week 2 db

out.pdf

Home >History homework help >Ancient history homework help >week 2 db

All rights reserved. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has permission to reproduce and disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the Seminary, including, without limitation, preservation or instruction.

ESSENTIAL LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES FOR

U.S. AIR FORCE WING CHAPLAINS

A Dissertation

Presented to

the Faculty of

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Dondi Enos Costin

December 2008

UMI Number: 3357128

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper

alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized

UMI UMI Microform: 3357128

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

APPROVAL SHEET

ESSENTIAL LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES FOR

U.S. AIR FORCE WING CHAPLAINS

Dondi Enos Costin

Read and Approved by:

Date \.*~-

To Vickey,

God's gift to me,

and my partner in leadership

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii

LIST OF TABLES ix

LIST OF FIGURES xiv

PREFACE xv

Chapter

1. RESEARCH CONCERN 1

Research Problem 2

Research Purpose 9

Research Questions 10

Delimitations of the Study 10

Terminology 11

Research Assumptions 16

Procedural Overview 17

2. PRECEDENT LITERATURE 19

A Theology of Spiritual Responsibility 19

Leadership Development 43

Leadership Development for Ministry Leaders 59

Leadership Development for Military Leaders 62

Competency-Based Leadership Development 77

Ministry Leadership Competency Approaches 90

Military Leadership Competency Approaches 102

Synthesis of Ministry/Military Leadership Competencies 110

Chapter Page

3. METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN 112

Research Question Synopsis 112

Design Overview 113

Population 116

Sample and Delimitations 116

Limits of Generalization 117

Instrumentation 117

Pilot Study 128

Procedures 128

Summary 129

4. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS 131

Compilation Protocol 131

Findings and Displays 133

Evaluation of the Research Design 201

5. CONCLUSIONS 204

Research Purpose 204

Research Questions 205

Research Implications 205

Research Applications 222

Research Limitations 229

Further Research 230

Summary of Conclusions 232

Appendix

1. RANK ORDER (BY MEAN) OF BOERSMA'S 50 PASTORAL MANAGEMENT COMPETENCIES 234

2. BOERSMA'S PASTORAL LEADERSHIP COMPETENCY MODEL 238

Appendix Page

3. A SYSTEMS APPROACH TO CHRISTIAN MANAGEMENT 242

4. COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF MINISTRY LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES REVIEWED IN PRECEDENT LITERATURE 244

5. COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF MILITARY LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES REVIEWED IN PRECEDENT LITERATURE 250

6. INITIAL LIST OF LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES

SELECTED FOR THE CURRENT STUDY 255

7. WING CHAPLAIN LEADERSHIP SURVEY 257

8. RANK ORDER (BY MEAN) OF 72 WING CHAPLAIN LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES 266

9. ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE RESULTS FOR RESEARCH QUESTION 3 272

REFERENCE LIST 288

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACSC

AEC

AFDD

AFI

AFIP

AFIT

AFLTC

ANOVA

ASBC

AWC

CAIB

CCAF

CFETP

CONUS

COT

CPE

CSI

CTOF

DGM

DPAH

Air Command and Staff College

Air Expeditionary Center

Air Force

Air Force Doctrine Document

Air Force Instruction

Air Force Intern Program

Air Force Institute of Technology

Army Family Life Training Center

Analysis of Variance

Air and Space Basic Course

Air War College

Community Action Information Board

Community College of the Air Force

Career Field Education and Training Plan

Civilian Institution

Continental United States

Commissioned Officer Training

Clinical Pastoral Education

Chaplain Service Institute

Chapel Tithes and Offering Funds

Degrees of Freedom

Doing Global Ministry

Chaplain Assignments Branch

vii

DRU

ECQ

ExpeRT

HSD

IDS

ISD

KMO

KSAO

MAJCOM

MBO

NCO

NCOA

NCOIC

NWC

OPM

PME

SCN

SES

SNCOA

SOS

USAF

WCLM

Direct Reporting Unit

Executive Core Qualifications

Expeditionary Readiness Training

Field Manual

Chaplain Service

Headquarters

Honestly Significant Difference

Integrated Delivery System

Instructional Systems Development

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

Knowledge, Skills, Abilities, Other Characteristics

Leadership Competency

Major Command

Management By Objectives

Non-Commissioned Officer

Non-Commissioned Officer Academy

Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge

National War College

Office of Personnel Management

Professional Military Education

Survey Control Number

Senior Executive Service

Senior Non-Commissioned Officer Academy

Squadron Officer School

United States

United States Air Force

Wing Chaplain Leadership Model

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. U.S. Air Force leadership competency model 107

2. Respondents grouped by current military pay grade (N = 419) 135

3. Respondents grouped by years of military service (N = 420) 135

4. Respondents grouped by religious preference (N = 418) 136

5. Respondents grouped by highest education level completed (N = 417) 137

6. Respondents grouped by highest professional military education level and method of completion (N = 418) 137

7. Respondents grouped by current position and assignment level (N = 420) 140

8. Respondents grouped by number of active duty members, Reservists, and paid civilians supervised 140

9. Wing and installation chaplain respondents grouped by number of assignments served as a wing or installation chaplain (N = 72) 141

10. Wing and installation chaplain respondents grouped by number of years served as a wing or installation chaplain (N = 72) 142

11. Respondents grouped by position held and assignment level occupied immediately prior to current assignment (N = 72) 143

12. Wing and installation chaplain respondents grouped by faith group and number of weekends per month they preach or lead worship (N = 72) 144

13. Respondents grouped by number of active duty chaplains and chaplain assistants on staff. 145

Table Page

14. Organizational data characterized by weekly worship attendance, weekly religious education attendance, annual appropriated fund budget, and annual Chapel Tithes and Offering Fund budget 146

15. Measures of central tendency for personal demographic data 148

16. Range of leadership competency means by category of scores 152

17. Top 10 leadership competencies (arranged by mean from highest to lowest) 153

18. Bottom 10 leadership competencies (arranged by mean from highest to lowest) 154

19. Top 10 leadership competencies for chaplains and chaplain assistants (arranged as ranked by chaplain assistant means) 155

20. Bottom 10 leadership competencies for chaplains and chaplain assistants (arranged as ranked by chaplain assistant means) 156

21. Eigenvalues and percentage of common variance by factor 158

22. Subscale reliability for the 15 factors 159

23. Factor 1 - Strategic Planning 160

24. Factor 2 - Organizing 161

25. Factor 3 - Spiritual Modeling 162

26. Factor 4 - Team Leadership 163

27. Factor 5 - Visionary Leadership 164

28. Factor 6 - Ministry Practice 164

29. Factor 7 - Performance Evaluation 165

30. Factor 8 - Budgeting 166

31. Factor 9 - Ministry Innovation 166

32. Factor 10 - Exemplary Leadership 167

33. Factor 11 - Servant Leadership 168

Pag

34. Factor 12 - Volunteer Involvement 168

35. Factor 13 - Community Leadership 169

36. Factor 14 - Team Empowerment 170

37. Factor 15 - Volunteer Training 170

38. Non-loading competencies 171

39. Factor rankings in order of factor mean scores 172

40. Factor rankings with Tukey groupings 173

41. Summary of one-way analysis of variance results listed by by demographic characteristics and corresponding variables for Research Question 3 190

42. Measures of central tendency for preparation, performance, and satisfaction for wing and installation chaplains and all remaining Chaplain Corps respondents 191

43. Measures of central tendency for preparation, performance, and satisfaction for wing and installation chaplains, other chaplains, and chaplain assistants 192

44. Correlation matrix citing wing chaplain job preparation, wing chaplain job performance, and job satisfaction for wing chaplains 193

45. Correlation matrix citing wing chaplain job preparation, wing chaplain job performance, and job satisfaction for remaining Chaplain Corps personnel 194

46. Wing Chaplain Leadership Model 223

A l . Rank order (by mean) of Boersma's 50 pastoral management competencies 235

A2. Boersma's pastoral leadership competency model (listed by factor in order of factor load) 239

A3. A systems approach to Christian management: leadership and management competencies 243

A4. Rank order (by mean) of 72 wing chaplain leadership competencies 267

Page

A5. One-way analysis of variance for enlisted and officer pay grades and Strategic Planning (Factor 1) 272

A6. One-way analysis of variance for enlisted and officer pay grades and Organizing (Factor 2) 273

A7. One-way analysis of variance for enlisted and officer pay grades and Spiritual Modeling (Factor 3) 273

A8. One-way analysis of variance for enlisted and officer pay grades and Team Leadership (Factor 4) 274

A9. One-way analysis of variance for enlisted and officer pay grades and Ministry Practice (Factor 6) 274

A10. One-way analysis of variance for grouped pay grades and Strategic Planning (Factor 1) 275

A l l . One-way analysis of variance for grouped pay grades and Spiritual Modeling (Factor 3) 276

A12. One-way analysis of variance for grouped pay grades and Ministry Practice (Factor 6) 277

A13. One-way analysis of variance for grouped pay grades and Exemplary Leadership (Factor 10) 278

A14. One-way analysis of variance for religious preference of Chaplain Corps members and Spiritual Modeling (Factor 3) 278

A15. One-way analysis of variance for religious preference of chaplains and Spiritual Modeling (Factor 3) 279

A16. One-way analysis of variance for religious preference of Chaplain Corps members and Ministry Practice (Factor 6) 279

A17. One-way analysis of variance for religious preference of chaplains and Ministry Practice (Factor 6) 280

A18. One-way analysis of variance for grouped education levels and Strategic Planning (Factor 1) 280

A19. One-way analysis of variance for grouped education levels and Spiritual Modeling (Factor 3) 281

A20. One-way analysis of variance for grouped education levels and Ministry Practice (Factor 6) 281

Pag

A21. One-way analysis of variance for grouped professional military education levels and Strategic Planning (Factor 1) 282

A22. One-way analysis of variance for grouped professional military education levels and Spiritual Modeling (Factor 3) 282

A23. One-way analysis of variance for grouped professional military education levels and Team Leadership (Factor 4) 283

A24. One-way analysis of variance for grouped professional military education levels and Ministry Practice (Factor 6) 283

A25. One-way analysis of variance for grouped professional military education levels and Exemplary Leadership (Factor 10) 284

A26. One-way analysis of variance for grouped current position levels and Strategic Planning (Factor 1) 284

A27. One-way analysis of variance for grouped current position levels and Spiritual Modeling (Factor 3) 285

A28. One-way analysis of variance for grouped current position levels and Ministry Practice (Factor 6) 286

A29. One-way analysis of variance for grouped current position levels and Exemplary Leadership (Factor 10) 287

X l l l

LIST OF FIGURES

ure Page

1. Critical career passages in a large business organization 53

2. Simplified version of Hunt's extended multilevel leadership model 65

3. Relationship of leadership levels with enduring leadership competencies , 71

4. Air Force leadership development construct 72

5. Air Force officer career path 73

6. Air Force chaplain career path 74

7. Relationship between leadership competency model and leadership assessment, development, and performance 84

xiv

PREFACE

What Winston Churchill famously said about writing a book is no less true of

completing this work. "Writing a book," he said, "is an adventure. To begin with, it is a

toy and an amusement; then it becomes a mistress, and then it becomes a master, and then

a tyrant. The last phase is that just as you are about to be reconciled to your servitude,

you kill the monster and fling it out to the public." I know exactly what he meant.

Vickey has tolerated this mistress along the way more patiently than anyone

could have imagined, certainly more patiently than I deserved. She helped me kill the

monster—death by a thousand cuts, one paper cut at a time. Of all the people I have to

thank for successfully reaching the end of this adventure, no one deserves my gratitude

more than the godly woman Uncle Sam and I have been dragging around the world the

last nineteen years. I am the turtle on the fence post; she's the reason I'm up there.

I am also grateful to my Cohort One warriors who traveled this path with me.

Working full time while going to school full time is not for the faint of heart. I can

honestly say that my experience with them in this pursuit has made it worth the gallons of

blood, sweat, and tears expended over the last three years or so. If the only thing I ever

received from this adventure was time spent with them and the world class faculty at

Southern Seminary, I would do it all over again—with or without the degree.

It has been a profound honor to have been mentored by the extraordinary

faculty assembled at this seminary. Only in God's Kingdom could an Air Force chaplain

learn church leadership from a Marine sniper—and like it. So, to my once-a-Marine-

always-a-Marine supervising professor (Dr. Larry Purcell), I give the biggest compliment

I know: Semper Fi\ Thanks for your service to our nation behind the sniper scope and

behind the pulpit, both of which glorified the only One who is Always Faithful.

Thanks as well to Dr. Brad Waggoner, without whom I would never have

gotten into this program, much less gotten out of it. I sincerely appreciate his vision in

launching this program and for allowing me into the inaugural doctoral cohort. I am

equally grateful for his help getting this dissertation off the ground, in the air, and then

safely bringing it home in one piece.

I would be remiss if I failed to thank my parents for loving the Lord and

teaching me to do the same. Everything I needed to know about life I learned from them.

And while I always appreciated their unconditional love and always knew I had a good

thing going, I appreciate it all the more every day. In my line of work I am constantly

reminded that not everyone gets to enjoy the love they gave my sister and me. They did

exactly what every parent should do; they treated us like precious cargo from the Lord.

I am grateful as well for the privilege of serving the men and women of our

nation's Armed Forces and their families during one of the most critical periods in our

country's history. I never cease to be amazed at their devotion to duty, their selfless

service, and their dedication to a cause greater than themselves. My commitment to serve

them well, alongside the extraordinary professionals of the Air Force Chaplain Corps, is

ultimately what drove this study. May God's blessing be upon them in their work as

"visible reminders of the Holy" in some of the most dangerous places on the planet.

Finally, and most importantly, I want to thank God for saving me and calling

me and using me in ways I never could have imagined. His strength strengthens me. His

hand guides me. His voice comforts me. His mission motivates me. To Him be the

glory. He alone is worthy of our praise.

Dondi E. Costin

Montgomery, Alabama

December 2008

xvi

CHAPTER 1

RESEARCH CONCERN

When asked "how . . . great leaders create the conditions that promote team

effectiveness," one prominent leadership researcher answers with the trite but accurate

response: "Any way they can" (Hackman 2002, 209). Embedded within that telling

question-answer couplet is a bevy of significant factors contributing to organizational

success, not the least of which is the critical role played by competent leaders. Research

in both ministry (Clinton and Clinton 1997; Ford 1997; Rainer 1996; Rainer 1999b;

Rainer 2001; Rainer 2005; Lifeway Research 2007; Stetzer and Dodson 2007) and non-

ministry settings (Collins 2001; Conger 1992; Covey 2004; Goleman 1998; Hughes,

Ginnett, and Curphy 2006; Kouzes and Posner 2002; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner

2001; Van Velsor and Drath 2004; Yukl 2006; Zenger and Folkman 2002) strongly

suggests that competent leaders generate genuinely positive impact in organizational life.

Military chaplains straddle the seemingly mutually exclusive realms of ministry and

military (Groh 1991), both of which demand unique leadership competencies to foster

organizational effectiveness in their respective contexts (Barna 1997; Guillot 2003).

In their dual role as God-called ministers and government-commissioned

officers, Air Force wing chaplains are uniquely positioned as recognized leaders in the

ministry and the military. Serving simultaneously as the military community's senior

pastor and a senior military staff agency chief in the Air Force's premier war-fighting

unit, wing chaplains are expected to lead two distinct yet overlapping constituencies with

equal competence. As ministry leaders, they are accountable to God for competence in

the spiritual care and feeding of the community's souls (Piper 2002, 1-4). As military

leaders, their role places them squarely in the crosshairs of a taxpaying public counting

on their competence for national survival (Huntington 1979, 16). Exploring the extent of

leadership competencies needed for Air Force chapel administration is the focus of this

study. No study examining the leadership competencies requisite for Air Force chapel

administration exists in the literature. This study aimed to narrow that literature gap.

Research Problem

The research problem emerged as a leadership development issue for Air Force

wing chaplains. Specifically, which leadership competencies should ground the

leadership development program for new wing chaplains? Unlike most civilian

organizations in both ministry and non-ministry sectors, military organizations are unable

to hire senior leaders from the outside and must therefore grow their own. This process

takes many years, and there is little margin for error. Since the military "does not have

the luxury of raiding competitors for leadership talent, its top leaders must devote

themselves to and succeed in developing new generations of leaders who can cope with

uncertainty when preparing for crises yet to be defined" (Leader to Leader 2004, xv).

Given the high stakes involved relative to securing the national interest, leadership

development is an assignment the military has historically taken very seriously (Wong,

Bliese, and McGurk 2003; U.S. Department of the Army 2006, 2-1). In light of the

American military's current transformation, flattening its Cold War-era bureaucracies to

best meet twenty-first century challenges, developing a culture of leadership competence

is increasingly significant in an era marked by a global war on terrorism (Mahnken and

Fitzsimonds 2004; Moseley 2006; Scales 2006).

Clarifying leadership competence is also increasingly significant for

developing ministry leaders. The decline of the American church's cultural impact and

the criticality of competent leadership in stemming the tide is well documented (Barna

1997; Rainer 2005; Lifeway Research 2007; Stetzer and Dodson 2007). In the American

church at large, recent research indicates relatively dramatic decreases in church

attendance for Catholic and mainline Protestant denominations as well as a slowing of

growth rates for conservative Protestant denominations since the 1970s (Carroll 2006).

Even the Southern Baptist Convention, which heralds a passion for evangelism, reports

70% of its congregations as plateaued or declining and its baptism rate virtually stagnant

the last 50 years (Stetzer and Dodson 2007). On the whole, some 100 million Americans

are considered unchurched (Barna 2007), and one study reports that less than 20% of

Americans attend church on any given Sunday (Barnes and Lowry 2006). Ministers

labor in this milieu, and research suggests their leadership effectiveness is a major factor

in the health and growth of their flocks (Bruce 2004; Carroll 2006). As a result,

developing effective ministry leaders is a critical concern for the church.

The Need for Leadership Development

As early as Blizzard's (1956) classic research on the minister's use of time, a

number of studies in the decades since have consistently indicated that the average

minister in a variety of ministry settings spends significant time performing an array of

administrative tasks (Nauss 1972; Nauss 1974; Nauss 1983; Boersma 1988; Nauss 1989;

Nauss 1994; Woodruff 2004; Thomas 2004), a reality for which many do not feel

adequately prepared via their seminary training (Burns and Cervero 2002; Welch 2003;

Coggins 2004). Interestingly, citing the relative failure of executive development

programs to populate the business leadership pipeline vacated as the Boomer generation

retires, Crainer and Dearlove report that master of business administration degree

curricula have essentially the same problem, that is, an inordinate focus on the analytical

skills required for technical expertise at the expense of broader leadership competencies

required for organizational performance (Crainer and Dearlove 1999).

In a comprehensive curriculum review of the master of divinity degree

requirements of 148 accredited graduate theological institutions in the United States,

Welch discovered that

seminarians attending these 148 seminaries in preparation for pastoral ministry will spend slightly over 1 percent... of their total academic course preparation in study for the administrative or leadership responsibilities of the church; and up to three- fourths of the others will receive none. This is an interesting balance of preparation requirements given that studies have demonstrated that a pastor spends 50 to 75 percent of his time in administrative and leadership responsibilities in the church. (Welch 2005, xi-xii)

These findings are all the more significant given that forced terminations are exceedingly

more often a result of failed leadership than errant theology (LaRue 1996; Turner 2006).

Research on failed managers in the business sector echoes the view that

superior technical expertise in itself is no guarantee of leadership effectiveness and is, in

fact, sometimes a major detriment to success (Howard 2001). Barna captures the need

for leadership development as a complement to technical prowess in the ministry with

this insightful observation:

I have witnessed pastor after pastor, extensively trained to exegete the Scriptures, and gifted to communicate God's truth, undeniably fail when it comes to guiding the Body of believers. They have failed in mobilizing the people for action, holding them accountable for their behavior, motivating them to sustain a spiritual revolution and attracting the resources necessary to do the work modeled by Christ. (Barna 1997, 18-19)

The lack of leadership is all the more glaring when these ministers assume senior

leadership positions in the military, a culture where leadership competence is considered

more expectation than extravagance (Loh 2001, 91; Wong, Bliese, and McGurk 2003).

Role of Competencies in Leadership Development

Leadership development is a prime example of the well-worn cliche, "If you

aim at nothing, you'll hit it every time." The most effective leadership development

programs are strikingly clear in their end goal: producing leaders with the competencies

required to engender organizational success (Hunt 1991; Howard 2001; O'Connor and

Quinn 2004; Yukl 2006). In this vein, more recent researchers have strengthened the

significance of the essential connection between the individual leader's personal growth

and leveraging that growth to enhance the larger organization (Van Velsor and McCauley

2004). Successful programs strike a delicate balance between the sometimes conflicting

yet critical ends of program participants' personal growth and the organization's unique

needs (Horey and Falleson 2003; Carter, Ullrich, and Goldsmith 2005).

McCall's (1998) executive development model is representative of attempts to

synthesize the personal growth versus organizational needs dichotomy by specifying the

responsibilities of both parties (Conger 1992; Clinton and Clinton 1997; Howard 2001;

Carter, Ullrich, and Goldsmith 2005). Writing from a business perspective, McCall

argues against developing leaders with a purely personal growth agenda, even though

many businesses find therein a means to immediate, short-term profit. Instead, he

explains, the long view demands coupling business strategy with the human resource

function, creating a win-win situation for both. He suggests, following the definition of

Seibert et al. (1995, 559), that "executive development is the (1) implementation of

explicit corporate and business strategies through the (2) identification and (3) growth of

(4) wanted executive skills, experiences, and motivations for the (5) intermediate and

long-range future" (Laske 2003, 571-72). In other words, development programs should

purposefully pursue leader competencies related to organizational goals and which

clearly specify those competencies necessary for success (Spencer and Spencer 1993).

Any attempt at devising a leadership development initiative should focus on its

desired "impact and the subsequent need to identify all critical components prior to

delivering the initiative." Effective development initiatives identify organizational

challenges requiring leadership development, target leadership development needs to

meet those challenges, and identify "specific measurable outcomes of leadership

development, including the level of mastery desired for these outcomes" (Martineau

2004, 237). Simply put, "the first challenge of leader assessment and development in any

organization is to determine what functions leaders perform that result in organization

success. The next challenge is to build the programs, rules, and environment to support

leaders in carrying out those functions" (Horey and Fallesen 2004, 464). Determining

which leadership competencies are essential for performance is central to this task.

Competency-Based Leadership Development

As defined by Spencer and Spencer, "a competency is an underlying

characteristic of an individual that is causally related to criterion-referenced effective

and/or superior performance in a job or situation." These authors list five types of

competency characteristics (motives, traits, attitudes, knowledge, and skills) which are

categorized as personal characteristics (motives, traits, attitudes, and knowledge) and

behavior (skills) (Spencer and Spencer 1993, 9-11). Significantly, these elements are

effective to the extent they impact performance. A more relevant definition for this

study, in light of its focus on wing chaplain performance vice criterion-referenced

effective or identified superior performance, is "a cluster of related knowledge, skills, and

attitudes that affects a major part of one's job (a role or responsibility), that correlates

with performance on the job, that can be measured against well-accepted standards, and

that can be improved via training and development" (Parry 1996, 50). In Air Force

parlance, "these are the occupational skill sets and enduring leadership competencies that

Air Force leaders develop as they progress along levels of increased responsibility" (U.S.

Department of the Air Force 2006a, 4).

Competency-based approaches "seek to improve individual and group work

processes through the application of systematic procedures and research-based

principles." Job analysis and competency modeling have traditionally been the most

prominent means of mining the "knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics

(KSAOs), tasks, and functions" to serve as "the building blocks of leadership and

development processes. Competencies have become a more prevalent method of

identifying the requirements of supervisory, managerial, and leadership positions, rather

than job or task analysis techniques, because they provide a more general description of

responsibilities associated across these positions" (Horey and Fallesen 2003, 722).

In this vein, leadership researchers have long acknowledged that differences in

leadership requirements are a function of organizational level (Hunt 1991; Mumford,

Campion, and Morgeson 2007). This reality has been identified in both the military

(Wong, Bliese, and McGurk 2003; U.S. Department of the Army 2006; U.S. Department

of the Air Force 2006a) and the ministry (Lawson 2000; Bonem and Patterson 2005) and

is significant for this study. Wing chaplains serve at the intersection of operational and

strategic leadership levels, the primary of which depends in large measure on the size of

their base and the resultant scope of their responsibility. In almost every case, new wing

chaplains assume their positions as the base's senior pastor and senior leadership advisor

from lower organizational levels which require a much narrower leadership skill set.

Examining the specific competencies required for success in this unique leadership

position was the goal of this study. No such study exists in the literature.

Competency Modeling

Based on the seminal efforts of military assessment studies from the First

World War and industrial-organizational psychologists in the 1950s, competency-based

leadership development traces its more contemporary roots to the work of David

McClelland (1973) in discounting as a predictor of success the significance of an

employee's intelligence quotient in favor of actual demonstrated competence. Since that

time, beginning in earnest in the early 1990s with the work of Prahalad and Hamel

(1990), competency modeling has emerged as a major force in leadership development

(Schippmann et al. 2000). Its increasing use is due in large measure to its relative

flexibility in the face of rapid-fire organizational change and the ease with which

leadership competencies can be directly tied to organizational strategy (Garman and

Johnson 2006). That upwards of 80% of business organizations employ some form of

competency modeling is evidence of its popularity as a viable business strategy and

leadership development tool (Schippmann et al. 2000).

A competency modeling approach typically produces a compendium of

leadership attributes, knowledge, and skills that tend to settle into a much smaller number

of general categories or clusters. For example, after reviewing some nine major attempts

at creating competency taxonomies, Mumford, Campion, and Morgeson (2007, 155)

observe four such categories in the literature: cognitive skills (i.e., investigating,

information gathering, basic cognitive capacities), interpersonal skills (i.e., supervision,

leading, negotiating, people skills), business skills (i.e., coordination, staffing, resource

allocation), and strategic skills (planning, evaluating, decision making, problem solving).

Since leadership competencies can be simplified into definable categories, the bottom-

line benefit of competency modeling is its clear focus on behavioral leadership skills that

can in fact be developed (Northouse 2004, 62-63). Founding leadership development

curricula on such skills greatly increases the odds of an organization developing leaders

who consistently generate expected results (Intagliata, Ullrich, and Smallwood 2000, 14).

The Process of Competency Modeling

The classic competency study design exists as a comparison of so-called

superstar performers with average performers, as determined by such criteria as

measurable unit performance outcomes or ratings by supervisors when hard data is

unavailable (Spencer and Spencer 1993, 93-113). Rather than an exclusive focus on

particular leaders, however, other researchers recommend instead a simple focus on the

position. "By focusing on leadership skill requirements, the focus is shifted from the

person holding the job (i.e., the leader) to the job itself. Thus, instead of attempting to

identify the characteristics of leaders (which has a checkered history of success), the

focus is squarely on the job of the leader, and the skills it requires" (Mumford, Campion,

and Morgeson 2007, 154-55). This latter method, which realistically combines the

leadership position with relevant leader behaviors and characteristics, is preferred for the

current study. While methodologically different, its leadership development application

is similar to the classic study, providing a comprehensive list of competencies for which

educational curricula can be designed (Horey and Falleson 2003, 722).

Summary

The federal government in general and the military in particular are principal

proponents of competency modeling in determining those leadership competencies

deemed necessary for organizational success. In the government arena, for instance,

competency models have been fashioned for such agencies as the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, the Office of Personnel Management (an early forerunner in

competency modeling), the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, Los Alamos National Labs, and all five military services (Wagner 2004).

A number of prominent researchers have parlayed competency modeling into a

cultural phenomenon by publishing their research as blockbuster books (Goleman 1998;

Collins 2001; Kouzes and Posner 2002; Zenger and Folkman 2002; Covey 2004;

Buckingham 2005). In addition, ministry researchers have employed competency

modeling methodologies in their study of pastors (Boersma 1988), comparing

congregational and pastoral perceptions of leadership (Purcell 2001), seminary leadership

preparation (Welch 2003), seminary graduates in ministry (Barnett 2003), executive

pastors (Woodruff 2004), and Christian camp directors (Thomas 2004). No such study is

available examining the leadership competencies considered essential for leading Air

Force chapels. In light of this glaring gap in the leadership literature and the need for

informed leadership development of Air Force wing chaplains, this study was in order.

Research Purpose

Due to the high mobility that is part and parcel of military life, there is

frequent turnover among United States Air Force wing chaplains, most of whom serve no

more than two or three years before being reassigned. As the senior pastor for a

particular Air Force community, the wing chaplain is responsible for serving as the wing

commander's (the senior military officer on base) spiritual and ethical advisor, in

addition to providing the community with a comprehensive program of worship, religious

education, spiritual development, and pastoral care the world over. Consequently, wing

chaplains typically experience a steep learning curve as they begin a job requiring a host

of new leadership competencies, many of which are ill-defined. The result is often a

severe lag in both effectiveness and efficiency in chapel program administration.

The purpose of the proposed study was to research this problem through a

descriptive analysis of the leadership competencies considered essential for wing

chaplains throughout the United States Air Force. It is possible the results of this study

would be used to better equip new wing chaplains as they enter their positions of

leadership, allowing them to generate and leverage momentum early in their tenures. By

determining which competencies are deemed critical for success, education and training

programs could then be tailored to prepare new wing chaplains for this critical role.

Research Questions

1. What are the similarities and differences of significant demographic characteristics (pay grade, years in service, religious preference, assignment location, education level, professional military education, and leadership experience) among the population of Air Force Chaplain Corps personnel?

2. What leadership competencies are considered essential for performance as Air Force wing chaplains?

3. What identifiable characteristics (pay grade, years in service, religious preference, assignment location, education level, professional military education, and leadership experience), if any, are associated with the importance rating of the leadership competencies?

4. What is the relationship, if any, between Chaplain Corps perceptions of wing chaplain preparation, wing chaplain performance, and personal job satisfaction?

Delimitations of the Study

The nature of this study among ministry leaders within the United States Air

Force may impact its generalizability to other ministry settings and populations. The

delimitations of the study include the following:

1. The study is delimited to active duty wing chaplains serving in the U.S. Air Force.

2. The study is delimited to active duty members.

3. The study is delimited to ministry leaders in the military.

4. The study is delimited to leaders of Air Force wing chapels.

5. The study is delimited to the perceived competencies of wing chaplains by active duty Chaplain Corps personnel and does not consider the wing chaplain's leadership competencies as perceived by parishioners or direct superiors in the line of the Air Force. It will be noted, however, that representative wing commanders were employed as part of the Delphi panel.

Terminology

For purposes of this study, the following definitions are provided:

Air Force Chaplain Corps (formerly known as the Air Force Chaplain

Service). "Provides spiritual care and the opportunity for Air Force members, their

families, and other authorized personnel to exercise their Constitutional right to the free

exercise of religion . . . . The Chaplain Service (1) conducts religious observances, (2)

provides pastoral care, and (3) offers advice to leaders on spiritual, ethical, moral, morale,

and religious accommodation issues." The Air Force Chief of Chaplains "develops

functional doctrine and policy and provides oversight of all Air Force Chaplain Service

echelons" (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006d, 1-2).

Airman. Any member of the United States Air Force.

Chaplain. "Chaplain functions are performed by qualified commissioned Air

Force officers designated as chaplains in accordance with Title 10, United States Code,

Section 8067 (h)." Chaplains provide religious observances, pastoral care, and offer

advice to leadership on spiritual, ethical, moral, morale, and religious accommodation

issues. "Consistent with Department of Defense and Air Force policy, chaplains adhere

to the requirements of their endorsing religious organizations while providing for the

spiritual and religious needs of all Air Force members, their families, and other

authorized personnel" (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006d, 2).

Command (or MAJCOM) chaplain. A chaplain in the grade of colonel who

serves on the command staff of an Air Force major command (MAJCOM) commander

and provides functional oversight to all Air Force Chaplain Corps personnel and

programs in their respective MAJCOM (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006d, 2; U.S.

Department of the Air Force 2005, 2). A MAJCOM is "a major subdivision of the Air

Force, directly subordinate to Headquarters U.S. Air Force. MAJCOM headquarters are

functional headquarters and thus have the full range of functional staff (U.S. Department

of the Air Force 2006c, 10).

Competencies. As defined by Spencer and Spencer, "a competency is an

underlying characteristic of an individual that is causally related to criterion-referenced

effective and/or superior performance in a job or situation." These authors list five types

of competency characteristics (motives, traits, attitudes, knowledge, and skills) which are

categorized as personal characteristics (motives, traits, attitudes, and knowledge) and

behavior (skills) (Spencer and Spencer 1993, 9-11). Significantly, these elements are

effective to the extent they impact job performance. A more relevant definition for this

study, in light of its focus on wing chaplain performance vice criterion-referenced

effective or identified superior performance, is "a cluster of related knowledge, skills, and

attitudes that affects a major part of one's job (a role or responsibility), that correlates

with performance on the job, that can be measured against well-accepted standards, and

that can be improved via training and development" (Parry 1996, 50). In Air Force

parlance, "these are the occupational skill sets and enduring leadership competencies that

Air Force leaders develop as they progress along levels of increased responsibility" (U.S.

Department of the Air Force 2006a, 4).

Competency modeling or mapping. As Reed et al. explain, "competency maps

take on a wide variety of forms. While there is no one correct way of depicting them,

they can generally be described as a formal. . . effort to identify, list, label, track, and

measure competency descriptors. The competencies might be called knowledge areas,

skills, attributes, attitudes, components, tasks, traits, or simply competencies. Once

identified, numbered, and listed, they are usually broken down into sub-components,

which are also numbered, so they might be associated with the broader competency area

or cluster of competencies. The mapping aspect comes into play when the competency

areas are mapped to training and educational objectives and events, and then ultimately to

desired leadership behaviors" (Reed et al. 2004, 48-49).

Leadership. In some cases the words leadership and management are used

almost interchangeably. For instance, Rost's comprehensive survey of leadership

definitions since 1900 asserts that leadership has been understood, since the 1930s at

least, as little more than "good management," suggesting leadership does not even exist

as an independent construct in the minds of many (Rost 1991, 99). Others view the terms

as "qualitatively different and mutually exclusive" (Yukl 2006, 5). Still others see

leadership and management as "two distinct yet related systems of action," both of which

"are necessary for organizational well-being" (Banks and Ledbetter 2004, 17). In that

vein, Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy describe the two as overlapping yet distinguishable

entities, advancing the popular notion that leaders "do the right things" (effectiveness)

while managers "do things right" (efficiency) (Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy 2006, 8-9).

In the words of Anthony and Estep, "management calls us to commit to organizing the

institution to achieve its plans, focusing on the proper utilization of resources, 'things.'"

Moreover, according to these writers, "leadership calls us to a multi-phased process of

staffing, directing, and evaluating, while focusing on the 'people,' not as resources but as

participants in our ministry endeavor." Leaders are responsible for the proper

employment of both "things" (management) and "people" (leadership) in accomplishing

the organization's mission (Anthony and Estep 2005, 4).

For purposes of this study, the official Air Force definition of leadership is

used. "Leadership is the art and science of influencing and directing people to

accomplish the assigned mission" (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006a, 1). This

definition accounts for the view that productive leadership requires sound management to

accomplish its purposes. Management, then, makes sense only under the leadership

umbrella. As Anthony and Estep explain with respect to the five classic functions of

leadership and management, leadership includes staffing, directing, and

controlling/evaluating. Management operates in the realm of organizing (Anthony and

Estep 2005, 4). In the opinion of this author, planning occurs in the realm of both

leadership and management. This study will, therefore, consider leadership as an

overarching construct inclusive of competencies traditionally understood in the realms of

both leadership and management.

Leadership competencies. "These are the occupational skill sets and enduring

leadership competencies that Air Force leaders develop as they progress along levels of

increased responsibility" (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006a, 4).

Leadership development. The leadership development process is defined in

official Air Force doctrine as "the abilities of a leader, which are derived from innate

capabilities and built from experience, education, and training, and can be improved upon

through deliberate development" (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006a, 2).

A^on-Commissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC). The chapel NCOIC is

ordinarily the senior chaplain assistant on staff and reports directly to the wing chaplain.

Consistent with principles of Air Force enlisted force structure and its single manager

concept, NCOICs are responsible for leadership, management, and supervision of all

enlisted members on a particular chapel staff. "The NCOIC must organize and lead

chaplain assistants in execution of assigned duties" and is responsible for providing

written feedback, preparing annual performance reports, ensuring appropriate

recognition, mentoring, and otherwise supervising the work of all enlisted personnel on

staff (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006b, 7). NCOICs holding the rank of master

sergeant (E-7) and above are referred to as superintendents and are often assigned to

larger bases. For purposes of this study, the two positions are considered equivalent, as

they maintain the same relationship to the wing chaplain and are generally responsible for

the same set of tasks.

Wing. As defined by Air Force Instruction 38-101, Air Force Organization,

the wing is a "level of command below the Numbered Air Force or higher headquarters.

A wing has a distinct mission with significant scope. A wing is usually composed of a

primary mission group (e.g., operations, training) and the necessary supporting groups.

By pulling together the mission and support elements, a wing provides a significant

capability under a single commander. It is responsible for maintaining the installation or

has several squadrons in more than one dependent group" (U.S. Department of the Air

Force 2006c, 11). In common understanding, the wing is the basic war-fighting

organization of the United States Air Force, usually comprised of no less than four

groups (operations, maintenance, support, and medical) and their subordinate squadrons.

It is led by the wing commander, who is the most senior officer (by rank and position, not

necessarily longevity) in the wing, usually a colonel or brigadier general.

Wing chaplain. The wing's senior pastor and the wing commander's senior

military advisor on matters related to Airmen's spirituality, religion, morals, and morale.

As defined by Air Force Instruction 52-101, the wing chaplain is "a chaplain responsible

to the wing commander for all Chaplain Service programs and personnel of a specific

U.S. Air Force wing" (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2005, 3). Wing chaplains, "in

consultation with . . . other assigned Chaplain Service personnel, design and implement

Chaplain Service programs to meet the spiritual and religious needs of assigned Air Force

members, their families, and other authorized personnel." They "serve as the primary

advisors for commanders on religious accommodation issues. They provide feedback to

the MAJCOM chaplain and guidance to the Chaplain Service teams they lead" (U.S.

Department of the Air Force 2006d, 2).

Smaller installations not large enough to host a wing still maintain the same

support services for assigned personnel. Many of these installations employ installation

chaplains who perform the same functions as wing chaplains at larger installations. For

purposes of this study, installation chaplains were considered wing chaplain-equivalents.

Wing commander. Air Force Instruction 38-101 notes the wing commander

"has the authority and responsibility to command the wing. The standard operational

wing structure is a wing with four dependent groups (operations, maintenance, mission

support, and medical) with related functions and disciplines aligned under the appropriate

group. Generally, only the wing staff and the four group commanders report directly to

the wing commander. Thus, the wing commander concentrates on the wing's primary

mission and delegates authority to subordinates so they can accomplish their

responsibilities. Major wing functions are divided among a few principal subordinates,

each accountable for carrying out a specific part of the wing mission. Responsibilities

are clearly defined and duplication is avoided. While the standard wing is organized for

combat operations, its basic structure is applied to all types of wings (for instance, air

base and special mission wings)" (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006c, 16). The

wing commander typically holds the rank of colonel or brigadier general.

Research Assumptions

1. In conducting this research, it is assumed that wing chaplains have been exposed to additional leadership training via their professional military education as an Air Force officer. As a result, even first-time wing chaplains should not be complete novices in the leadership arena. Whether they practice these leadership skills remains to be seen, but they would have certainly had the opportunity to enhance their leadership abilities along the way.

2. It is also assumed that leadership can be learned (Kouzes and Posner 2002, 386). This assumption affects not only the view that these chaplains should have gained valuable leadership experiences and education along the way but also that the study's findings can be used as a leadership development tool once the study is completed.

3. It is assumed that these leaders have at least some semblance of theological orientation with respect to their leadership. Each wing chaplain is required to be a seminary graduate and will have had pastoral experience before and during their military careers. While they will not all be orthodox Christians theologically, they will each have a theological grid through which they view their lives and ministries.

4. Since the wing chaplain is also a staff officer, it is assumed much more of his time will be spent in administration than most chaplains.

Procedural Overview

This mixed methods descriptive study sought to discern those leadership

competencies considered essential for active duty wing chaplains leading Air Force

chapels via a 360-degree view provided by Air Force Chaplain Corps personnel. The

first phase in this study synthesized findings from the literature relative to common

ministry and military leadership competencies extant in the literature. This synthesis

resulted in a list of 66 leadership competencies that formed a competency profile

evaluated by a Delphi panel comprised of 14 recognized military leaders (including 4

wing commanders, 4 command chaplains, 3 wing chaplains, and 3 chapel non-

commissioned officers in charge). Delphi panel members were selected because of their

association with award-winning chapel programs (small, medium, and large) as

determined by the Air Force Chaplain Corps annual awards program for calendar years

2006 and 2007. Results of the Delphi panel process yielded an additional 6 competencies

(for a total of 72) which comprised the bulk of a multi-item questionnaire.

The multi-item leadership competency questionnaire was constructed and

administered in coordination with the Air Force Chaplain Corps Resource Board, Office

of the Chief of Chaplains, Headquarters Air Force, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.

The questionnaire was pilot tested by a representative group of 22 Chaplain Corps

personnel to ensure its comprehensiveness and usability. Recommended changes were

made before electronically sending the questionnaire to the Air Force Chaplain Corps

population. Consistent with U.S. Air Force requirements, the questionnaire was

approved by the Air Force Survey Branch, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas, prior to

administration to Air Force personnel. The Air Force Survey Branch assigned survey

control number USAF SCN 08-036 to the questionnaire and deemed it valid through May

31,2009.

Questionnaire items included relevant demographic data (rank, faith group,

time in service, time in current position, education level, professional military education,

and prior leadership experiences), items related to wing chaplain preparation, wing

chaplain job performance, job satisfaction, and items addressing leadership competencies

required for wing chapel leadership. Leadership competencies were scored by

respondents on a 5-point Likert scale as to their relative importance for Air Force wing

chaplain performance. In addition, the questionnaire included a number of open-ended

questions relevant to the study to enrich the data. Face and content validity were

established via the Delphi panel. Internal reliability calculations for the leadership

competency portion of the instrument yielded a Cronbach's alpha of 0.97.

Questionnaires were sent electronically to e-mail addresses of the entire

population of 935 active duty Air Force Chaplain Corps personnel in order to produce a

comprehensive, 360-degree view of essential wing chaplain leadership competencies. Of

these Chaplain Corps members, approximately 110 members were deployed and some

240 members were in the process of military reassignment. Efforts were made to contact

as many of these transitional members as possible, and it is estimated that no fewer than

750 members received the questionnaire electronically. A total of 447 usable responses

were received, representing 47% of the Chaplain Corps population and a 59% survey

return rate. Analysis was conducted on both quantitative and qualitative data and is

reported in chapter 4. Conclusions are discussed in chapter 5.

CHAPTER 2

PRECEDENT LITERATURE

The review of precedent literature grounds the current study in foundational

research and provides a theoretical basis for its execution. Specifically, this review

establishes a theological, philosophical, and methodological foundation for the leadership

competencies required for effective administration of Air Force chapels worldwide. In

light of the unique role Air Force wing chaplains play as recognized leaders in the

ministry and the military, research from both spheres intersect to inform the issue. The

stage is set by an examination of the biblical record and complementary secular literature

in developing a theology of spiritual responsibility. The scope of this analysis points

toward competent leadership as a primary means of exercising spiritual responsibility for

others. The chapter then reviews research on leadership competency models in the

ministry and the military, paying particular attention to the use of such models as

foundational to leadership development.

A Theology of Spiritual Responsibility

"Nothing is more important than leadership." Such is the evaluation of

researcher George Barna after well over fifteen years of careful study with respect to the

American church's cultural impact. In fact, his "central conclusion is that the American

church is dying due to a lack of strong leadership. In this time of unprecedented

opportunity and plentiful resources, the church is actually losing influence. The primary

reason is the lack of leadership" (Barna 1997, 18). Barna's views regarding the church

are echoed in the secular literature as to the state of leadership there, causing one

prominent chief executive officer to suggest, in the wake of post-9/11 market corrections

and highly publicized corporate scandals, "that the challenges we see in 2002 are not new

issues. The current environment is merely exposing poor leadership" (Tichy 2002, xv).

This leadership vacuum beckons would-be leaders to stand in the gap wherever it exists,

thereby demonstrating the difference effective leadership makes in organizational life.

Myriad research conducted in a variety of organizational settings strongly

suggests that competent leaders effect genuine positive differences for their organizations

(Collins 2001; Conger 1992; Covey 2004; Goleman 1998; Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy

2006; Kouzes and Posner 2002; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 2001; Van Velsor

and Drath 2004; Yukl 2006; Zenger and Folkman 2002). The positive difference leaders

make in fostering organizational productivity has also been revealed in ministry settings

(Clinton and Clinton 1997; Ford 1997; Rainer 1996; Rainer 1999b; Rainer 2001; Rainer

2005; Lifeway Research 2007). Ministry leaders necessarily assume responsibilities that

include but extend well beyond those of the typical corporate executive. While both

brands of leaders are charged with executing the traditional functions of organizational

administration on behalf of the organization and its stakeholders, ministry leaders

maintain a particular responsibility in pursuit of the Creator and his mission. "Thus,

marketing, public relations, cash flow management, personnel policies, building

management, budgeting, and strategic planning all become tied to making our

organizations more mission-capable, more able to do good in the world . . . in God's

name" (Brinckerhoff 1999, 24). For the ministry leader perhaps more than any other,

leadership is stewardship—exercised on behalf of him whose portfolio includes all things

(Ps24:l).

The kernel of such stewardship involves the responsibility ministry leaders

have for the spiritual well-being of those under their care. Rather than merely boosting

the financial position of an organization and its stakeholders, leaders in ministry work for

a spiritual bottom line visibly consistent with kingdom purposes (Matt 23:37-40; 28:19-

20; Col 1:9-12). "The aims of. . . ministry are eternal and spiritual. They are not shared

by any of the professions," where "the borrowing of paradigms from the professional

world" and the "cultural expectations of professionalism" tempt the redirection of one's

primary focus toward the temporal and external (Piper 2002, 3, xii). As Scripture makes

plain, God provides ministry leaders "to prepare God's people for works of service, so

that the body of Christ may be built up until we 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" (Eph 4:11-13). That truth is the starting point for a theology of

spiritual responsibility. Its essence, however, derives from ministry leadership as a task

accomplished first and foremost for the glory of God.

Leadership for the Glory of God

Although many moderns are plagued by the Enlightenment-induced

philosophical separation of things secular from things sacred, adherents of the Christian

worldview are "utterly convinced that there is a biblical perspective on everything—not

just on spiritual matters" (Pearcey 2004, 44). In other words, "genuine Christianity is

more than a relationship with Jesus, as expressed in personal piety, church attendance,

Bible study, and works of charity. It is more than discipleship, more than believing a

system of doctrines about God. Genuine Christianity is a way of seeing and

comprehending all reality" as an extension of the glory of God (Colson and Pearcey

1999, 14-15). In marked contrast to the decidedly unbiblical dichotomy that drives an

unholy wedge between the sacred and the secular, the church is in need of "recovering

the sense of God's presence in every area of human life," viewing "sacred and secular

functioning together in dynamic unity" regardless of the sphere of influence (Tsukahira

2003, 126). A proper conception of leadership consistently embodies this understanding.

Scripture insists that, above all else, a life well lived is primarily an expression

of the supremacy of Christ over all creation. "From the first verse of inspired Scripture to

the last chapter of Revelation, God makes clear in ten thousand ways that the greatest

value in the universe, and the final end of all of life, is the uncontested supremacy and

unrivaled glory of God alone" (Ware 2004, 159). The leader's realm is certainly no

exception to this God-directed rule, which is perhaps best expressed in Paul's Colossian

correspondence: "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth,

visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were

created by him and for him . . . so that in everything he might have the supremacy" (Col

1:16-18). With leadership as in everything else, Scripture provides the most direct route

toward gaining a sharper focus. A brief look at selected scriptural snapshots has

particular significance for the ministry leader charged with showcasing the glory of God.

Man and Creation

Piper traces God's investment in his glory throughout the biblical record,

demonstrating with forceful clarity that "God's ultimate goal in all that he does is to

preserve and display his glory" (Piper 1996, 255). The journey begins with the creation

account. God there creates man in His own image and commands him to rule over all

creation (Gen 1:26-28), placing him in a class by himself relative to the created order

(Hoekema 1986, 13). While membership in this special class brings with it a host of

special privileges, it also generates significant responsibilities to the Creator, his creation,

and his well-ordered purposes for each (Erickson 1985, 487-93).

The biblical story of creation reaches its climax with the creation of man (male and female) in God's image. Four things should be noted about this climactic act. (1) Man is created as the last of all God's works and thus is the highest creature. (2) Only man is said to be in the image of God. (3) Only now that man is on the scene in the image of God does the writer describe the work of creation as being very good (1:31). (4) Man is given dominion and commanded to subdue and fill the earth (1:28).

What is man's purpose here? According to the text, creation exists for man. But since God made man like himself, man's dominion over the world and his filling the world is a display—an imaging forth—of God. God's aim, therefore, was that man would so act that he mirror forth God, who has ultimate dominion. Man is given the exalted status of image-bearer not so he would become arrogant and autonomous (as he tried to do in the Fall), but so he would reflect the glory of his Maker whose image he bears. God's purpose in creation, therefore, was to fill the earth with his own glory. (Piper 1996, 256)

This Old Testament perspective provides dramatic insight as to the leader's

role in advancing God's glory by acting on his behalf. Whereas the texts of typical

ancient Near-Eastern literature embody the god-image exclusively in the person of the

king, the Genesis account documents the expression of God's image in all mankind, both

male and female. That divine image is thus described as the necessary and sufficient

condition for man's rule over creation as God's sole vice-regent (Waltke 2001, 65-66).

In context, "mankind is here commissioned to rule nature as a benevolent king, acting as

God's representative over them and therefore treating them in the same way as God who

created them" and for the same purpose—expressing his glory in and through his creation

(Wenham 1987, 29-33). Leadership as a theological construct is thus established in the

account of creation, with its fundamental aim directing all things toward the glory of

God.

The Call of Abram

God's passion for his glory is also evident in the ancient call of Abram, the

penultimate purpose of which has dramatic spiritual implications for the people of God.

The call's ultimate purpose is, of course, the revelation of God's glory. In marked

contrast to the builders of the Tower of Babel who sought to make a name for themselves

(Gen 11:1-4), Abram is used by God as the physical and spiritual progenitor of God's

people (Gen 12:1-3). His purpose is leveraging Abram's obedience, faithfulness, and

covenant leadership to bless the nations by bringing them to him.

Genesis 12:1-3 declares with focused intention God's personal promise in this

vein: "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name

great, and you will be a blessing . . . . and all peoples on earth will be blessed through

you." Though some may unduly misdirect their focus toward Abram's promised

greatness in this passage, doing so would miss its strategic purpose relative to the person

and glory of God. "Yahweh is the subject of the first verb at the beginning of the first

statement and thus the subject of the entire subsequent sacred history." As with any

biblically astute leader, "the promise given to [Abramj has significance . . . far beyond

[Abram] and his seed" (von Rad 1972, 159-60). Its significance extends to all in need of

spiritual restoration and cannot be overemphasized as central to the leadership task. It is

precisely through Abram's obedient leadership that God is glorified and the earth's

people are blessed. The same should be true of the ministry leader called to shepherd

others in a God-glorifying ministry of spiritual reclamation.

Moses and the Exodus

Although initially reluctant to answer God's call to spiritual leadership (Exod

3:11-4:17), Moses ultimately relented, becoming a tool in God's hands to redeem his

people and display his glory (Exod 4:18ff). "God stripped away Moses' initial objection

by" convincing him "that he would not be representing himself in Egypt but that he

would be representing Yahweh" (McNeal 2000, 12). More to the point, Moses' burning

bush encounter with God demonstrates with piercing clarity their strategic partnership in

delivering God's people to a state of redemption (Exod 3:8-10). In line with the usual

arrangement God keeps with his leaders, he made it clear that "there was to be no

either/or mentality—either God or Moses—but God was to deliver his people through

Moses" (Tidball 1986, 37).

The God-Moses partnership demonstrates God's design for the ministry leader,

in which a cooperative arrangement is aimed at redeeming God's people and reflecting

his glory. This partnership in the Exodus has been identified in Old Testament theology

as the high point of God's loving commitment to his special people I s r a e l . . . . It is at this point in the history of Israel that God reveals his covenant name . . . , a name that forever captures the special relationship that God causes to exist between himself and I s r a e l . . . . Yahweh, the name of God revealed in Exodus 3, speaks in a dual sense both of the supreme existence of God and of his specific existence for the people of his choosing. The context of Exodus 3 emphasizes God's hearing and seeing the people's distress (Ex 2:23-25; 3:7-9) and his uncompromising commitment to bring them release from bondage (Ex 3:16-22). The God of the

exodus is the God who cares deeply for his people's welfare and acts powerfully on their behalf.... God actively seeks restored relationship with those whom he has made. (Ware 2004, 54)

He seeks this restoration in large measure at the hands of God-called leaders committed

to glorifying his name as the cornerstone of their ministry.

Lest there be any confusion as to the primary end of God's restoration

program, however, Scripture removes any sense of doubt. When everything is said and

done, "it is clear that the deliverance from Egypt is not due to the worth of the Israelites,

but to the worth of God's name" (Piper 2003, 258). Deliverance of God's people was the

very noble means of accomplishing the far nobler end of broadcasting his glory to the

nations. Like Moses, ministry leaders are called to partner with God for the dual but

stratified aims of bringing glory to God by shepherding the enslaved into the greener

pastures of restoration and redemption.

Jeremiah and God's Glory

The Old Testament record could not be clearer in its assessment of biblical

history as a dramatic illustration of God acting on behalf of his glory (Stott 1986, 204).

In fact, the entire history of Israel's exile and subsequent restoration bears witness to the

work of God through his people for his glory (Isa 48:9-11; Ezek 36:22-32). Leaders of

every stripe—prophet, priest, and king—were put in place "to magnify [God's] own

glory on behalf of [God's] people" (Piper 1996, 260-64).

Jeremiah's classic rendering of God's own words stands as a revelatory

centerpiece in salvation history, powerfully summarizing the Old Testament in its most

basic essence. More to the point, Jeremiah 9:23-24 sounds a clarion call for his followers

to clarify their ultimate priority in terms of the glory of God rather than their own. "This

is what the Lord says: 'Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast

of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this:

that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice,

and righteousness on the earth, for in these I delight,' declares the Lord" (Jer 9:23-24).

Without hint of equivocation, the Lord makes plain that one must disavow all notions of

operating for personal promotion or professional prestige. Rather, the Scriptures declare

that one's work must be accomplished for the glory of God.

This passage represents the best of wisdom literature, harkening back to the

absolute certainty of God and his character, even in the center of the exilic storm about

which the weeping prophet so famously laments. Of great import is the implication in

this passage that God's character should be shared by his people. It stands to reason that

those in leadership should be exemplars of the character of God so represented.

The context suggests that the reader—and, by extension, the leader—embody

this confessional "knowledge of the deity . . . which views history as the sphere of

Yahweh's activity, an activity characterized by loyalty . . . Justice, and right.

Understanding of or insight into . . . this confession is what constitutes a person's right to

boast" (Carroll 1986, 249). Such is the heart and soul of Old Testament history. "In this

brief statement therefore we have a succinct summary of the religion of Israel at its

h i g h e s t . . . . True religion consists in acknowledging the complete sovereignty of God in

life and allowing him to fill life with those qualities of steadfast faithfulness, justice, and

righteousness which he possesses, in which he delights, and which he desires to find in

his people" (Thompson 1980, 321). The leader's task must therefore be grounded in this

kernel of biblical truth, that is, God's glory is the ultimate target for which he—and his

organization—should aim. This central theme continues throughout the New Testament.

The Life of Christ

The New Testament writ large speaks to Christ's living for the glory of God,

but "evangelical theology is generally weak on the subject of Jesus' life. We generally

emphasize the last week of Jesus' ministry so much that his teaching, his miracles, his

way of life and the movement to the cross become just an introduction to an atoning

death. Surely this is a mistake" (Carey 1992, 59). The principal mistake therein is

missing Christ's unwavering animation of God's eternal purposes in pursuit of God's

eternal glory (Isa 22:11; Eph 1:4-6; 3:11). "In the ultimate sense, the purpose of God's

plan is God's glory," a fact made all the more plain through the focused life and ministry

of Jesus Christ (Erickson 1985, 351-52). While his earthly life and ministry are

necessary prerequisites to the cross, his resurrection, ascension, and return, his

perspective between the moments of his incarnation and sacrificial death have much to

say regarding how one should live with the glory of God in full view.

The very notion of incarnation itself presents clear evidence of Christ's

overarching commitment to the glory of God and his kingdom. His voluntary kenotic

departure from the glories of heaven indicates primal engagement in God's eternal plan

to glorify himself and is often employed as an exhortation for his subjects to follow suit

(John 1:1, 14; Phil 2:5-11). It is of great significance in this regard that Paul's recitation

of an apparently well-known Christological hymn in Philippians 2:5-11 forcefully unites

the themes of Christ's God-glorifying life and the God-ordained intention of similar

living for his followers (Martin 1987, 99-114). As Jesus ordered his life for God's glory,

Scripture insists, so should his disciples.

This sense of existing for God's purpose and glory takes shape eons before

Christ's physical birth (Col 1:15-17) and is repeatedly chronicled in Old Testament

prophecy (Gen 3:15; 2 Sam 7:12-16; Isa 7:14; 40:3; 53:4; 61:1; Ps 78:2; Zech 9:9; Mic

5:2) (Enns 1989, 218). The contemporaneous prophecies of his virgin conception and

birth, which are perhaps best captured in the words to his father Joseph regarding his very

name, convincingly declare his purpose: "What is conceived in her is from the Holy

Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he

will save his people from their sins" (Matt 1:20-21).

Bringing peace to others for God's glory was the goal of his ministry (Piper

2003). His central message was calling others to participate in the kingdom of God

which had been established in the old covenant, realized in the new, and would be

consummated at his return. "God made the decisive provision for achieving his

redemptive purpose in history in the Christ and Pentecost events," a provision from

which Christ himself never wavered (Hunt 1993, 67-68). Beginning with his baptism and

public commissioning (Luke 3:21-22), Jesus set his face like a flint to accomplish the

redemptive purpose for which he had been born (Isa 50:7; Luke 9:51).

That purpose was established from the outset of his public ministry when, in

his hometown, Jesus read aloud Isaiah 61:1-2 and declared himself the God-ordained

fulfillment of Isaiah's ancient prophecy (Geldenhuys 1988, 168). '"The Spirit of the

Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent

me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release

the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor'" (Luke 4:18-19). It was a

mission from which he never relented. He was so intent on accomplishing this purpose

that he equated doing God's will and finishing God's work with his very sustenance

(John 4:34). In fact, in the waning hours of his earthly life, Jesus could pray with

conviction, '"I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to

do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before

the world began'" (John 17:4-5). Hendriksen's classic commentary is especially

insightful at this juncture:

In sharp contrast with the wicked world, represented by the Jewish leaders, Jesus is able to say that he (the pronoun / is emphatic) glorified the Father. To do the will of his Father had been his chief delight (4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 8:50). He had accomplished the mission the Father had assigned him. He had brought this task to its predestined goal. He had fulfilled and finished i t . . . . To be sure, historically speaking, he had not yet suffered on the cross, but he has a right to speak as if also this suffering has already been endured, so certain is it that he will endure it! It must have given comfort to the disciples to hear Jesus say in his prayer that in the accomplishment of the mission to save sinners the Father is glorified! In this work all his glorious 'excellencies' are displayed most radiantly (cf. 1 Pet 2:9). (Hendriksen 1953, 350- 51)

This perspective is enlightening, as it highlights one's choice to live either in pursuit of

one's own glory or in pursuit of God's. For the leader, there is no middle ground.

The Cross of Christ

John Stott begins his modern classic treatise The Cross of Christ with a chapter

simply titled, "The Centrality of the Cross" (Stott 1986, 17). There could perhaps be no

clearer summary regarding the significance of this instrument of Jesus' torturous death

than that simple moniker. The cross is in fact the commencement ceremony of his

earthly life and the prerequisite to his resurrection. It is the means by which "God was

pleased . . . to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven,

by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross (Col 1:19-20). As such, it is "the

crucial point of the Christian faith" at which a proper examination of Christ's life

transitions "to his active work on our behalf (Erickson 1985, 781). Given the present

context of a theology of spiritual responsibility, the canvas of the cross presents for

leaders an essential portrait of Christ's God-glorifying end.

It is no accident that the cross is universally understood as the emblem of the

Christian faith. From as early as the second century, Christians employed this politically

incorrect image, which was regarded with extreme scorn in the ancient world, as its

principal symbol. Though initially misunderstood by even his closest disciples (Matt

16:21-23; 17:22-23), Jesus' own words concerning the cross' centrality were later

passionately echoed by apostolic preachers, inspired biblical writers, and the earliest of

church theologians (Stott 1986, 17-46). As Jesus himself made plain, he came to do

everything necessary to seek and save the lost (Mark 10:45); nothing short of that

whatever-it-takes mentality would suffice.

The purpose of Jesus' death was to glorify the Father. To be willing as the Son of God to suffer the loss of so much glory himself in order to repair the injury done to God's glory by our sin showed how infinitely valuable the glory of God is. To be sure, the death of Christ also shows God's love for us. But we are not at the center.

God put forward his Son on the cross "to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins" (Romans 3:25). In other words, by forgiving sin in the Old Testament and by tolerating many sinners, God had given the impression that his honor and glory were not of infinite worth. Now to vindicate the honor of his name and the worth of his glory, he required the death of his own Son. Thus Christ suffered and died for the glory of his Father. This demonstrates the righteousness of God, because God's righteousness is his

unswerving allegiance to uphold the value of his glory. (Piper 1996, 264-65)

The climax of his obedience is yet future, but even in consummation God's

glory is its ultimate result (Carey 1992, 95). "The Lamb of God who takes away the sin

of the world" (John 1:29) appears as the "Worthy . . . Lamb, who was slain, to receive

power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise" (Rev 5:12),

causing all present to glorify "him who sits on the throne . . . for ever and ever" (Rev

5:14). In so doing Christ's high priestly prayer is answered in full: "Father, I want those

you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory" (John 17:24). Thus

should be the end goal of every ministry leader and believer alike.

Summary

The biblical corpus makes it abundantly clear that "God's ultimate g o a l . . . is

to preserve and display his infinite and awesome greatness and worth, that is, his glory"

(Piper 1996, 43). From creation to Christ to the consummation, "all of history is about

the joy of God in sovereignly demonstrating his supremacy by leading his creation to

acknowledge his supremacy so that people may join him in the joy of his glory. In every

regard, God's goal is his glorification" (Merithew 2003, 59). Scripture makes plain that

"all things are from him and through him and to him" (Rom 11:36) and thus commands

that "whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" (1 Cor

10:31). The incontrovertible fact is that God's glory is his highest aim. It is true that

"God has many other goals in what he does. But none of them is more ultimate than this.

They are all subordinate" (Piper 1996, 43).

What is true with respect to God and his purposes must also be true of a leader

and his purposes. Plainly stated, the leader's ultimate mission is to see his leadership

responsibility as an opportunity to give God the glory due his name. The Westminster

Shorter Catechism famously declares that "the chief end of man is to glorify God and

enjoy him forever" (McKim 2001, 27). As a recognized theological summary of

traditional Protestant thought, the catechism highlights the centrality of God's glory in

the existence of man. Having spiritual responsibility over others, ministry leaders should

see this summary as both means and end. Glorifying God is the means leaders use to

motivate their own leadership as well as the end their leadership should pursue—assisting

others to understand their need to commit themselves and their pursuits to God's glory.

Approached in this fashion, leadership is transformed from simple career to

spiritual calling. It becomes a primary means of exalting the God of heaven and brings

new meaning—ultimate meaning—to the entire leadership enterprise. Grudem's

comments with respect to the manifold benefits of a God-glorifying business enterprise

apply as well to the leadership task in its various applications. When leadership and

organizations are properly understood as amalgams of the sacred and secular,

who could resist being a God-pleasing subduer of the earth who uses materials from God's good creation and works with the God-given gift of money to earn morally good profits, and shows love to his neighbors by giving them jobs and by producing material goods that overcome world poverty, goods that enable people to glorify God for his goodness, that sustain just and fair differences in possessions, and that encourage morally good and beneficial competition? What a great career that would be! What a great activity for governments to encourage! What a solution to world poverty! What a way to glorify God! (Grudem 2003, 151)

Given the vast potential of making a lasting, positive difference for God and

his kingdom, leaders in every imaginable sphere of influence can follow Christ's lead in

bringing the Father "glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do" (John

17:4). As the base's principal spiritual leader, the wing chaplain's charge is to exalt God

through his ministry, leading others toward health, wholeness, and reconciliation with

God and others (McNeal 2003, 69-89; Scazzero 2003, 50). The sheer gravity of that

undertaking demands increasing competence in the leadership task.

Leadership as Stewardship

While much has been penned regarding the how of contemporary leadership in

its various expressions, relatively little has been offered as to the why (Covey 2004, 122-

23; Yukl 2006, 2). One prominent leadership text inadvertently echoes this refrain in its

one-sentence purpose description: "This book is designed to fill the gap between books

that provide excellent summaries of leadership research but little practical advice on how

to be a better leader and those that are not based on theory or research but primarily offer

just one person's views on how to be a better leader (e.g., 'how to' books, memoirs)"

(Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy 2006, 4). In short, this particular text's significant

contribution to the leadership literature is grounded in its unique niche clarifying the how

of leadership without regard for the why. Such an approach typifies the "mindlessness"

that is characteristic of an era far more concerned with the pragmatic than the

philosophic, trading the birthright of ends for the porridge of means (Knight 1998, 3-4).

As both ordained minister and military officer, the wing chaplain is in a strong

position to view the fundamental essence of leadership as an act of stewardship to both

God and Country. Etymologically, the word steward is rooted in the Greek term

oikonomus, where oiko is translated as the English word house and nomus is understood

as the English word manage or order (Kittel and Friedrich 1985, 678). First Corinthians

4:1-2 addresses this concept well, wherein the apostle Paul employs the word to speak of

apostles as oikonomus of the things of God. "So then, men ought to regard us as servants

of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. Now it is required that

those who have been given a trust must prove faithful" (1 Cor 4:1-2). The steward was

"entrusted with the administration of his master's business or property; his responsibility

was to devote his time, ability and energy to his master's interests, not to his own" (Bruce

1987, 46). As to leadership, the steward was "the highest ranking servant of a wealthy

landowner, who was in charge of the entire estate in his master's absence." As expressed

in the First Corinthians passage quoted above, the apostles were understood to be

"servants answerable primarily to God but with authority over their charges . . . . The

key task of a steward is faithfulness to his master, not kowtowing to every demand of his

underlings" (Blomberg 1995, 88).

In common parlance, a steward is best understood "as the manager of the

household. Historically, the word stewardship means to hold something in trust for

another and was a means to protect the kingdom while those rightfully in charge were

away or" otherwise incapable of effective governance. In secular leadership literature,

"being a steward means choosing service to our customers, our community, as well as the

world at large and our work colleagues." Its fundamental purpose is to "enlarge our

vision of the world and our responsibility to make it a better place for all." Properly

understood, stewardship challenges leaders to constantly reflect upon whom their

organization serves and for what purpose. The essence of leadership is in recognizing

that, above all else, leaders steward organizations for the good of others because "we hold

our world in trust for those who follow" (DeGraaf, Tilley, and Neal 2004, 153-55).

One can certainly prove to be a good steward without necessarily occupying a

position of leadership, but the opposite cannot be true. In other words, one can never be

considered a good leader unless it can be demonstrated that he is in fact a good steward.

Though stewardship is most commonly restricted to financial giving in an ecclesiastical

context, the biblical concept is far broader than simple dollars and cents (Whitney 1991,

131-57). The essence of biblical stewardship rests in Scripture's dramatic declaration

that "the earth is the Lord's and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it" (Ps

24:1). The Creator, without hint of equivocation, lays unrestricted claim to both things

and people throughout the biblical record (Exod 19:15; Job 41:11; Luke 16:10-13; 1 Cor

10:26). He calls his subjects to manage his creation as its stewards, acting on his behalf

to accomplish his purposes (Matt 25:14-30).

The Cultural Mandate

The notion of acting on another's behalf is firmly grounded in Scripture,

finding its roots in what theologians call the Cultural Mandate contained in Genesis 1:26-

28. The Cultural Mandate charges mankind with acting "as God's vice-regent, who rules

over nature as God's representative." The Hebrew terms used here suggest that man's

command to "subdue" and "rule over" creation is not to be in his own self-interest but for

the sake of others made in the image of God. "Man is called by God to develop all the

potentialities found in nature and in humankind as a whole. He must seek to develop not

only agriculture, horticulture, and animal husbandry, but also science, technology, and

art. In other words, we have here what is often called the cultural mandate: the

command to develop a God-glorifying culture" (Hoekema 1986, 78-79). In fact, that

truth clearly reveals the very image of God in man, expressed as "God's will. . . that man

tend and rule the creation" to "realize its full potential" (Erickson 1985, 510).

Establishing and maintaining proper order—realizing this full potential—is high on

God's list. Leaders of every station occupy a unique role in realizing this potential.

This fascinating construct actually originates from the transcendent otherness

and immanent nearness evident in God's character, in which he has chosen to first create

and then establish a relationship with the world he has made. The notion becomes all the

more astonishing when one realizes "that the God who relates to us is the God who stands

apart from creation, in the fullness of his infinite and eternal glory and perfection,

needing no part of what he has made, yet longing to give himself to this very world that

contributes nothing to his own existence or fullness" (Ware 2004, 61). This context

frames the discussion of human vice-regency directly under the umbrella of God's

universal supremacy and uncontested sovereignty. As a result, the notion of stewardship

can be understood in the sense of ultimate ownership and delegated responsibility.

This reality is expressed via a divine-human partnership whereby humans

created in God's image rule as stewards on behalf of God as owner (Ps 8). Genesis 1:26-

28 reflects the ancient Near Eastern idea of a royal figure operating on behalf of deity.

The difference, however, rests in the biblical conception of all humans—not just kings—

acting in this special capacity, doing so as careful stewards rather than heavy-handed

despots (Matthews 1996, 168-70). In this sense, leadership in God's economy is, from its

very inception, concerned with both method and result, especially in light of its stewards

being created in the image of the Creator (Wenham 1987, 32-33).

Creation of man in God's image is fundamental to the notion of stewardship.

The "image of God" reference is reserved in Scripture exclusively for humankind, who is

thereby set apart from the rest of creation. Its usage in this context classifies human

beings as unique expressions of God who both represent the divine and therefore rule on

his behalf (Waltke 2001, 65-66). "To be in God's image means to be like God and to

represent God on the earth" (Grudem 2003, 128). Even after the Fall, God's image in his

human creation, albeit now marred, has been clearly preserved and is to be employed in

ultimate responsibility to the Holy Other, a notion seen with striking clarity in the life and

leadership of the Old Testament patriarch Joseph.

The Patriarch Joseph as Leader-Steward

The Old Testament patriarch Joseph has long been recognized as the

quintessential picture of leadership as stewardship (Suter 2003, 181). Though in his

younger years Joseph bore the marks of sheer arrogance and immaturity (Gen 37), he is

refined as both leader and steward through God's providential design, culminating in the

literal saving of a nation from extinction by way of extraordinary leadership competence

(Waltke 2001, 496-99). By exemplifying stewardship in his position as a governmental

leader, Joseph embodies the fundamental essence of the biblical leader-steward.

Joseph's ascension to prominence is revealed quite early in his Egyptian

sojourn, such that the Lord's hand upon him was immediately evident to Potiphar, the

captain of Pharaoh's guard. His leadership competence was so recognizable that Potiphar

put "him in charge of his household, and he entrusted to his care everything he owned"

(Gen 39:4). The Hebrew text for "overseer" (paqid) is here used in the NIV to render the

phrase "in charge of his household" and "designates a subordinate who has been placed

in a position where he has the oversight of others, whether assigned for special duty . . .

or in a permanent position in charge of soldiers, priests, Levites, or singers."

Significantly, the RSV expresses the concept as "leader" in its translation of this passage

(Harris, Archer, and Waltke 1980, 732), further indicating the close tie between the

notions of leadership and stewardship in the biblical record. As Scripture explains,

"From the time he put him in charge of his household and of all that he owned, the Lord

blessed the household of the Egyptian because of Joseph." In fact, "he left in Joseph's

care everything he had; with Joseph in charge, he did not concern himself with anything

except the food he ate" (Gen 39:5-6), the latter phrase indicating in the Hebrew the extent

to which Joseph was charged with managing the entire affairs of Potiphar's considerable

estate (Leupold 1942, 994-95). Such is the very definition of leadership as stewardship.

Of particular significance is Joseph's reaction when faced with the tempting

proposition to exploit his master's domain for his own gratuitous pleasure a la Potiphar's

wife. When propositioned by Potiphar's wife to commit adultery, Joseph's answer

reveals perfect comprehension of the leader-steward's role with respect to his owners,

both earthly and heavenly. In refusing the proposition, Joseph intoned, '"With me in

charge,' he told her, 'my master does not concern himself with anything in the house;

everything he owns he has entrusted to my care. No one is greater in this house than I

am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife.

How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?'" (Gen 39:8-10). The tie

here between Joseph's understanding of his stewardship responsibilities to his master and

his God is remarkable. Eschewing all claims to personal gain, Joseph instead focuses on

the twin tasks of faithfulness to his earthly owner and fear of his heavenly God, without

thought for its short-term consequences (Keil and Delitzsch 1986; Waltke 2001).

Joseph's penchant for leadership as stewardship continued throughout his

career, wherever that career took him. The Lord blessed his dual faithfulness even in

prison, where Joseph again rose to a position of leadership and treated his mission as

nothing less than biblical stewardship (Gen 39:21-23). The Hebrew word expressing the

warden's act of putting "Joseph in care of all those held" and making him "responsible

for all that was done" is an idiomatic use of the word "hand" iyad), which carries

significant theological meaning with respect to stewardship. The general sense refers to

the variety of uses of the hand based on its versatility. In this context the idiom "conveys

authority involving responsibility, care, and dominion over someone or something"

(Harris, Archer, and Waltke 1980, 843). In Joseph's case, his leadership was extended

over both people and mission in prison, further illustrating his capable exercise of

necessary leadership competencies for the good of his master. It also points to the

expanding use of these competencies in preparation for future leadership assignments.

Joseph's consistency as a developing leader-steward, which he demonstrated

without regard for the relative comfort of his assignment, presented opportunities for

expanding influence as a governmental leader. His miraculous performance in prison

(Gen 40-41) elevated him to a position of untold prominence in government—from

former alien slave to Egypt's second-in-command. Joseph subsequently displayed

extraordinary gifts of leadership administering Egyptian affairs in preparation for a

period of intense worldwide famine (Gen 41:46-57). Because of his due diligence in

effectively—and efficiently—stewarding governmental affairs as assigned, the land of

Egypt prospered and its people, along with those of other nations, were saved (Gen

47:13-27). Through it all, God's hand worked mightily via Joseph's leadership

competence to accomplish God's purposes and the nation's good. The clear sense of this

passage is the unfettered connection between the two—God's moving hand and the

leader-steward's competence—and continuing development of such skills as necessary to

perform well on behalf of God and Country. As Waltke (2001, 536) explains, "God's

blessing is matched by Joseph's competence and unflinching loyalty" in stewarding the

resources under his care.

Gerhard von Rad's perspective on this connection is especially cogent. In

reference to Joseph's God-given interpretation of Pharaoh's dreams, which becomes the

stimulus for Joseph's stratospheric promotion at a critical juncture in world history (Gen

41:25-36), von Rad notes that

what is theologically noteworthy is the way in which the strong predestinarian content of the speech is combined with a strong summons to action. The fact that God has determined the matter, that God hastens to bring it to pass, is precisely the reason for responsible leaders to take measures!

We have here a good example of the goal toward which all training and education in Israel during the royal period directed a man of good standing. He must be able to speak publicly and in significant situations and he must be able to give good advice (Prov 15:7; 16:23; 18:21; 20:18; 25:11). This counseling always occurred in political affairs and supported the one responsible, who had to make his decision on the basis of the quality of the counsel he received. (See especially 2 Samuel 17:Iff.) The one who was reared in wisdom and found reliable was called especially to political activity both in Israel during the royal period and in ancient Egypt. Thus Joseph unconsciously gives evidence of just those gifts which he assumes to inhere in the one in the empire who now has to take measures against the imminent distress (v. 33). (von Rad 1972, 376)

It bears repeating from the above commentary that the work of God and the

preparation of leaders for the task at hand "is precisely the reason for responsible leaders

to take action." Precisely because Joseph was faithful as a leader-steward and acted

responsibly with each opportunity, God's purposes for each respective organization were

realized. In short, "God's sovereignty lays the foundation for human activity" in the

leadership task (Waltke 2001, 536). In the end, Joseph's stewardship as a governmental

leader is the instrument God uses to effect his purposes for the people's good. His

perspective throughout his career is clear and is represented by his faithful claim that his

work as a leader-steward was done "for Pharaoh" (Gen 47:23) rather than himself

(Leupold 1942, 1138). A similar perspective is required of all those called to leadership

as stewards, especially those in governmental service.

Governmental Stewardship

The patriarch Joseph occupies the ranks of Old Testament figures the likes of

Moses (Exod 2) and Daniel (Dan 1) who served as prominent governmental leaders.

That tradition continues in the New Testament, consistent with Jesus' injunction to "give

to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (Matt 22:21). Although God is the

believer's ultimate authority, "Jesus, without reducing the demands of loyalty to God,

indicates that political allegiance even to a pagan state is not incompatible with it."

Rather than creating "a rigid division of life into the 'sacred' and the 'secular,'" Jesus

instead fosters "a recognition that the 'secular' finds its proper place within the

overriding claim of the 'sacred'" (France 1985, 315-16). This view of the relationship

between God and government provides the backdrop for a proper understanding of

governmental leadership.

Scripture specifically commands military leaders to act on God's behalf as

duly commissioned agents of civil government. Romans 13:1-7 cites government as an

authority established by God to maintain societal order, such that governmental leaders

are seen as nothing less than "God's servants, who give their full time to governing"

(Rom 13:6). In fact, "these seven verses contain the clearest and most specific New

Testament teaching on the Christian's responsibility to civil authority" (MacArthur 1994,

205). In keeping with Jesus' words regarding requisite allegiances to God and Caesar

(Mark 12:17), Paul "enlarges on the state's God-appointed role and on the role of

Christian people in relation to it." Paul's words are especially "remarkable when we

recall that at that time there were no Christian authorities (global, regional, or local). On

the contrary, they were Roman or Jewish, and were therefore largely unfriendly and even

hostile to the church. Yet Paul regarded them as established by God, who required

Christians to submit to them and cooperate with them" as stewards (Stott 1994, 339-40).

As a direct result, "Christians, who recognize that the state's authority and

ministry come from God, will do more than tolerate it as if it were a necessary evil.

Conscientious Christian citizens will submit to its authority, honor its representatives, pay

its taxes, and pray for its welfare. They will also encourage the state to fulfill its God-

appointed role and, in so far as they have opportunity, actively participate in its work"

(Stott 1994, 346-47). A few active participants will don military uniforms and therefore

act as God's vice-regents at home and abroad. As necessary, they will embody the words

of Romans 13:3-4, which explain that "rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but

for those who do wrong . . . . For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do

wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an

agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." Military leaders are therefore

extensions of the arms of God in maintaining proper societal order.

The military leader is in fact God's steward. "Because he represents the God-

ordained institution of civil government, a civil official is actually a minister of God,

regardless of his personal beliefs about or relation to God. He is doing the Lord's work

whether he realizes it or not, by promoting peace and safety among men" (MacArthur

1994, 225). As God's steward, he must be completely committed to the level of

excellence required to accomplish God's purposes on his behalf. As clearly

communicated in Jesus' parable of the ten minas (Luke 19:11-27), stewards are expected

to produce positive results without equivocation or excuse. They "must be faithfully

employed in [their] work for the extension of his sovereign dominion on earth until he

comes back," the results of which will be duly rewarded in keeping with due diligence

(Geldenhuys 1988, 474-75). As with many faith-based and non-profit organizations,

however, scarcity of resources sometimes competes with excellence in the governmental

sector. But healthy stewardship generates more bang for the buck as organizational

leaders of all types lead well in service to the greater good (Brinckerhoff 1999, 39-40).

That brand of stewardship is the essence of effective leadership.

Jesus' Parable of the Talents (Matt 25:14-30)

Jesus' parable of the talents accords with the wide swath of scriptural teaching

to make the most of every opportunity (Eccl 11:1, 6; Ps 69:13; 95:6-8; Prov 10:5; Isa

55:6; Jer 8:7; John 12:35-36; 2 Cor 6:2). In particular, this parable addresses "the tragedy

of wasted opportunity" and is therefore a major theme in the study of biblical stewardship

(MacArthur 1989, 96). As with his conceptually similar parable of the minas in Luke

19:11-27, its fundamental point is to demonstrate Christ's expectation for his subjects'

passionate activity during the period between his earthly departure and return. He makes

that point with a look at Christ as the steward's authority, the steward's consequent

accountability to the Lord, and the requisite call to faithfulness in stewardship (Bock

1996, 485). It serves as recognition that Christ "expects the watchfulness of the servants

to manifest itself during the master's absence, not only in preparedness and performance

of duty, even if there is a long delay, but in an improvement of the 'talents' till the day of

reckoning" (Carson 1984, 515). The parable is staged as an owner with considerable

assets prepares to depart for an extended period of time. The role of the servants

described in this parable epitomizes the sense of leaders as stewards discussed throughout

this work. Having such confidence in these stewards, the owner entrusts them with large

sums of money and the expectation that their performance would profit him. Upon his

return, the owner acts on that expectation with a call to accountability.

The passage explains that while two of the servants "went at once and put his

money to work and" proceeded to double his investment, the third "went off, dug a hole

in the ground and hid his master's money" (Matt 25:16-18). The first two completely

understood their stewardship responsibilities and went immediately to work. The context

indicates that the productive stewards did not simply place the money in a lending

agency's care but instead promptly established a business and persistently "worked with

the capital to make it grow" (Carson 1984, 516). The thrust is that the effective stewards

were not content with business as usual. Rather, understanding their role as leader-

stewards, they invested themselves in working on behalf of the owner throughout their

tenure, embodying the principles of leadership as stewardship. When "after a long time

the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them" (Matt 25:19), he

commended the first two for their faithfulness and quickly rewarded them with additional

responsibility (Matt 25:20-23). The third, unproductive servant, however, was

condemned as "wicked" and "lazy" and severely punished for acting irresponsibly as a

steward of the master's resources (Matt 25:24-30). What is most likely is that the "lazy"

servant had no concern for his master, no intention to act as his steward, and no

expectation of being held to account for his irresponsible stewardship. "He did not

misuse his talent on immoral and selfish pursuits like the prodigal son or embezzle it like

the unmerciful servant of Matthew 18. He simply disregarded the stewardship he had

been given" (MacArthur 1989, 105).

The parable's fundamental injunction is "that the watchfulness that must mark

all Jesus' disciples does not lead to passivity but to doing one's duty, to growing, to

husbanding and developing the resources God entrusts to us, till 'after a long time' (v. 19)

the master returns and settles accounts" (Carson 1984, 518). That view is an apt

descriptor of the nature of leadership proffered in Scripture. Just as the stewards in this

parable are entrusted with resources belonging to another, organizational leaders are

entrusted with an organization, people, resources, and the expectation to productively use

the same for God's glory and others' good. That trust is applied to leaders of

organizations of every size, who, as the parable suggests, must remember that "it is the

master who allocates the scale of responsibility; the slave's duty is merely to carry out

faithfully the duty entrusted to him" (France 1985, 353).

Summary

In light of James 3:1, ministry leaders must clearly understand that their

position as a spiritual leader and steward of others' spiritual development fosters

accountability of the first order. James' instruction that the spiritual leader "will be

judged more strictly" should drive that leader to understand his role as clearly as possible

and then execute that role with untold passion and increasing competence. The

stewardship of ministry leadership carries with it the baggage of increased responsibility

and a commensurately stricter judgment (Burdick 1981, 186). As one commentator

explains with this passage in mind, leadership in "ministry renders it liable to a closer

scrutiny and that failure to discharge the ministry faithfully will bring a correspondingly

more severe penalty. Jesus warned that 'to whom much is given, of him will much be

required' (Luke 12:48)." Ministry leaders "bear an awesome responsibility for their

exercise of that gift in nurturing people in the faith" (Moo 1985, 119).

Much of that responsibility rests on the shoulders of leaders as they adopt a

stewardship mentality with respect to their leadership. Emerging from the dictates of the

Cultural Mandate (Gen 1:26-28), leaders have been tasked with subduing creation—in all

its expressions—for God's glory and others' good. As the apostle Paul said well, "it is

required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful" (1 Cor 4:1-2).

Leader-stewards have, by definition, been given such a trust and are therefore expected to

serve as God's vice-regent on his behalf in their organizations. In their dual role as

specially commissioned agents of God and government, military chaplains have

responsibility for double stewardship and are therefore on tap for double accountability—

in the short term and the long (Heb 13:17). As a result, these leaders should begin at

once orchestrating the most effective and efficient use of their organization's resources to

profit both God and Country, commencing with their own leadership competence.

Leadership Development

Perhaps the most-referenced debate in leadership lore addresses the notion of

whether leaders are born or made (Bass 1990, 807). The answer, of course, is an

unqualified "yes!" (Avolio 2005, 2). As Kouzes and Posner say, tongue firmly in cheek,

'"a// leaders are born. We've never met a leader who wasn't. So are all accountants,

artists, athletes, parents, zoologists, you name it.' We're all born. What we do with what

we have before we die is up to us" (Kouzes and Posner 2002, 386). The doing with what

we have before we die motif is the essence of leader development and is a process that

should occur throughout the leader's personal and professional lifespan. Understanding

that process, however, presupposes a belief that leaders can in fact be developed. The

leadership literature, by and large, seems to support such a belief in both military and

civilian contexts (Bass 1990, 856; Lafferty 1998), leading two prominent writers to

declare as fact that notion based on their research (Zenger and Folkman 2002, 254).

While researchers in the leaders-are-born school gravitate toward the twin

towers of genetics and family environment as the sole determinants of leadership

potential, "the majority of leadership researchers believe that the origins of leadership"

extend well beyond those two components. Leaders-are-made researchers contend that

such factors as "work experiences, hardship, opportunity, education, role models, and

mentors all go together to craft a leader" (Conger 1992, 29). In other words, leader

development results from a variety of means, making it incumbent upon leadership

development professionals to take full advantage of all such means in their quest to

enhance leader effectiveness (Bass 1990; Carter, Ulrich, and Goldsmith 2005).

The Significance of Leadership Development

Leader development is, simply put, "the expansion of a person's capacity to be

effective in leadership roles and processes." Expanding that capacity relies upon a wide

variety of factors bound in the individual leader and the organizational context in which

that leader serves (Van Velsor and McCauley 2004, 2). The leadership-is-learned camp

suggests that, although "many possess the potential to lead, the many dwindle down to a

few only because most of us do not have the right opportunities or experiences" to effect

genuine leadership development (Conger 1992, 31). As the compelling leadership

research of Zenger and Folkman makes clear, that reality has profound implications for

organizational effectiveness. Their findings, based on some 200,000 assessments of more

than 20,000 individual leaders in widely diverse industries and cultures, draw a number

of significant conclusions in this regard.

First, these researchers conclude that effective leaders produce bottom-line

results at a rate vastly superior to average leaders. They "found strong statistically

significant relationships between leadership effectiveness and a variety of desirable

business outcomes such as profitability, turnover, employee commitment, customer

satisfaction, and intention of employees to leave." Second, their findings indicate there

need be no artificial limit placed on the number of great leaders any organization can

possess. Such limitations are often organizationally self-induced, largely via lackluster

commitment to leader development. Along those lines, thirdly, the researchers "contend

that one of the major failings in leadership development programs has been the tendency

to aim too low," thereby unnecessarily settling for mediocrity in this critical arena

(Zenger and Folkman 2002, 16). Their ultimate conclusion is that neglecting leadership

development is a costly business decision, one that is verified by significant research in

ministry (Clinton and Clinton 1997; Ford 1997; Rainer 1996; Rainer 1999b; Rainer 2001;

Rainer 2005; Lifeway Research 2007; Stetzer and Dodson 2007) and non-ministry

settings (Collins 2001; Conger 1992; Covey 2004; Goleman 1998; Hughes, Ginnett, and

Curphy 2006; Kouzes and Posner 2002; Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 2001; Van

Velsor and Drath 2004; Yukl 2006; Zenger and Folkman 2002).

The landmark study by Jim Collins, reported in his blockbuster book Good to

Great, echoes the findings of Zenger and Folkman. In his study of 1,435 companies,

clear lines of demarcation existed in long-term performance based largely on the

organizations' level of leadership effectiveness. He discovered that companies which

made the leap from good to great were led by a particular type of leader, thus confirming

the crucial leadership difference. Furthermore, while not an explicit focus of his study,

Collins hypothesizes that a large majority of people possess the capability to develop into

great leaders. Although this capability is "perhaps buried or ignored" in most potential

leaders, he suggests that "practicing the . . . good-to-great disciplines" the study

discovered "can help you move in the right direction" (Collins 2001, 37-38). Similar

findings are echoed in Rainer's (2005) study of "breakout churches" and the study of 324

"comeback churches" conducted by Stetzer and Dodson (2007).

Kouzes and Posner join the chorus by noting, ironically, that while they are

often asked the perennial question of whether leaders are born or made, they are never

asked that question with respect to managers. They conclude people do not hesitate to

ask the latter because nearly everyone assumes management skills can be taught, while

many mistakenly see leadership as nothing more than a compendium of innate,

unalterable personality traits. They observe the persistently "haunting myth" that

leadership cannot be learned "is a far more powerful deterrent to leadership development

than is the nature of the person or the basics of the leadership process." The results of

twenty years of research by these authors suggest that, like management, leadership can

be learned and should be vigorously pursued. "By assuming that leadership is learnable,"

they insist, "we can discover how many good leaders there really are. Somewhere,

sometime, the leader within each of us may get the call to step forward—for the school,

the congregation, the community, the agency, the company, the union, or the family. By

believing in yourself and your capacity to learn to lead, you make sure you'll be prepared

when that call comes" (Kouzes and Posner 2002, 386-87). Preparing leaders to answer

that call is the purpose of leader development.

This purpose is especially relevant to the ministry of military chaplains.

Joining the ranks from some 84 denominational agencies representing all major faith

traditions, the full spectrum of leadership potential is in play. In addition to the myriad

theological positions held by these nearly 600 chaplains, the leadership pool is populated

by ministers from an incredibly diverse variety of personalities, cognitive abilities,

natural and spiritual giftedness, personal and professional experiences, and assumptions

regarding the role of leadership. It is within this context that the Air Force Chaplain

Corps is tasked with formulating a development process to fashion leaders from the

diverse batch of raw material comprising the military chaplaincy. Because of this

cascade of experience and experiences, the leadership development equation is more

clearly understood when viewed through the lens of developmentalism. And in light of

the constructivist notion that burgeoning executives of all stripes should take more

initiative for leadership development throughout their careers (Van Velsor and Drath

2004, 383-84), the leadership development process can then be understood as a subset of

adult development throughout the life cycle.

Leadership Development and Developmentalism

Given that leadership development is far too important to languish in the realm

of the haphazard, a number of researchers charge organizational developers to pursue that

critical task informed by developmentalism as the clearest foundational theoretical

perspective (Knowles, Holton, and Swanson 1998; Laske 2003; Van Velsor and Drath

2004). Research from the forward-leaning Center for Creative Leadership suggests that

"human resource professionals . . . are changing the way they understand the processes

by which individuals develop their effectiveness as leaders, the role the organization has

to play in that process, and how systems can be designed to support i t . . . . Leader

development is a lifelong, ongoing process" (Van Velsor, Moxley, and Bunker 2004,

205). While an exhaustive treatment of the intricacies of personality and developmental

theory is far beyond the scope of this literature review, developmentalism is foundational

as a helpful framework for understanding the leadership development process. Simply

put, "a developmental perspective invites the educator to see each human life as a unique

person emerging through common aspects that can be observed, measured, and

evaluated" (Ward 1995, 16). Such is the task of the Air Force Chaplain Corps in

identifying, selecting, and developing chaplains as they move from the ranks of entry-

level, front-line, hands-on ministry through mid-level leadership and, for a select few,

onto positions of strategic leadership at the most senior levels.

Developmentalists contend that human beings are in a continuous process of

maturation. In contrast to those who view humans as mere passive receivers of a

predetermined developmental scheme, however, developmental theorists see "human

beings as active participants in their own development" (Dettoni and Wilhoit 1995, 27).

This view fits nicely with the constructivist notion that the learning process is not simply

relegated to the passive reception of information. On the contrary, "it is better described

as a matter of the learner's building of unique images of truth (more precisely, building

one's grasp of truth), as a matter of construction and discovery" (Ward 1995, 9).

Leadership development of Air Force chaplains takes place with these conceptions of

human maturation and constructivist education in full view.

Woolfolk suggests a broader understanding of developmentalism as grounded

in at least three general principles. The first of these principles recognizes that people

develop at different rates and that variation in growth rates is both normal and expected.

The second principle insists that, in large measure, development occurs in a relatively

orderly fashion. Although there is some debate regarding the precise order of said

development, there is general agreement as to the accuracy of the view that development

is a rather orderly occurrence. The final principle sees development as a phenomenon

that "takes place gradually. Very rarely do changes appear overnight," in other words.

Instead, the orderly nature of developmental processes anticipates gradual maturation

over time (Woolfolk 1993, 26-27). Developing Air Force chaplains to assume expanded

leadership roles is grounded in these principles.

The insights of a number of Christian thinkers expound on Woolfolk's three

principles in a way that further clarifies the issue for leadership development. Among

these insights is the belief that development comes largely from internal rather than

external processes. "To be sure, external, environmental factors either help or hinder

development, but actual development occurs when human beings choose actively to

engage their mental processes with various stimuli of the environment." The process is

best described as "the making of meaning for oneself of the data of one's experiences.

Apart from that engagement there is no true learning." Additionally, it is assumed these

internal "processes are God-given, and it is by them that people make sense of reality for

themselves." One's "development and learning occur based on the developmental stages

of the persons attempting to learn" and is influenced by one's sin nature and the Holy

Spirit's work in one's life, among other factors (Dettoni and Wilhoit 1995, 31-32).

Furthermore, while developmentalists acknowledge the influential role

environmental forces play in the developmental process, they also soundly insist such

factors do not in fact cause learning to occur. "Teachers—that is, intentional informal

and formal teachers such as parents, pastors, peers, and professors—all influence learning

and development. Likewise, the environment, consisting of the geographic and socio-

historic-cultural milieu, influences learning through the stimuli it provides." But genuine

learning only ensues to the extent that "learners actively engage themselves with those

stimuli and make various adaptations to what they already know, do, and are." Finally,

developmentalists argue that "development is an inner change of how one processes

experiences." The process represents a qualitative change from simple to complex in

one's processing ability. Learning occurs as learners become dissatisfied with current

levels of functioning, which in turn initiates a "search for new perspectives, new ways to

understand issues, questions, thinking, and ultimately meaning" (Dettoni and Wilhoit

1995, 32). These developmentalist insights are particularly apropos for equipping Air

Force chaplains and come into sharper focus when seen as a subset of adult development.

Leadership Development as Adult Development

Development across the lifespan has long been the stuff of literature and

philosophy but has only recently begun to pay attention to post-adolescent life. While

"the seminal contributions of Sigmund Freud and Jean Piaget led to understandings of

several qualitatively different eras from infancy through adolescence," the consequences

of their work left "the impression that such changes in a person's way of making meaning

ended in adolescence." Development in the latter years was "thought to be of a different

order, nonregular, and essentially derivative of the fundamental psychological work of

earlier years." More recently, however, the study of adult development has emerged as a

corpus acknowledging the presence of a rough sequence of regular stages through which

adults develop (Kegan and Lahey 1984, 200).

Developmental theorists the likes of Erikson and Levinson proffer adult life

stages as a consortium of age-related tasks adults must navigate. Levinson, for example,

employs a very helpful metaphor of the "seasons" of life through which adults should

pass during their life cycle. "Levinson understands the life cycle to contain a series of

definable periods or forms, each qualitatively different, through which every adult passes.

Development is then conceived of as the response to the specific social and psychological

tasks which emerge during predictable age periods" (Kegan and Lahey 1984, 200).

Leadership development can be viewed in much the same way, as leaders must

simultaneously navigate a series of adult and work transitions throughout their careers, all

the while keeping in mind the critical realities of organizational life and culture.

Citing the work of Cytrynbaum and Crites, Laske begins his insightful article

on executive development as a component of adult development by observing that "few

applications of adult developmental theories to the work setting have, in fact, been

reported" (Laske 2003, 565). He proceeds by noting the bifurcation of executive

development literature along the dual lines of either developing executives to meet

specific organizational needs or developing them by focusing on their individual growth.

He insists the research, as a result of this unnecessarily simplistic bifurcation, has been

overly reductionistic in its efforts at applying insights from both theoretical lines. Given

the military's overwhelming focus on both people and mission, such reductionism is

especially inappropriate when the military culture is in view (U.S. Department of the Air

Force 2006a).

As a suggested remedy to this narrow reductionism, Laske proposes a

"synthetic adult developmental point of view" in which he focuses on strategic executive

development incorporating both streams of thought (Laske 2003, 565-66). In this way,

leader development can realistically account for the individual developmental needs of its

human resources, issues of structural power and control within the organization, the

realities of political coalitions competing for scarce resources within the organization,

and the shared values that are symbolic of organizational culture (Bolman and Deal

2003). Synthesizing these complementary perspectives offers great help in developing

Air Force chaplains for military leadership. Whereas one view or the other might prove

beneficial in some organizations, the realities of leadership within the military culture

demand a broader framework from which to foster leadership development.

The purpose of leadership development is not merely for the sake of personal

growth. Rather, its purpose is to firmly tie its members' personal growth to the

leadership roles they will be called upon to assume with advancing careers (Fulmer and

Goldsmith 2001; Charan, Drotter, and Noel 2001). Recognizing the clear intersection of

one's personal growth as an adult and one's professional growth as a military chaplain

offers helpful clues in the development of future Air Force leaders. The ultimate

objective of such development is preparing chaplains to competently perform those

leadership tasks prepared for them by God and Country. Accomplishing that objective

requires a systematic approach to leadership development throughout one's respective

life and career cycles.

A number of researchers have approached leader development from a lifelong

developmental perspective. These researchers categorically agree that the constructive-

developmental approach to leader development is most effective, as it suggests

burgeoning leaders take sufficient responsibility for growing into successive leadership

roles throughout their professional careers (Clinton 1988; Clinton and Clinton 1997; Ford

1997; Kegan and Lahey 1984; Van Velsor and Drath 2004). This view expands the

typical Eriksonian-Levinsonian, age-related stage development approach previously

discussed. "Thus, instead of age-linked responses to the changing conditions of life,

constructive theory holds that people respond according to their meaning system" (Kegan

and Lahey 1984, 202). While this approach certainly does not completely discount the

role of age with respect to the regularity of one's development, it contends that the

meaning one attributes to one's developmental stage is not purely a function of age. This

view is especially relevant to leadership development, particularly in the military, as it

takes into account the reality that leadership requirements are more a function of rank and

position than of one's age (Lafferty 1998; Weaver 2001). Although there will surely be

some age-related issues in this leadership development paradigm, it provides as well for

the peculiar realities of leadership in a military context.

Charan, Drotter, and Noel suggest a "leadership pipeline" approach to

leadership development that squares well with the developmentalist perspective. Its

focus is on understanding the distinct leadership transitions that must be made for

organizations to properly prepare key leaders for their ascent up the leadership ladder.

Central to this approach is a realization that, in large organizations the likes of the

military and corporate America, "there is little acknowledgement that different levels of

leadership exist and that people need to make skill and value transitions at each level.

Relatively few organizations are thinking about the core competencies and experiences

necessary to be successful at each level" (Charan, Drotter, and Noel 2001, 4). The

leadership pipeline approach encourages leadership development professionals to view

filling the leadership pipeline as a strategic business decision, as reliance on a few star

performers is not sufficient to sustain long-term performance.

As articulated by these theorists, the leadership pipeline is marked by six

critical career passages (see Figure 1), each of which "represents a change in

organizational position—a different level and complexity of leadership—where a

significant turn has to be made. These turns involve a major change in job requirements

. . . that translates to new skill requirements," new perspectives on business "time frames

that govern how one works," and "new work values—what people believe is important

and so becomes the focus of their effort" (Charan, Drotter, and Noel 2001, 7-9).

Figure 1. Critical career passages in a large business organization (Charan, Drotter, and Noel 2001, 7)

These career passages include transitioning (1) from managing self to managing others,

(2) from managing others to managing managers, (3) from managing mangers to

functional manager, (4) from functional manager to business manager, (5) from business

manager to group manager, and (6) from group manager to enterprise manager (Charan,

Drotter, and Noel 2001, 15-27). Some organizations use this approach as the basis for

leadership succession; members in the pipeline are evaluated vis-a-vis their documented

performance and demonstrated potential to serve at levels of greater responsibility

(Charan, Drotter, and Noel 2001, 165-82). Successful movement through the leadership

pipeline is reminiscent of the developmentalist notion that navigation through earlier

developmental phases impacts performance at higher leadership levels (Woolfolk 1993;

Ward 1995). This perspective also acknowledges that differences in leadership

requirements are a function of the organizational level at which one leads (Hunt 1991;

Mumford, Campion, and Morgeson 2007).

With this distinction as a backdrop, Kegan and Lahey define development as

"a process of outgrowing one system of meaning by integrating it (as a subsystem) into a

new system of meaning" (Kegan and Lahey 1984, 203). Cranton, following Mezirow,

echoes this sentiment in her discussion of transformative learning. Simply stated,

transformative learning deals with "how learners construe, validate, and reformulate the

meaning of their experiences" (Cranton 1994, 22). Each leader's experience set forms "a

frame of reference for interpreting what happens to us, what we read, what we see, and

what others say. This frame of reference comes from the way we grew up, the culture in

which we live, and what we have previously learned" (Cranton 1994, 26). In other

words, one's developmental past becomes the launching pad for one's developmental

future. Whether or not that future blasts off depends on both leader and organization

living up to their respective responsibilities.

The Process of Leadership Development

Researchers generally portray leadership development as a process (rather than

an event) contingent upon a diversity of factors, including the leader's personal

development, a variety of developmental experiences, the leader's ability to learn from

those experiences, and the leader's unique organizational context (Van Velsor and

McCauley 2004, 4). The synergistic effect of cascading significant developmental

experiences belies the broad understanding in the corporate world that leadership

development is a process wholly consistent with developmentalism as a viable theoretical

foundation (Avolio 2005; Laske 2003; Ford 1997). Leadership development is viewed

increasingly as a function of individual leaders' own self-management of their careers

"over time that is independent of the succession planning process and of the organization

chart" (Derr, Briscoe, and Buckner 2002, 20). What results is a building-block approach

to leadership development that balances the inevitable tension between the personal

growth needs of individual leaders and the corporate growth needs of their organizations.

McCall's (1998) model of strategic executive development attempts to

synthesize the personal growth versus organizational needs dichotomy by diagramming

the responsibilities of both parties. Writing from the perspective of the business world,

McCall argues against developing leaders with a purely personal growth agenda, even

though many businesses find therein a means to immediate, short-term profit. Instead, he

explains, the longer view demands a coupling of business strategy with the human

resource function, creating in effect a win-win situation for both. His view of leadership

development is in keeping with the definition advanced by Seibert et al. that "strategic

executive development is the (1) implementation of explicit corporate and business

strategies through the (2) identification and (3) growth of (4) wanted executive skills,

experiences, and motivations for the (5) intermediate and long-range future" (Laske

2003, 571-72).

McCall's approach capitalizes on those opportunities within organizations for

burgeoning leaders (those with "talent") to enjoy a cascade of "experience" to stretch

their strategic leadership capacity. As fuel for leadership development he cites sixteen

developmental experiences arranged in four categories: (1) assignments (early work

experiences, first supervision opportunity, starting something from scratch, turning an

operation around, discrete projects/task forces, increasing scope of work, and staff jobs);

(2) hardships (business failures and mistakes, missed promotions or lousy jobs, problems

with a subordinate, escape from a job rut, and personal traumas); (3) other people (role

models, and observation of corporate values being expressed); and (4) other events

(formal courses and personal experiences) (McCall 1998, 68).

This "experience" cascade is seen as an explicit function of stated business

strategy and is buoyed by a series of intentional supporting "catalysts" such as executive

coaching and traditional in-place development programs. When all is said and done,

McCall proposes, leaders with "the right stuff emerge in time to assume greater

leadership responsibilities within the organization at large (Laske 2003, 572). While

there are some obvious challenges with this approach, not the least of which is its "black

box" feel with respect to leadership development, it does reflect the current state of

leadership development within the Air Force and its Chaplain Corps.

The military promotion system operates by the principle that "talent" is first

discovered, given a variety of assignments in which to be stretched by "experience," and

then given the chance to attend just-in-time professional development education in

preparation for the next step. The next round of promotions yields a smaller batch of

talent to proceed to the next level, where the process repeats itself as before (Steele et al.

2006). The process is very similar to the "inverted funnel model" described by Derr,

Briscoe, and Buckner, in which they note three increasingly competitive talent pools

flowing through the corporate funnel. By way of a process of identification selection

(similar to McCall's "talent"), training and development (as in McCall's "experience"

and "catalyst" schemes), and succession (like McCall's view of "the right stuff), so-

called "high potentials" are groomed for positions of greater corporate leadership (Derr,

Briscoe, and Buckner 2002, 3-27). Much the same process occurs in the U.S. Air Force

and its Chaplain Corps.

Laske extends McCall's model by clarifying the complexities involved in the

personal growth side of the development equation. As the leader develops throughout his

personal and professional life cycle, Laske observes a compelling need for the leader to

become more aware of the psychological, family-of-origin, and individual personal

development peculiarities that often obstruct one's professional leadership development.

In short, the leader must pay sufficient attention to his psychological self awl his

organizational role. It is at this point that adult development and leader development join

forces in the leader's life, as he or she navigates the sometimes murky waters described

by the stages of developmentalism. It is also at this point, as Laske well notes, that leader

development can profoundly impact the organization (Laske 2003, 574-76).

Van Velsor and Drath reach a similar conclusion in advancing their views

along constructivist-developmental lines regarding the need for lifelong personal

transformation in the organizational context. As a direct result of increasing marketplace

complexity and cut-throat competition, they contend, organizations are less inclined to

focus on internal matters like intentional leadership development and become more

focused on bottom-line external concerns such as satisfying customer needs. In keeping

with what has been already discussed in this vein, these researchers observe that "the

complexity of modern life is calling forth a qualitatively different mind-set about work

and leadership." This "mind-set. . . recognizes the need for people to own their own

work and take responsibility for their own performance; an approach that asks people to

define themselves instead of relying on the organization to tell them who they are." As

these authors point out, "this is not a superficial change in style; it is a profound

transformation in the way people understand themselves, their relations, and how they

enact leadership" (Van Velsor and Drath 2004, 387).

In the context of lifelong development, Van Velsor and Drath define

development as a continual reframing of assumptions about the self that engenders an

increased capacity to perform. Everyone "continually constructs and reconstructs

interconnected and underlying assumptions—what we call 'webs of belief—that

delineate [one's] capacity to acquire new managerial and leader-specific skills and

perspectives" (Van Velsor and Drath 2004, 387). This process does not end with

childhood or adolescence but continues throughout the life cycle. Likening the self to a

"book that can be read, written, or continually revised," these researchers advance the

notion that leader development occurs as informed leaders perform the courageous yet

necessary act of examining and reframing their assumptions to enhance their ability to

lead (Van Velsor and Drath 2004, 389-93). Rather than just viewing this process as a

self-only benefit, however, self-revising authors understand themselves to be part of the

larger socio-cultural milieu of the organization and its success.

This constructivist-developmentalist approach to leader development is a

helpful foundation on which to leverage the broader leader development process captured

in the literature (Van Velsor and McCauley 2004, 20; Laske 2003; Derr, Briscoe, and

Buckner 2002). In its most productive state, leadership development is conducted with

an overarching purpose in full view, focusing on an array of developmental experiences

that engender assessment (a sense of where the leader is now with respect to what is

required), challenge (to force leaders out of their comfort zone), and support (to ease the

pain of change) (Van Velsor and McCauley 2004, 5-12). "Whereas the element of

challenge provides the disequilibrium needed to motivate people to change, the support

elements of an experience send the message that people will find safety and a new

equilibrium on the other side of change" (Van Velsor and McCauley 2004, 10).

With respect to the methodologies employed, Conger's groundbreaking study

of effective leadership development programs revealed four major approaches to

leadership training. These include leadership training through (1) growth of the leader in

taking personal responsibility for leadership, (2) increasing understanding of relevant

conceptual approaches to leadership, (3) an emphasis on performance feedback vis-a-vis

targeted leadership experiences (in training and in practice), and (4) skill building, which

is the most common leadership training approach (Conger 1992, 44-53). Although most

leadership development programs lean more toward one approach or the other, a model

program would incorporate all four to facilitate balanced leadership development.

The ideal program would begin with a conceptual overview, then provide feedback on where participants stand relative to the skills associated with the conceptual model of leadership. This would be followed by skill building, for skills that are teachable. The skills that are more complex (and therefore less amenable to being taught) would be the focus of awareness building, with the idea that participants could find long-term opportunities to develop these skills back at the office. Feedback would reappear after preliminary skill building to assess how well individuals have learned and understood the skills, and this would be followed by more skill building. Personal growth experiences would be used along the way as powerful opportunities for reflection on two levels: to help managers determine their own desires to lead, and to free participants of ineffective behaviors. This, of course, would be the ideal. (Conger 1992, 53)

The linchpin for a healthy leadership development process is a clear sense of the end

game. In other words, the soundest leadership development processes begin with the end

in mind by asking rather bluntly, "What type of leader is one attempting to produce?"

Leadership Development for Ministry Leaders

As early as Blizzard's (1956) classic research on the minister's use of time, a

number of studies in the decades since have consistently indicated that the average

minister in multiple ministry settings spends significant time performing a variety of

administrative tasks (Nauss 1972; Nauss 1974; Nauss 1983; Boersma 1988; Nauss 1989;

Nauss 1994; Woodruff 2004; Thomas 2004), a reality for which many do not feel

adequately prepared via their seminary training (Turner 2001; Burns and Cervero 2002;

Welch 2003; Coggins 2004). Interestingly, citing the relative failure of executive

development programs to populate the business leadership pipeline vacated as the

Boomer generation retires, Crainer and Dearlove report that master of business

administration degree curricula have essentially the same problem, that is, an inordinate

focus on the analytical skills required for technical expertise at the expense of broader

leadership competencies required for organizational effectiveness (Crainer and Dearlove

1999).

In a comprehensive curriculum review of the master of divinity degree

requirements of 148 accredited graduate theological institutions in the United States,

Welch discovered that

These findings are all the more significant since forced terminations are exceedingly

more often a result of failed leadership than errant theology (LaRue 1996; Barfoot,

Winston, and Wickman 2005; Turner 2006), a reality exacerbated in the case of military

chaplains operating in an arena marked by pluralism of the highest order (Page 2007).

Notwithstanding the perennial debate in the literature as to the respective positions of

both the classical theological disciplines and modern praxis as curricular emphases in

contemporary theological education (Farley 1983; Simpson 1992; Mohler 1996; Banks

1999; Turner 2001), the relative lack of leadership preparation in the traditional seminary

experience does impact the leadership readiness—whether perceived or real—of its

graduates (Turner 2001; Welch 2003; Coggins 2004).

Research on failed managers in the business sector echoes the view that

superior technical expertise in itself is no guarantee of leadership effectiveness and is, in

fact, sometimes a major detriment to success (Howard 2001). "This is the Peter Principle

at work: People are promoted to their level of incompetence. A person who is promoted

because of expertise ('He's great with the numbers') finds himself at a new level, where

many or most duties revolve around managing people—not technical skill. This means

the working world is peppered with bad bosses" (Goleman 1998, 43). Leadership

development, when done well, attempts to reduce the world's population of bad bosses.

Barna captures the need for leadership development as a complement to

technical prowess in the ministry with this insightful observation:

Furthermore, an aggregation of three Barna studies of pastors in 1992 found that "many

pastors, by their own admission, are neither gifted nor trained to be leaders and are

frustrated with ministry" (Barna 1993, 14). In fact, results of this aggregation revealed

that just 18 "percent of our senior pastors claim they have the gift of leadership" or

administration (Barna 1993, 122). Interestingly, this Barna study aggregation revealed

that, "compared to pastors with other gifts, those with the gift of leadership had the

lowest level of stress resulting from their ministry efforts" (Barna 1993, 127). As such,

leadership development has been recognized as a critical component in the professional

competence of ministry leaders, leading several specialists to infuse intentional

leadership development into the maturation process for ministry leaders (Clinton and

Clinton 1997; Ford 1997; Pue 2005).

Producing competent leaders is a perennial military challenge, especially with

respect to seminary-trained ministers assuming Air Force wing chaplain positions around

the globe. While there is likely some degree of leveling that occurs as these ministers ply

their trade within the military culture in preparation for future senior leadership positions,

military chaplains, due to mandatory educational and pastoral experience requirements,

enter the ranks much later than most other officers (U.S. Department of the Air Force

2007). As a result, much of their adult leadership development begins prior to entering

military service, whereas line officers generally launch their professional careers within

the military culture at much younger ages. For example, the median age of first

lieutenants in the line of the Air Force is 26 years, while the median age of first lieutenant

chaplains is 37 years. Similarly, the median age of line lieutenant colonels (the most

common rank for squadron commanders) is 42 years, while the median age of chaplain

lieutenant colonels (the most common rank for wing chaplains) is 53 years (Air Force

Personnel Center 2008). This reality is part of the military chaplain leadership equation.

The most prominent ministry leadership development models approach the

task of developing leaders from a decidedly developmentalist perspective. Additionally,

these approaches focus on the leader's personal character and professional competence as

essential components to performance as ministry leaders (Clinton and Clinton 1997; Ford

1997; Pue 2005). Air Force chaplains enter the military at a point when their ministry

careers are well into the development phases suggested by these models. At that point,

however, they enter a decidedly different culture in which their ministry is to be

conducted, "a culture where nothing is valued more highly than sound leadership"

(Donnithorne 1993, 6). Although chaplains lead in the arenas of spirituality and pastoral

care rather than combat sorties and bombs on target, the expectation is that they will lead

with the same degree of competence in their lane that flying squadron commanders do in

theirs. Their development thus occurs in the context of military leadership writ large.

Leadership Development for Military Leaders

The essentiality of competent leadership is especially pronounced for ministers

assuming senior leadership positions in the military, operating in a culture where

leadership competence is considered more expectation than extravagance (Wong, Bliese,

and McGurk 2003). Whereas some civilian pastors might enjoy the relative luxury of

lackadaisical leadership without immediate consequence, military chaplains are always

under the leadership microscope and are held accountable for leadership that is consistent

with the full range of military standards (Page 2007). The words of one Air Force four-

star general regarding commanders and their leadership is equally true of chaplains

occupying staff-equivalent positions at the Air Force wing level:

When we select commanders, we expect them to create a vision, and motivate and inspire their people toward that vision. We also expect our commanders to face squarely any situations that may undermine unit effectiveness and cohesion. We expect our commanders to be more than the head of a unit; we expect them to be leaders and to be accountable for mission performance. Those who recognize the interdependence of leadership and command are the most effective commanders, can best translate intentions into reality, and sustain momentum. Therefore, we must select for command those who will, with resolve and persistence, meet all the responsibilities—both pleasant and unpleasant—inherent in command. (Loh 2001, 91)

Producing such leaders is an unyielding challenge for the military and applies to leaders

at all levels throughout the organization (Leader to Leader 2004, 6).

Unlike most civilian organizations in both ministry and non-ministry sectors,

military organizations are unable to hire operational- and strategic-level leaders from the

outside and therefore must grow their own. As a result, leadership development in the

military is a high-stakes proposition; the process takes many years and there is little

margin for error. Since the military "does not have the luxury of raiding competitors for

application (U.S. Department of the Army 2006; U.S. Department of the Air Force

2006a; Wong, Bliese, and McGurk 2003). In addition to researching the military as a

culture unto itself, each military branch manifests its own context-specific culture as well.

Hunt (1991) posited that the vast majority of some 10,000 leadership studies as

of 1989 were conducted at the lowest level of organizational leadership, what he called

direct (face-to-face) leadership. His primary focus was in expanding leadership research

to include organizational and systems leadership as necessary topics. In his schema (see

Figure 2), based on the seminal stratified systems theory advanced by Jacobs and Jaques

(1987; 1990), direct leadership takes place at the production level of the organization,

such that decisions made impact the next three months to two years. Organizational

Systems Leadership

(10-20 yr (+) time span)

Organizational Leadership

(2-1 Oyr time span)

Direct Leadership

(<3 mos-2yrtimespan)

External Environment

Critical 1 "asks

Individual Capability

Organizational Structure ^

Critical Tasks

Individual Capability

Organizational Structure

Organizational Effectiveness

Critical Tasks

Individual Capability

Organizational Structure

Figure 2. Simplified version of Hunt's extended multilevel leadership model (Hunt 1991; Wong, Bliese, and McGurk 2003, 661)

leadership is conducted by those whose positions impact the next two to ten years, while

systems leadership impacts the next ten to twenty years and beyond. Significantly, each

leadership level is characterized by its own cocktail of environmental issues (external

environment and organizational/cultural values), leader-critical tasks, individual

capabilities (background and predispositions, cognitive and social skills, and leadership

workforce. Both civilian and military sectors desire more educated workers, but we have

a stronger impetus. In modern warfare, particularly during times of rapid change,

education acts as a master power multiplier. Today the US military needs flexible and

innovative thinkers almost as much as it needs bombs and bullets" (Lorenz 2007, 5-6).

Military chaplains serve at the peculiar intersection of ministry and the military

(Groh 1991). As such, leadership competence in both realms is considered essential for

performance, especially as these chaplains rise to levels of operational and strategic

leadership. While each of the military services pursues leadership development in its

own way, there are more similarities than differences in their respective approaches. A

sampling of selected military leadership development approaches serves to emphasize the

degree to which leadership competencies play a role in military leadership development.

Significantly, this section will conclude with a detailed look at the leadership

development scheme for Air Force chaplains, which occurs at the intersection of ministry

and military leadership.

Military Leadership Development Approaches

Wong, Bliese, and McGurk help frame the issue of military leadership

development by extending Hunt's multilevel leadership model to examine the many

facets of military leadership. What emerges from their comprehensive examination of

military leadership is a sense of commonality among the way the services view

leadership and its development. As they explain, "the military leadership literature is

stratified into the systems, organizational, and direct levels of leadership," each of which

is further stratified into "the critical tasks and individual capabilities required at each

level" (Wong, Bliese, and McGurk 2003, 657). While leadership researchers have long

acknowledged that differences in leadership requirements are a function of the

organizational level at which one leads (Hunt 1991; Mumford, Campion, and Morgeson

2007), the nature of military leadership requires a context-specific approach to its

application (U.S. Department of the Army 2006; U.S. Department of the Air Force

2006a; Wong, Bliese, and McGurk 2003). In addition to researching the military as a

culture unto itself, each military branch manifests its own context-specific culture as well.

Hunt (1991) posited that the vast majority of some 10,000 leadership studies as

of 1989 were conducted at the lowest level of organizational leadership, what he called

direct (face-to-face) leadership. His primary focus was in expanding leadership research

to include organizational and systems leadership as necessary topics. In his schema (see

Figure 2), based on the seminal stratified systems theory advanced by Jacobs and Jacques

(1987; 1990), direct leadership takes place at the production level of the organization,

such that decisions made impact the next three months to two years. Organizational

Systems Leadership

(10-20 yr(+) time span)

Organizational

Leadership (2-1 Oyr time span)

Direct Leadership

<3 mos - 2 yr time span)

External Environment

Critical Tasks

Critical 1 asks

Individual Capability

Organizational Structure

Organizational Effectiveness

Figure 2. Simplified version of Hunt's extended multilevel leadership model (Hunt 1991; Wong, Bliese, and McGurk 2003, 661)

leadership is conducted by those whose positions impact the next two to ten years, while

systems leadership impacts the next ten to twenty years and beyond. Significantly, each

leadership level is characterized by its own cocktail of environmental issues (external

environment and organizational/cultural values), leader-critical tasks, individual

capabilities (background and predispositions, cognitive and social skills, and leadership

skills), and organizational effectiveness concerns. Some positions will include leadership

impacting more than one leadership level (Hunt 1991, 11-40). Implications for leader

development saturate a leader's career across the multiple levels (Hunt 1991, 239-66).

The military expresses this multilevel view in its stratification of leadership

requirements relative to tactical, operational, and strategic levels, which corresponds to

the traditional stratification of warfare and requires a unique set of competencies that

build on those developed at lower levels (Wong, Bliese, and McGurk 2003, 662). The

following Air Force view would apply as well to each of the military services.

Each of the three leadership levels within the Air Force is distinct but related to the levels of warfare and requires a different mix of competencies and experience. Leadership at the tactical level is predominantly direct and face-to-face. As leaders ascend the organizational level to the operational level, leadership tasks become more complex and sophisticated. Strategic leaders have responsibility for large organizations or systems . . . . While all aspects of the competencies are necessary to varying degrees at all levels, there is a change in focus based on the level at which a leader is operating.

Leadership skills needed at successively higher echelons in the Air Force build on those learned at the previous levels. As military and civilian leaders progress within the Air Force, they serve in more complex and interdependent organizations, have increased personal responsibility and authority, and have significantly different occupational competencies and enduring leadership competencies than their subordinates. (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006a, 8-10)

This approach provides the basis of each of the selected military leadership

developmental models discussed in this section, beginning with the U.S. Army.

U.S. Army Leadership Development

Among the many values characterizing the U.S. Army, "one of the highest

values is leadership" and leadership development throughout its ranks. Following the

rubric of "be, know, do," Army leadership places extraordinary emphasis on character

(be), competence (know), and producing results (do) (Leader to Leader 2004, 8-19). Due

to the environment of rapid-fire transformation in which it operates, the Army identifies

leadership development as the essence of genuine empowerment and concentrates on

leadership saturation throughout the institution (Sullivan and Harper 1996, 213). Leaders

are developed through a comprehensive, tailored program of formal education,

operational assignments, and self-development. In fact, the Army takes leadership

development so seriously that its officers "can expect to spend 3 years of a 20-year career

in Army schools developing the leader competencies and skills needed for the next level

of leadership" (Wong, Bliese, and McGurk 2003, 660).

With respect to leadership development, the U.S. Army's stated purpose is "to

assist leaders to become competent at all levels of leadership" in support of national

defense (U.S. Department of the Army 2006, 2-1). "Leader competence develops from a

balanced combination of institutional schooling, self-development, realistic training, and

professional experience. Building competence follows a systematic and gradual

approach, from mastering individual competencies, to applying them in concert and

tailoring them to the situation at hand" (U.S. Department of the Army 2006, 2-7).

Consistent with the standard military approach to leadership and its development, Army

leadership is decidedly competency-based because

competencies provide a clear and consistent way of conveying expectations for Army leaders. Current and future leaders want to know what to do to succeed in their leadership responsibilities. The core leader competencies apply across all levels of the organization, across leader positions, and throughout careers. Competencies are demonstrated through behaviors that can be readily observed and assessed by a spectrum of leaders and followers: superiors, subordinates, peers, and mentors. This makes them a good basis for leader development....

Leader competencies improve over extended periods. Leaders acquire the basic competencies at the direct leadership level. As the leader moves to organizational and strategic level positions, the competencies provide the basis for leading through change. Leaders continually refine and extend the ability to perform these competencies proficiently and learn to apply them to increasingly complex situations. (U.S. Department of the Army 2006, 2-7-2-8)

This approach is consistent across each of the military branches.

U.S. Navy Leadership Development

The U.S. Navy approaches leadership development in a manner similar to that

of the U.S. Army, facilitating a sequential, progressive march to competency throughout

one's career. "Navy leader development represents a career-long continuum from

recruitment to retirement. The system encompasses operational assignments coupled

with formal institutional education aimed at ensuring that leaders are technically and

tactically trained and educated on the specific system, aircraft, or ship they will be

assigned next" (McGuire 2001/2002, 92). In keeping with the standard military approach

to leadership and its development, the Navy pursues leadership development with both

character and competency in full view.

The Chief of Naval Operations' most recent Navy-wide guidance letter details

his intentions to focus on three primary areas during the next four years: (1) build the

future force, (2) maintain warfighting readiness, and (3) develop and support Sailors and

civilians. With respect to the latter, he intends to "instill in our military and civilian force

a focus on mission and individual readiness that is underpinned by a warrior ethos" and

recruit and build a "high-performing, competency-based and mission-focused force" in

support of national objectives (Roughead 2007). The Navy's competency-based

approach is premised on the notion that the extent of knowledge and skills required

increases with the level of position and leadership responsibility. A competency model is

therefore used "to define expected behaviors and knowledge" needed for leadership

performance (Center for Naval Leadership, au.af.mil). This competency model is thus

the foundation for leadership and leadership development throughout the U.S. Navy.

U.S. Marine Corps Leadership Development

The Marine Corps describes leadership as "the influencing of people to work

toward the accomplishment of a common objective. Because war is fundamentally a

human endeavor, leadership is essential to effective command and control" (U.S. Marine

Corps 1996, 82). Like the other services, the U.S. Marine Corps views leadership

development as a continuous, progressive process throughout a Marine's career. Marines

place responsibility for leadership and professional development on the individual, the

commander, and the educational establishment, which is similar to the Army model

(McGuire 2001/2002, 92). Because of its storied history, elite nature, demonstrated

http://au.af.mil

effectiveness in leadership development, and the veritable saturation of the institution

with leaders at every level, the Marine Corps has been identified as particularly proficient

in the task of leadership development (Carrison and Walsh 1999, 2).

Marine Corps leadership development is grounded in its Teacher-Scholar

Leadership Model, which views leaders as teachers, followers as scholars, and pursues

the ultimate objective of developing Marines as leaders over the course of their careers.

Leadership is thus understood "as an unchanged process, applied across a continuum of

ever-changing arenas through the application of appropriate skill sets." Marines, as with

the other branches, portray leadership from a competency-based perspective that takes

place across the spectrum of the institution (LeJeune Leadership Institute, mcu.usmc.mil).

U.S. Coast Guard Leadership Development

Not surprisingly, the nation's other sea service understands leadership and

leader development much the same as the other military branches. Though part of the

Department of Homeland Security rather than the Department of Defense, the U.S. Coast

Guard's approach to service reflects the history, tradition, and sense of mission in a way

that mirrors those in the defense department. "Similar to the Army and Marine Corps

models, it emphasizes three common leader development processes: the individual's

responsibility for self-awareness and development, the unit's responsibility to provide

formal and informal training, and the organization's role in furnishing formal systems for

assignments, policy, training and education" (McGuire 2001/2002, 92).

Equally familiar is the U.S. Coast Guard's understanding of leadership,

especially its development as a competency-based process, progressing from entry-level

assignments through the upper echelons of leadership and command. The Coast Guard

Leadership Development Framework consists of three components: (1) 28 leadership

competencies, (2) 5 responsibility levels and required levels of expertise, and (3)

specified methods for gaining and demonstrating the requisite competency. Leadership

http://mcu.usmc.mil

responsibilities increase in complexity as one rises in rank and performance level, and the

service's leadership development framework is built on the assumption that Coast Guard

personnel will be adequately prepared for competent leadership as they ascend the

performance level ladder (U.S. Coast Guard 2006, 2-2).

U.S. Air Force Leadership Development

The U.S. Air Force defines leadership as "the art and science of influencing

and directing people to accomplish the assigned mission" (U.S. Department of the Air

Force 2006a, 1). Leadership and force development are competency-based, built through

education and experience, and targeted to all organizational levels. In the foreword to its

premier leadership document, Air Force Doctrine Document 1-1, Leadership and Force

Development, the Air Force Chief of Staff under whose signature it was published in

early 2006 expresses the thrust of Air Force leadership development.

Leaders do not appear fully developed out of whole cloth. A maturation must occur to allow the young leaders to grow into the responsibilities required of senior institutional leaders and commanders. This force development process provides leadership focus at all levels in an Airman's career. The expeditionary Air Force requires leaders who can take warfighting to the highest possible level of success in support of national security objectives. Those leaders can only be created through an iterative process of development involving education, training, and expeditionary operations seasoned with experience and ongoing mentoring by more experienced leaders. The end result is an individual capable of successfully operating as a leader at all levels anywhere, anytime.

Force development takes individual capabilities and, through education, training, and experience, produces skilled, knowledgeable, and competent Airmen who can apply the best tools, techniques, and procedures to produce a required operational capability. (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006a, iii)

As expected, the Air Force approach to leadership development matches those of the

other military branches (McGuire 2001/2002, 92), such that official institutional policy

expresses that leadership competencies "can be improved upon through deliberate

development" (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006a, 2).

Air Force leadership is a two-sided coin demanding competent handling of its

precious cargo: its people and its mission. Leadership is based on three principal

components (core values, leadership competencies, and leadership actions) applied across

three leadership echelons (tactical, operational, and strategic levels). Each of the three

leadership levels requires a different focus and tailored mix of leadership competencies.

As Figure 3 depicts, personal leadership predominates at the tactical level and is

primarily "direct and face-to-face." People/team leadership takes center stage at the

Leaderchip Levels

Strategic

Operational

Tactical

\ \

\ \ : \ \ • INSTITUTIONAL

\ ^ \ \ * • \ \ ^ \

\ s \ \ ~A' \ \ '''< \

\ ' * PERSONAL \

W Leadership C ompeteoci.es

Figure 3. Relationship of leadership levels with enduring leadership competencies (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006a, 9)

operational level, as leaders assume "more complex and sophisticated" responsibilities on

their ascent up the leadership ladder. Institutional leadership dominates the strategic

leadership level, indicating responsibility for large organizations or institutional systems

(U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006b, 8-11).

Coupled with these enduring leadership competencies are career-specific

occupational leadership competencies which generally differ from one career field to the

next (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006a, 8-11). For example, while there are some

obvious similarities in leading an Air Force flying squadron and an Air Force chapel,

there are ample differences in organizational mission to warrant a distinct focus on

http://ompeteoci.es

particular leadership competencies considered essential for performance in each position.

The end result of this unique combination of enduring and career-specific leadership

competencies rests in leader actions as the third leadership development pillar, namely,

influencing followers and developing organizational ability to accomplish its mission.

The Air Force insists that competent "leaders produce the effects that successfully

achieve desired objectives" (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006^ 11-12).

The need to develop leaders with the right mix of enduring and occupational

leadership competencies "forms the core of force development and is the basis for all

force development efforts" (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006a, 14). Consistent

with the majority of leadership development professionals' belief that leadership

development is most effective when closely tied to organizational strategy (Fulmer and

Goldsmith 2001; Charan, Drotter, and Noel 2001), the Air Force grounds force

development in a clear understanding of established mission requirements (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Air Force leadership development construct (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006a, 15)

Mission requirements are translated into operational capabilities and then codified in Air

Force doctrine, which represent best practices for mission success. Operational

capabilities are then refined to determine which competencies are required to

accomplish the associated tasks, as well as the workload involved. In this process, occupational skill sets needed to do the job are taught in technical training or learned on the job. Force development recognizes the need for a deep perspective in a functional area or occupational skill, but at the same time offers the means to achieve the wider perspective needed for leadership. Occupational skill sets are driven by position requirements and promoted by systematic, deliberate development. (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006a, 15)

The leadership and force development construct ensures that best practices are

institutionalized and supported by Air Force policy and the appropriation of resources to

make the ideal an executable reality across the force.

In essence, Air Force leadership and force development rises and falls on the

extent to which Airman are provided the education, training, and operational experience

to perform at higher levels throughout their careers. Figure 5 displays this progression

A ,«3* ^ , $ ^ \ STRATEGIC MnilcgitS Development

\ Senior Developmental Education

.- y \ Dev Assign \

Operational \ OPERATIONAL Development

Intermediate Dev Education

1.cutlers \ Development

Developmental Assignment

\ TACTICAL Tactical \ Development

\ 1 iasic Dev Education \ \

_ . \

Figure 5. Air Force officer career path (Air Force Personnel Center 2007)

throughout an Air Force officer's career, beginning as tactical-level leaders (lieutenants

and captains), progressing as operational-level leaders (majors and lieutenant colonels),

and finishing as strategic-level leaders (colonels and higher). Air Force leadership

developers are tasked with designing intentional schemes to mature these leaders via

appropriate developmental education and assignments, thereby providing the knowledge,

skills, and attitudes required for competent performance at higher levels (Hanson 2007).

"The Air Force has determined there are clearly identifiable skill requirements for

Airmen who have experiences in more than one connected career area. Force

development defines the occupational skill combinations and then facilitates the

education, training, and assignment processes to produce a sufficient capability within the

personnel inventory" (U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006a, 15). This approach is

intended for every Air Force occupational specialty, including Air Force chaplains.

Air Force Chaplain Leadership Development

The Air Force Chaplain Corps approaches chaplain leadership development in

a manner consistent with the overarching Air Force leadership and force development

construct. Figure 6 depicts the Air Force chaplain career path. At the tactical level,

^ v v Institutional Leadership

21-30 years / Colonel

People/Team Leadership

9-20 years / Maj - Lt Co.lV

Personal Leadership 0-8 years / 1 Lt - Capt

110 US 4 F MA1COM

DPAH/Dlli: Large Wing

Senior Developmental Education ^National War College, Air War College

Professional Education Wing Chaplain Course

Joint Staff HAF Staff

MAJCOM Staff Staff Chaplain DRU/FOA/Agency

Wing Chaplain

Intermediate Dev Educ ACSC, AFIP, AFLTC, CPE

Wing Chaplain CSI Instructor/ Resource Board

Staff Chaplain (AEFC/AFRC) Installation Chaplain

Senior Program Chaplain

Winy 1 o \ d A^iuirnii-'ni*

Professional Education Intermediate Chaplain Course

\ Biisic Dev Educ \.\M$( . SOS, AFIT-CI, \ \FLTC, CPE

\ Professional Educ \ COT, BCC,

\ Mentoring Hndbk : i

Figure 6. Air Force chaplain career path (Air Force Personnel Center 2007)

http://Co.lV

file:///FLTC

chaplains (first lieutenants and captains) launch their careers and learn personal

leadership via assignments at the wing level, experiences which are complemented by

basic developmental and professional education. During the first eight years of their

careers, these chaplains are expected to master the primary skill sets required of military

chaplains as they learn to minister in a diverse religious environment. During years nine

through twenty of their careers, chaplains (majors and lieutenant colonels) enter the

people/team leadership phase as they gain supervisory experience as operational leaders.

As they progress, intermediate developmental education and assignments at higher

headquarters expand their competencies in preparation for institutional leadership. From

the twenty-year point through the end of their careers, these chaplains (colonels) are

responsible for leading large, complex, multi-tiered organizations within the Air Force

Chaplain Corps as well as leading with competence in joint, combined, and interagency

operations. Senior developmental education opportunities complete their leadership

development as strategic ministry/military leaders (Air Force Personnel Center 2007).

A number of military thinkers have recently suggested that the Air Force

leadership and force development construct is not quite as practical as it should be with

respect to developing specific occupational leadership competencies at the operational

and strategic levels (Steele et al. 2006; Hanson 2007). As one consortium explains,

"competencies are clearly the one leadership component the Air Force can purposefully

develop and mature in our officers. Because of the potential influence the Air Force has

over competency development," this consortium makes specific "recommendations for

the Air Force to modify Force Development to better meet senior leadership competency

requirements" (Steele et al. 2006, 1). The sense is that "the current discussion of

competency and occupational skill sets" in the service's principal leadership development

document (Air Force Doctrine Document 1-1, Leadership and Force Development) is

"confusing and unclear" (Steele et al. 2006, 68). Furthermore, "while AFDD 1-1

identifies personal experience, leadership competencies, and leadership actions as the

components associated with effective Air Force leadership, it does not clearly define

these leadership components or present a useful relationship between them." This reality

"highlights Air Force leadership doctrine as an area ripe for development" (Hanson 2007,

4), a sense that is especially true of leadership development for Air Force wing chaplains.

Wing chaplains serve at the intersection of operational and strategic leadership

levels, the primary of which depends in large measure on the size of their base and the

resultant scope of their responsibility. In almost every case, new wing chaplains assume

their positions as the base's senior pastor and senior leadership advisor from lower

organizational levels which require more narrow leadership skills. Examining the

specific competencies required for performance in this unique leadership position was the

goal of this study. While the broader enduring leadership competencies expected of Air

Force leaders is established in the service's force development doctrine and programming

(U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006a, 41-44), no such study of specific occupational

leadership competencies expected of wing chaplains exists in the literature.

Summary

Each of the five U.S. military branches approaches leadership development in

a similar way, one that is competency-based, sequential, and progressive throughout

one's career. While using contextualized, service-specific terminology, each service

relies upon individual effort and a comprehensive, tailored progression of education,

experiences, and assignments to produce a cadre of competent leaders to execute the

mission. In this standard military schema, competencies required for leadership in the

latter seasons of one's career build upon those learned in earlier seasons (McGuire

2001/2002; Wong, Bliese, and McGurk 2003; Steele et al. 2006; Hanson 2007). Given

this foundational dependence on competencies, the services' leadership development

frameworks assume clear definition of said competencies to facilitate success of their

respective leadership development processes.

In the words of one prominent leadership development theorist,

leadership development is by far one of the most complex human processes, in that it involves leaders, followers, dynamic contexts, timing, resources, technology, history, luck, and a few things we have not thought of yet. However, it is in many ways like other complex phenomena, models, and processes in that once we break it down into its essential parts, or get the code, we can begin to understand how the various pieces fit together into the whole. (Avolio 2005, 4)

The U.S. armed forces have determined that clearly-defined leadership competencies

qualify as one of these essential parts. In the military scheme, therefore, the leadership

development code depends in large measure on the extent to which each branch and their

myriad constituent occupational specialties specify these competencies in a manner that

can be employed by leadership development professionals to develop genuine leaders.

Leadership development necessarily suffers in those occupational specialties which lack

career field-specific occupational competencies on which to base leadership development

curricula and programming.

A number of noted military leadership researchers have observed that, due to

the extraordinarily unique nature of leadership within a military context, there is a great

need for context-specific leadership research in the military (Thirtle 2002; Wong, Bliese,

and McGurk 2003). Rather than relying solely on leadership theories developed in the

corporate sector, the Air Force should instead "capture our own culture and identity—not

someone else's" (Thirtle 2002, 12). Developing a context-specific perspective on

leadership competence for Air Force wing chaplains, one that remedies a perceived lack

of intentional efforts at "codifying what is unique about Air Force leadership" (Thirtle

2002, 13), was the goal of this study. Producing a research-based leadership competency

model for wing chaplains should be its result.

Competency-Based Leadership Development

Leadership development is a prime example of the well-worn cliche, "If you

aim at nothing, you'll hit it every time." In dramatic contrast to that axiom, the most

effective leadership development programs are strikingly clear in their end goal:

producing leaders with the competencies required to engender organizational success

(Hunt 1991; Howard 2001; O'Connor and Quinn 2004; Yukl 2006). In this vein, more

recent researchers have strengthened the significance of the essential connection between

the individual leader's personal growth and leveraging that growth to enhance the larger

organization (Van Velsor and McCauley 2004). Successful programs strike a delicate

balance between the sometimes conflicting yet critical ends of program participants'

personal growth and the organization's unique needs (Horey and Falleson 2003; Carter,

Ullrich, and Goldsmith 2005). Effective leadership development programs purposefully

pursue leader competencies related to organizational goals and which clearly specify

those competencies necessary for success (Spencer and Spencer 1993).

As previously discussed, each of the military services approaches leadership

development as a competency-based proposition, such that leadership education and

training is based on developing the requisite competencies needed to perform at the

organizational level assigned (McGuire 2001/2002). For example, analyzing training

needs is the starting point of the five-step Instructional Systems Development (ISD)

approach used throughout the military (U.S. Department of the Air Force 1993, 12). Its

fundamental aim is guaranteeing that training requirements are determined prior to

expending valuable resources in developmental education efforts (Schmorrow and Cohn

2007). Leadership development professionals employ this approach to ensure course

content moves students closer to job requirements, necessitating a firm grasp on what—

precisely—is required for job performance. In the case of chaplain leadership

development professionals, understanding the competencies required for a particular job

(such as the wing chaplain position) is crucial.

Any attempt at devising a leadership development initiative should focus on its

desired "impact and the subsequent need to identify all critical components prior to

delivering the initiative." Effective development initiatives identify organizational

challenges requiring leadership development, target leadership development needs to

meet those challenges, and identify "specific measurable outcomes of leadership

development, including the level of mastery desired for these outcomes" (Martineau

2004, 237). Simply put, "the first challenge of leader assessment and development in any

organization is to determine what functions leaders perform that result in organizational

success. The next challenge is to build the programs, rules, and environment to support

leaders in carrying out those functions" (Horey and Fallesen 2004, 464). That order,

which delineates the close tie between organizational strategy and leader competencies, is

significant for program effectiveness.

A competency-based approach to curriculum development is consistent with

the comprehensive educational model originally proposed by Frankena (1965) and

adapted for Christian education (Habermas 2001), developing ministry strategy (Sell

2003), and understanding workforce education (Hager 1999). This model and its

contextual adaptations tie developmental education to specific competencies on one hand

and desired results on the other. Users of the model are required to specify with clarity

the ultimate ends of their educational philosophy as the necessary point of departure, the

goal to which all developmental roads lead. Once that objective is in view, users must

then specify the intermediate aims of their educational system and the more immediate,

day-to-day developmental practices necessary to bring about specified development

goals. Frankena describes those "intermediate aims" as the "list of excellencies to be

produced" as a result of a particular philosophy of education (Sell 2003, 71).

A systems approach to leadership development, such as Instructional Systems

Development or the Frankena model, helps ensure continuity between education and

training efforts along the way and the desired end of the developmental curriculum in

question. That curriculum developers should begin by understanding "What specifically

should be taught?" and "Why should these areas be taught?" is axiomatic (Pazmino 1997,

226). Determining the "list of excellencies to be produced" for developing wing

chaplains was the goal of this study. In keeping with the standard military approach to

leadership development, that "list of excellencies" is best captured in the leadership

competencies considered essential for performance as Air Force wing chaplains.

Defining Leadership Competencies

As defined by Spencer and Spencer, "a competency is an underlying

characteristic of an individual that is causally related to criterion-referenced effective

and/or superior performance in a job or situation" (Spencer and Spencer 1993, 9-11).

These authors list five types of competency characteristics (motives, traits, attitudes,

knowledge, and skills) which are categorized as personal characteristics (motives, traits,

attitudes, and knowledge) and behavior (skills). Significantly, these elements are

effective to the extent they impact job performance. A more relevant definition for this

study, in light of its focus on wing chaplain performance vice criterion-referenced

effective or identified superior performance, is "a cluster of related knowledge, skills, and

attitudes that affects a major part of one's job (a role or responsibility), that correlates

with performance on the job, that can be measured against well-accepted standards, and

that can be improved via training and development" (Parry 1996, 50). In Air Force

parlance, "These are the occupational skill sets and enduring leadership competencies

that Air Force leaders develop as they progress along levels of increased responsibility"

(U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006a, 4).

Competency-based approaches to leadership development "seek to improve

individual and group work processes through the application of systematic procedures

and research-based principles." The use of job analysis techniques and competency

modeling has traditionally been the most prominent means of determining "knowledge,

skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs), tasks, and functions" to serve as "the

building blocks of leadership and development processes. Competencies, however, have

become a more prevalent method of identifying the requirements of supervisory,

managerial, and leadership positions, rather than job or task analysis techniques, because

they provide a more general description of responsibilities associated across these

positions" (Horey and Fallesen 2003, 722). Due to the nature of officer leadership

development in general and chaplain leadership development in particular, competency

modeling is an appropriate method of discovering the leadership competencies

considered essential for Air Force wing chaplain performance.

Competency Modeling

Based on the seminal efforts of military assessment studies from the First

World War and industrial-organizational psychologists in the 1950s, competency-based

leadership development traces its more contemporary roots to the work of David

McClelland (1973) in discounting the significance of an employee's intelligence quotient

as determined by standard aptitude tests in favor of actual demonstrated competence as a

predictor of success. Because his findings challenged the prevailing views of employee

selection, some chose to linger with the status quo understanding. McClelland's work

found a home in the U.S. military on the heels of the Vietnam War, as a sense of poor

leadership within the military culture created a sense of urgency ripe for a new approach

to leadership development (Dalziel 2004).

Since that time, beginning in earnest in the early 1990s with the work of

Prahalad and Hamel (1990), competency modeling has emerged as a major force in

leadership development (Schippmann et al. 2000). Its increasing use is due in large

measure to its relative flexibility in the face of rapid-fire organizational change and the

ease with which leadership competencies can be directly tied to organizational strategy

(Garman and Johnson 2006). That upwards of 80% of business organizations employ

some form of competency modeling is evidence of its popularity as a business strategy

and leadership development tool (Schippmann et al. 2000).

Competency Clusters

Leadership researchers have long acknowledged that differences in leadership

requirements are generally a function of the organizational level at which one leads (Hunt

1991; Mumford, Campion, and Morgeson 2007). This reality has been identified in both

the military (Wong, Bliese, and McGurk 2003; U.S. Department of the Army 2006; U.S.

Department of the Air Force 2006a) and the ministry (Lawson 2000; Bonem and

Patterson 2005). A competency modeling approach typically produces a compendium of

leadership attributes, knowledge, and skills that tend to settle into a much smaller number

of general categories or clusters. After reviewing some nine major attempts at creating

competency taxonomies, Mumford, Campion, and Morgeson observe four such

categories in the literature: cognitive skills (i.e., gathering and processing information,

basic communication skills, active learning, critical thinking), interpersonal skills (i.e.,

supervision, leading, negotiating, human relations skills), business skills (i.e.,

coordination, staffing, personnel management, resource allocation), and strategic skills

(i.e., visioning, planning, evaluating, decision making, problem solving). These

researchers have also identified empirically that the various competency clusters adjust in

significance as a function of organizational level (Mumford, Campion, and Morgeson

2007, 155). This finding is significant with respect to the current study, which focuses on

mid-level ministry/military leaders.

Occupational Specialties

In addition to acknowledging the broad leadership and performance

competencies that cross organizational boundaries such as those just mentioned, Dalziel

observes that "another approach to competencies . . . is especially useful when looking at

specific functions. This approach involves finding the right set of technical attributes that

people need to know in order to perform in this function" based on organizational needs.

Competency modeling is well-suited to the task of determining specific competencies

required for each occupational specialty at each organizational level (Dalziel 2004, 60).

This approach can work well in the military, where so-called "enduring leadership

competencies" and job-specific "occupational leadership competencies" (U.S.

Department of the Air Force 2006a, 8-11) can merge to produce an overall framework for

leadership development (Wong, Bliese, and McGurk 2003; Mumford, Campion, and

Morgeson 2007).

In this vein, Smilansky has suggested that leadership development

professionals too often focus on critical individuals in organizations rather than on critical

jobs. One problem with this approach is that narrowly focusing on developing specific,

high-potential individuals is both costly and extraordinarily long term. While this

approach is necessary as a part of an organization's attempt to raise the leadership

temperature throughout the organization, it is usually more important to start the talent

management process by thinking about specific jobs. By paying closer attention to the

competencies required to perform in the most critical positions in the organization, those

having the greatest impact on the larger institution and its success, competence gaps can

be more easily identified and a remedy more readily applied (Smilansky 2006). With this

perspective as a backdrop, it should be observed that Air Force wing chaplains, as key

operational leaders, serve in what is perhaps the most critical job within the Air Force

Chaplain Corps (Timmons 1993; Smith 2003; U.S. Department of the Air Force 2006b).

Summary

Horey et al. recommended a leadership competency framework for the U.S.

Army as the central basis for its leadership development enterprise. By focusing on core

functional competencies, this competency model is "portable . . . . While individual

situations or missions may stress the use of different competencies, components, or

behaviors, leadership competencies as a whole are enduring across leader positions,

assignments, and time. Just as values shape the character of leaders, competencies can be

used to guide leader behavior" (Horey et al. 2004, 6). This framework describes the

potential relationship between a leadership competency model and leadership assessment,

development, and performance throughout the institution and across a member's career.

In this construction, a "competency framework provides the basis for

interpreting . . . feedback, understanding how training and development ties in with the

functions of leadership, identifying areas of deficiency, and tracking progress in this

never complete journey" (Horey et al. 2004, 61). In short, competency modeling

provides a roadmap for producing demonstrated leadership competencies throughout the

institution and acts as a compass to create institutional focus and coordinate efforts with

respect to leadership and leadership development (see Figure 7).

/ Leadership \ , ; Competency \ Model ' j

\ , y

/"' Assessment: \ Test/Assessment Center \ Multi Rater Feedback \ After Action Review /

Evaluation Report /

Evaluate -0 - "" \ Gap

/ Training and ^ \ Performance; \ / r , . \

/ Education: \ / Mission Accomplishment \ Assignments'Tasks

Institutional/Uiiit.'' . . . / ! Self Development |

Training Exercises / v->tirW« \ r- t - r\* » • I = / aiidate \ Cofiching/Mentormg / Feedback ./

Figure 7. Relationship between leadership competency model and leadership assessment, development, and performance (Horey et al. 2004, 61)

The bottom-line benefit of competency modeling is its clear focus on

behavioral leadership skills that can in fact be developed. Before moving to competency

modeling, the military in particular had attempted "to classify some of the personality

traits . . . their leaders needed. They tested for these but rarely made them transparent

and certainly could not translate what they meant in terms of the role . . . people had to

perform. Furthermore, they certainly could not train for these traits" (Dalziel 2004, 55).

A system emphasizing competencies overcomes these deficiencies. As Northouse

explains,

There are several strengths in conceptualizing leadership from a skills perspective. First, it is a leader-centered model that stresses the importance of the leader's abilities, and it places learned skills at the center of effective leadership performance. Second, the skills approach describes leadership in such a way that it makes it available to everyone. Skills are competencies that we all can learn to develop and improve upon. Third, the skills approach provides a sophisticated map that explains how effective leadership performance can be achieved . . . . Last, this approach provides a structure for leadership education and development programs that include creative problem solving, conflict resolution, listening, and teamwork. (Northouse 2004, 62-63)

In the end, paying close attention to such skills greatly increases the odds of a leader's

organization generating expected results on a consistent basis.

Most fundamentally, competencies provide organizations with a way to define in behavioral terms what their leaders need to do to produce the results the organization desires and do so in a way that is consistent with and builds its culture. They should provide the "North Star" by which leaders at all levels navigate in order to create synergy and produce more significant and consistent results. (Intagliata, Ullrich, and Smallwood 2000, 14)

The Process of Competency Modeling

Competency models are generally produced by two different methods. "One

assesses threshold competencies, those that people need in order to get the job done.

These are the minimal skills needed to carry out the tasks associated with a given

position. Most organizational competence models . . . fall into this category." The

second model "describes distinguishing competencies, the capabilities that set star

performers apart from average ones" (Goleman 1998, 319). Spencer and Spencer take

the latter approach, describing the classic competency study design as a comparison of

so-called superstar performers with average performers, as determined by such criteria as

measurable unit performance outcomes or ratings by supervisors when hard data is

unavailable. Once the subjects in both camps are determined, data is collected by a

variety of possible means (critical incident interviews, expert panels, surveys, detailed job

function analysis, or direct observation). The data is then analyzed and a competency

model is created as differences emerge between the reported behavior of superstars and

average performers. The model is then validated and applied to such situations as

employee selection, training, and development. The latter is especially relevant when a

competency emerges that "(a) distinguishes superior from average performers, (b) can be

realistically hired for, and (c) can be developed" (Spencer and Spencer 1993, 106).

Rather than an exclusive focus on the leaders themselves as in the approach

just described, other researchers recommend instead a simple focus on the job itself

(Horey et al. 2004; Smilansky 2006). This threshold approach is most often used in the

military. "By focusing on leadership skill requirements, the focus is shifted from the

person holding the job (i.e., the leader) to the job itself. Thus, instead of attempting to

identify the characteristics of leaders (which has a checkered history of success), the

focus is squarely on the job of the leader, and the skills it requires" (Mumford, Campion,

and Morgeson 2007). This method, which realistically combines the job itself with

relevant leader behaviors and characteristics, was preferred by this researcher for the

current study. Its application to leadership development is similar to the former,

providing a reasonably comprehensive list of competencies for which educational

curricula can be designed. As two military leadership competency researchers explain:

Employees want information about what they are required to do (or confirmation of what they think they are supposed to do) in their jobs or positions. The operative word here is 'do.' They typically do not want to know what they are supposed to 'be.' This simple representation of leadership requirements helps us establish a context for evaluating leadership competencies and frameworks/models. Those that are stated only as traits, characteristics, or in attribute terms are, in our estimation, less valuable than those that are stated in task, function, and behavioral terms. However, models that address both aspects of leadership may prove to be more valuable to more individuals. (Horey and Fallesen 2003, 722)

Simply put, a competency model answers two fundamental questions: "What skills,

knowledge, and characteristics are required to do the job? What behaviors have the most

direct impact on performance and success in the job?" (Lucia and Lepsinger 1999, 9). A

balanced approach to competency modeling which accounts for personal characteristics

and behavioral skills was the approach taken in this study.

Developing the Model

No study of wing chaplain leadership competencies could be found in the

literature review, which suggested no available instrument to determine which leadership

competencies are considered essential for Air Force wing chaplain performance. A

number of studies, however, have been conducted to explore essential leadership

competencies in both the ministry (Boersma 1988; Welch 2003; Barnett 2003; Woodruff

2004; Thomas 2004) and the military (Huth 2006). The work of Boersma (1988) and

Huth (2006), in particular, produced outcomes within their respective populations which

closely parallel the desired outcome of this study. Both researchers relied heavily on a

Delphi panel to construct the leadership competency profile.

The Delphi method was developed by the RAND Corporation in the late 1950s

and 1960s as "a method of structuring a group communication process so that the process

is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex

problem." The nature of the particular problem can assume any number of forms,

including curriculum development, structuring a model, or any problem which "does not

lend itself to precise analytical techniques but which can benefit from subjective

judgments on a collective basis" (Linstone and Turoff 1975, 3-4). It has since been

recognized as an effective method of collecting and synthesizing expert assessments and

achieving a sense of consensus relative to the topic at hand. Originally designed for use

in the military, the technique has subsequently been used to address a variety of issues in

multiple contexts (Gordon and Pease 2006).

Since a preliminary profile emerged from the literature review and was only

then evaluated by the Delphi panel, the method used has been called a Reactive Delphi

approach. Rather than starting from scratch, in other words, the expert panel was

supplied with an initial list of competencies to which they were to react (McKenna 1994).

A sense of consensus thereby emerged relative to those leadership competencies

considered essential for optimal performance as an Air Force wing chaplain. With

respect to the current study, the Reactive Delphi method has been effectively used to

formulate a usable leadership competency profile for pastors (Boersma 1988) and

military healthcare executives (Huth 2006), among others. A similar approach was used

in this study.

Boersma employed a Delphi panel to develop a pastoral leadership

competency questionnaire consisting of 50 leadership competencies and relevant

demographic data. A preliminary list of 82 competencies was narrowed to 50 by the

Delphi panel, including 6 items which were not included in the original 82-item list. The

resultant pastoral leadership competencies questionnaire, using a 6-point Likert scale,

was administered to pastors, educators, and lay leaders to examine the perceived

importance of each of the 50 pastoral leadership competencies. Validity was determined

by way of the Delphi panel. Reliability for the instrument was determined via the Hoyt-

Stunkard analysis of variance method. The computed reliability for the instrument was

0.942 (Boersma 1988, 135).

Huth conducted a Delphi study to determine leadership competencies

considered essential for performance of active duty Air Force healthcare administrators.

Due to the lack of necessary instrumentation in extant literature, Huth developed a

preliminary leadership competency profile of 79 leadership competencies and educational

factors from the literature review, which was then refined in two rounds via a reactive

Delphi approach similar to that used by Boersma. Active duty Air Force healthcare

administrators were then asked to evaluate each of 58 leadership competencies and

educational factors (only 6 of which were exclusive to the military) with respect to its

perceived importance in optimizing competence, enhancing personal satisfaction, and

achieving superior performance as a healthcare administrator (Huth 2006, 133-34). A 5-

point Likert scale was used. Huth assessed sufficient reliability and validity relative to

the expert processes inherent to the Delphi approach (Huth 2006, 96-98).

Horey et ai. employed a similar approach in developing a proposed Army

leadership competency model. Their methodology, which is based on a clear

understanding of Army leadership requirements, relevant literature, and existing

competency frameworks, paid particular attention to competency models used in the

military and other federal agencies. These data were synthesized into a proposed

competency framework, which was then evaluated by a series of noted Army leadership

experts (Horey et al. 2004). Other researchers rely heavily on direct observation, detailed

personal interviews, and focus groups to glean specific, contextual behavioral and

attitudinal responses to various situations in producing preliminary competency models

(Spencer and Spencer 1993; Lucia and Lepsinger 1999). As with the Delphi approach,

the survey method is used later in the process, particularly in model validation as the

preliminary competency model is presented to a wider audience. The same general

procedure is followed in both cases, however. In all such cases, data is collected and

analyzed, from which a preliminary competency model emerges for validation and

implementation.

Summary

The federal government in general and the military in particular are principal

proponents of competency modeling in determining those leadership competencies

deemed necessary for organizational performance. In the government arena, for instance,

competency models have been fashioned for such agencies as the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, the Office of Personnel Management (an early forerunner in

competency modeling), the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, Los Alamos National Labs, and all five military services (Wagner 2004).

A number of prominent researchers have parlayed competency modeling into a

cultural phenomenon by publishing their research as blockbuster books (Goleman 1998;

Collins 2001; Kouzes and Posner 2002; Zenger and Folkman 2002; Covey 2004;

Buckingham 2005). In addition, ministry researchers have employed competency-based

approaches in their study of pastors (Boersma 1988), comparing congregational and

pastoral perceptions of leadership (Purcell 2001), seminary leadership preparation (Welch

2003), seminary graduates in ministry (Barnett 2003), executive pastors (Woodruff

2004), and Christian camp directors (Thomas 2004). As has been mentioned, no such

study was previously available examining the leadership competencies considered

essential for Air Force wing chaplain performance.

In light of the desire to ensure consistent standards are applied worldwide—

and the foregoing requirement that wing chaplains are developed to meet those

standards—competency modeling was deemed an appropriate methodology to study

wing chaplain leadership performance. The following section presents a number of

ministry leadership competency models. These competencies were synthesized with

selected military and governmental leadership competencies, overviewed later, to

produce a preliminary leadership competency profile for U.S. Air Force wing chaplains.

Ministry Leadership Competency Approaches