The leader is no longer focusing the conversation but is now receiving as well as communicating due to the fact that the receiver has his or her esteem level of the pyramid firmly built. In essence, the team member is a fully functioning, confident individual and their motivation is focused now on becoming better versions of themselves, not simply pleasing a supervisor. Communication is open and free, unhindered by fear, expectation, and uncertainty.

It is also important to note that the predicted output/effort of the fully mature and actualized receiver/follower has reached maximum. It is in this moment that leaders can now suggest the fully mature follower to become a leader themselves, or even increase responsibility, and if not, they risk stagnation or regression from the cur­ rently achieved level. The model, when detailed in this fashion, presents a reason­ able analysis of the potential process behind transformational leadership, thus demonstrating that it produces “greater effects than transactional leadership” (North­ ouse, 2019, p. 179).

Transformational leadership, biblical context, and parallels

The most critical component of this research paper is not necessarily the proposition associated with refining the process of transformational leadership into a commu­ nication model/process theory. Instead, the most critical component is whether or not the aforementioned analysis on transformational leadership, and its potentially

Momeny and Gourgues 237

trainable points and communication process, are viable when cast against a Christian worldview, thereby making it a viable solution for increasing leader capability at the level of the local church.

After all, it is the Christian that should be striving to transform by forgoing their own perspectives and human attributes, and instead adopting a meaningful, bibli­ cally aligned life that fully reflects the imago dei (Kilner, 2015). The presented transformational leadership model does in fact align with biblical demonstrations of leadership, more specifically with the example of the mentoring leader of Jesus. It is important to note that Christian education is not restricted in method or approach, so long as it contributes “to the spiritual growth of the individual when intentionally used to guide and direct someone toward Christ” (Estep Jr. et al., 2008, p. 18). To that fact, the provided communication model in support of the transformational leadership approach is focused on a process of growth, development, and transfor­ mation through a relationship that builds an individual into a more complete person.

As in the case of transformational leadership, Jesus mentored, or better yet, discipled those who would eventually mature and continue the work of Heaven. This is best seen in the work of the faithful following the death of Jesus where the process regularly demonstrated by Christ was readily duplicated, ultimately increas­ ing the original output of the first church exponentially (see Acts 2:42-47). Dr. Elmer Towns notes that “the mentoring leader is the teacher who makes disciples, training others who will someday continue the work he has begun” (Towns, 2007, p. 144). This is very similar to the transformational leader who seeks to mature and transform their follower into someone who mirrors their own values and efforts, focusing them to achieve the collective goal in a more meaningful, and slightly less directive way.

Jesus as mentor demonstrates that the goal of leadership is not necessarily only to produce followers, but to also produce more leaders. To achieve this end state Christ engaged in frequent mentorship focused relationship moments with the twelve in hopes that they would all eventually achieve self-actualization. However, that was not to be, in the case of Judas. That is important to note because no leadership theory is without its detractions. Still, the transformational leadership model is both helpful and realistic in application of Christian education and ministry pursuits. After all, if the goal of Christian education “is the transformation of the whole person into the likeness of Christ,” then should not Christians have a leadership style that parallels the transformational intent of that education (Estep Jr. et al., 2008, p. 21)?

The authors firmly believe that the lay personnel of the church must be trained in leadership. As mentioned earlier, there are simply not enough ministers, or seminary trained educators to go around and so the lay must be trained to act. With that in mind it is only natural to infer the need to empower lay leadership through a simple and meaningful education of a leadership model that is transformative and easy to communicate. Once empowered, the lay leader can “serve as a liaison between the pastor and the other lay pastoral carers” (Stone, 1991, p. 39). Additionally, if both the ministry leader and lay person are trained in transformational leadership process and communication then they are better prepared to tend to the development,

238 Christian Education Journal: Research on Educational Ministry 16(2)

maturity, and formation of the other Christian faithful, as soul tending and spiritual formation are processes, generalizable under the common denominator of develop­ mental mentorship (Dean & Foster, 1998). Transformational leadership theory and its supporting communication process continue to parallel the mentoring leader/ leadership depicted by Christ. Furthermore it is because of this fact that the trans­ formational leadership theory is completely relevant with respect to the Christian worldview.

Limitations and future research This essay has proposed that transformational leadership theory and its process is focused on effective communication and is ultimately consistent with the biblical model of the mentoring leader Jesus. The authors of this research also contend that greater process clarity within the transformational leadership approach is theoreti­ cally demonstrated through the Momeny communication process theory. Due to this added clarity and explanation it is now suggested that transformational leadership can be more effectively trained.

However, no research is without its limitations and this paper is no exception. A clear limitation of the provided research is that its thesis is primarily theoretical. The authors did not have time to experimentally evaluate the provided theory prior to publication, and thus assumed great risk in submitting a previously unevaluated theoretical framework in support of the greater research paper thesis.

Future research should focus on how to evaluate the process outlined by the Momeny communication process theory. One potential method could include pro­ viding training on the theory to a group of young leaders, perhaps small group leaders in a larger church, one with greater than 500 members. Education on trans­ formational leadership and the supplied communication process theory could be provided prior to beginning a small-group activity or starting a new group altogether. The participating group members could then assess their new leader’s performance via a focused Likert scale-based investigation both at the beginning of the group’s activities and once more upon conclusion of the small group. Another potential evaluation of the theory could include providing a Multifactor Leadership Ques­ tionnaire, or MLQ, to leaders before leadership training. The MLQ could once again be given after training and an extended period to apply learned communication tenets, followed by quantitative comparative analysis of the two assessment results.

Conclusion Leaders can be found anywhere, and more importantly they can be trained. The authors of this essay fully support the training of transformational leadership, as we have explained it to be both a popular and wildly functional approach to the act of leadership. Whether taught at the local church level, or more formally educated within a seminary or Bible college classroom on Christian leadership,

Momeny and Gourgues 239

transformational leadership theory, as supported by the proposed Momeny commu­ nication process theory, could prove to be an incredibly beneficial training tool. This is especially true when considering how meaningful such training could potentially be with respect to both lay and formal ministry leaders, specifically when it comes to assisting the Christians they lead in continuing their development into mature, con­ tributing members of the body of Christ (see 1 Pet. 2:9). After all, both Christian leaders and educators have an obligation to assist every Christian in becoming “a member of the priesthood of all believers” (Stone, 1991, p. 29).

Notes on contributors

Leonard Scott Momeny currently serves in the US Army at Ft. Rucker as a Chief Warrant Officer 4, but in addition to this he is an adjunct faculty member for Central Texas College where he teaches Introduction to Philosophy of Religion. Leonard is currently a student with Liberty University where he is studying for an Ed.D. in Christian Leadership. Leonard has a Master of Arts from Liberty University and a Master of Science from American Military University.

Michael Gourgues currently serves the US Army at Ft. Rucker as a Lieutenant Colonel. Michael is a graduate of the Command General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth Kansas and holds a Master of Business Administration from Webster University.

References

Bama Group (2013, June 3). Christians on leadership, calling and career. Retrieved November 9, 2018, from https://www.bama.com/research/christians-on-leadership-calling-and- career/.

Bass, B., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nded.). Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (2007). Leaders: The strategies for taking charge (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Bredfeldt, G. (2006). Great leader great teacher: Recovering the biblical vision for leader­ ship. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers.

Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage. Bums, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Chen, Z., Lam, W., & Zhong, J. A. (2012). Effects of perceptions on LMX and work perfor­

mance: Effects of supervisors’ perception of subordinates’ emotional intelligence and subordinates’ perception of trust in the supervisor on LMX and, consequently, perfor­ mance. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29(3), 597-616.

Dean, K. C., & Foster, R. (1998). The Godbearing life: The art of soul tending for youth ministry. Nashville, TN: Upper Room Books.

De Pree, M. (2004). Leadership is an art. New York, NY: Doubleday.

240 Christian Education Journal: Research on Educational Ministry 16(2)

Estep Jr., J. R., Anthony, M. J., & Allison, G. R. (2008). A theology for Christian education. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic.

Gates, R. M. (2016). A passion for leadership: Lessons on change and reform from fifty years of public service. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam. Kessler, V., & Kretzschmar, L. (2015). Christian leadership as a trans-disciplinary field of

study. Verbum et Ecclesia, 36(1), Art. #1334. Kilner, J. F. (2015). Dignity and destiny: Elumanity in the image of God. Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans. Kotter, J. P. (1990). A force for change: Elow leadership differs from management. New York,

NY: Free Press. Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1994). Transforming leadership: Developing people through

delegation. In B. M. Bass & B. J. Avolio (Eds.), Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership (pp. 10-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lingenfelter, S. G. (2008). Leading cross-culturally: Covenant relationships for effective Christian leadership. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. Maxwell, J. C. (1993). Developing the leader within you. Nashville, TN: Nelson. Northouse, P. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications. Paronto, K. (2017). The ranger way: Living the code on and off the battlefield. New York,

NY: Center Street. Shamir, B. (2011). Leadership takes time: Some implications of (not) taking time seriously in

leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 307-315. Shapira-Lishchinsky, O., & Levy-Gazenfrantz, T. (2015). Authentic leadership strategies in

support of mentoring process. School Leadership & Management, 35(2), 183-201. Stone, H. W. (1991). The caring church: A guide for lay pastoral care. Minneapolis, MN:

Fortress Press. Towns, E. (2007). Biblical models for leadership. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Walton, D. (2012). Emotional intelligence: A practical guide. New York, NY: MJF Books. Young, M. (2014). Leadership that develops other people: An empirical study into the effect

of humanist principles and therapeutic common factors on subordinate development. Journal of General Management, 39(3), 59-76.

License and Permissible Use Notice

These materials are provided to you by the American Theological Library Association, operating as Atla, in accordance with the terms of Atla's agreements with the copyright holder or authorized distributor of the materials, as applicable. In some cases, Atla may be the copyright holder of these materials.

You may download, print, and share these materials for your individual use as may be permitted by the applicable agreements among the copyright holder, distributors, licensors, licensees, and users of these materials (including, for example, any agreements entered into by the institution or other organization from which you obtained these materials) and in accordance with the fair use principles of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws. You may not, for example, copy or email these materials to multiple web sites or publicly post, distribute for commercial purposes, modify, or create derivative works of these materials without the copyright holder's express prior written permission.

Please contact the copyright holder if you would like to request permission to use these materials, or any part of these materials, in any manner or for any use not permitted by the agreements described above or the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws. For information regarding the identity of the copyright holder, refer to the copyright information in these materials, if available, or contact Atla using the Contact Us link at www.atla.com.

Except as otherwise specified, Copyright © 2020 Atla.