week 5 cled 770

arnita

out1week5cled770.pdf

Home >History homework help >Ancient history homework help >week 5 cled 770

disseminate this document in any form by any means for purposes chosen by the College

including, without licensing, preservation or instruction.

A CORRELATIONAL STUDY OF THE COMMUNICATION

STYLES AND USE OF POWER AMONG LEAD PASTORS

__________________

A Dissertation

Presented to

The Faculty of

Capital Seminary and Graduate School

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

__________________

Stephen Aaron Grusendorf

September 2016

ProQuest Number:

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest

Published by ProQuest LLC ( ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

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

10786916

2018

APPROVAL SHEET

A CORRELATIONAL STUDY OF THE COMMUNICATION

STYLES AND USE OF POWER AMONG LEAD PASTORS

Stephen Aaron Grusendorf

Read and Approved by:

____________________________________________

Michael J. Anthony (Chair)

____________________________________________

Hal K. Pettegrew

Date: December 16, 2016

Dedicated to my wife and best friend, Rebecca Lynn.

Thank you for believing in me, supporting me,

and helping me become the man I am today.

This work would not be a reality without you.

This work is also dedicated to my boys,

Caleb John and Nathan James.

Thanks for sharing me during this journey.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This is a moment for reflection that allows me to pause to consider how I have

arrived where I am today and thank several people who helped me find my way. It starts

with Jesus who has loved me, guided me, and given me His Holy Spirit for effective

ministry. Thank you for your grace, Jesus.

I want to thank my parents, John and Laurie Grusendorf, who have believed in me

from the start. Your unfailing support in all my ventures over the years gave me the

necessary confidence to even go to college in the first place. Thanks for always pushing

me to listen to God, do my best, and never give up. Thank you for modeling what it

means to follow Jesus with your whole heart. Your continued willingness to serve God

whenever and wherever still impacts me today.

Several men of God have come alongside me at significant points in my life to

offer counsel and invest in me personally. Your investment is part of the reason I have

been able to make it to this milestone in my life today. Greg Carrick, Steve Harper, and

Jonathan Shaffer of Grace Church are all on that list. Karl Koenig, your encouragement

and investment are still felt. Dr. Ayers, Dr. Teague, Dr. Pettegrew, and Dr. Anthony,

thank you for your constant personal investment and belief in me.

I would like to thank my Princeton Alliance Church family for their investment

and support in helping me accomplish this milestone. Dr. Boyd Hannold, I want to thank

you for your leadership, belief, encouragement, and friendship along the way. Also, thank

you to the Governing Board for your vision and belief in the continued education of your

pastoral team.

I would also like to thank my Ph.D. family in cohort 3 at Capital Bible Seminary.

The friendships we have forged will last a lifetime. Thank you for investing in me and

helping me become a better servant of God.

Finally, Rebecca, thank you. You are my number one support. I look forward to

the rest of our life together. What adventure is next only God knows.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..............................................................................................v

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... xi

Chapter

1. RESEARCH CONCERN.....................................................................................1

Research Purpose .........................................................................................6

Delimitations of the Study ...........................................................................6

Research Questions ......................................................................................7

Terminology .................................................................................................7

Procedural Overview .................................................................................10

Research Assumptions ...............................................................................11

Significance of the Study ...........................................................................12

Chapter Summary ......................................................................................14

2. PRECEDENT LITERATURE ...........................................................................16

Organizational Dynamics of Large Churches ............................................16

A Review of Church Size Taxonomies ..........................................16

A Synthesis of Key “Large Church” Identifiers ............................18

Examining the Role of the Large Church Lead Pastor ..............................29

A Review of the Changing Roles of the

Lead Pastor Based on Church Size ..........................................30

Chapter Page

A Review of the Unique Competencies

of the Large Church Lead Pastor .............................................33

A Summary of the Large Church Lead Pastor ...............................39

Leadership and Power ................................................................................39

Theological Basis for Leadership ..................................................40

Theoretical Basis for Leadership ...................................................44

A Theology of Power .....................................................................50

The Theoretical Basis for Power....................................................60

The Role of Social Power in the Context of Leadership ...............61

French and Raven’s Forms of Social Power ..................................66

The Implications of Social Power on Leadership ..........................75

A Summary of Leadership and Power ...........................................77

Leadership and Communication ................................................................78

Theoretical Base of Leadership Communication ...........................78

Theological Base of Leadership Communication ..........................79

The Effects of Communication on Leadership ..............................81

The Communication Competence Approach .................................83

Communication Skills ....................................................................86

Communication Style.....................................................................88

The Forms of Communication .......................................................91

The Impact of Personality Styles on Communication ...................94

Style Flexing ..................................................................................98

Chapter Summary ....................................................................................101

iii

Chapter Page

3. METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN ....................................................................102

Research Question Synopsis ....................................................................102

Research Design.......................................................................................103

Population ................................................................................................103

Sample......................................................................................................104

Limitations ...............................................................................................104

Instrumentation ........................................................................................106

Communication Style Inventory (CSI) ........................................106

The Personal Power Profile (PPP) ...............................................109

Procedures ................................................................................................111

Chapter Summary ....................................................................................112

4. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS ............................................................................114

Research Question 1 ................................................................................115

Research Question 2 ................................................................................119

Research Question 3 ................................................................................121

Research Question 4 ................................................................................136

Additional Analysis of Research Question 4 ...............................137

Research Question 5 ................................................................................139

Additional Analysis of Research Question 5 ...............................141

Summary of Findings ...............................................................................142

5. CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................146

Research Purpose .....................................................................................146

Chapter Page

Research Questions ..................................................................................148

Summary of Findings ...............................................................................148

Research Question 1 ....................................................................148

Research Question 2 ....................................................................149

Research Question 3 ....................................................................150

Research Question 4 ....................................................................152

Research Question 5 ....................................................................152

Research Implications ..............................................................................153

Research Application ...............................................................................161

Limitations of Study ................................................................................167

Future Research .......................................................................................169

Conclusion ...............................................................................................170

Appendices

A. LEAD PASTOR INITIAL CONTACT LETTER .........................................173

B. LEAD PASTOR FOLLOW UP CONTACT LETTER .................................174

C. LEAD PASTOR DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTRODUCTION LETTER .........................................................................175

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................176

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CSI Communication Style Inventory

CSM Communicator Style Measure

C&MA Christian and Missionary Alliance

HRDQ Human Resource Development Quarterly

LISREL Linear Structural Relations

LMX Leader Member Exchange

PPP Personal Power Profile

SSI Social Skills Inventory

US United States

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Summary Comparison of the Breakdown of Church Sizes According to Church Growth Writers ....................................................17

2. McIntosh’s Typology of Church Sizes ..................................................................24

3. Comparison of the Lead Pastor’s Role Based on Size of Church ..........................32

4. The Changing Nature of the Lead Pastor’s Shepherding Role ..............................35

5. The Pastor’s Transition from Manager to Leader ..................................................36

6. French and Raven’s Taxonomy Defined ...............................................................63

7. Communicative Skill Sets ......................................................................................86

8. Norton’s Nine Communication Variables .............................................................89

9. Impact of Communication Style on Forms of Communication .............................93

10. How to Speed Read Communication Style ............................................................99

11. Initial Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations for the CSI ..............................108

12. Recent Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations for the CSI .............................109

13. Descriptive Statistics of Most Common Communication Styles of Lead Pastors .........................................................117

14. Descriptive Statistics of Highest Ranked Communication Styles of Lead Pastors .........................................................118

15. Descriptive Statistics of Most Common Use of Power Style of Lead Pastors ...............................................................120

16. Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Communication Style and Use of Power Styles of Lead Pastors .............................................122

17. Absolute Value of r ..............................................................................................122

18. McIntosh’s Church Categories Based on Size .....................................................123

vii

Table Page

19. Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Communication Styles and Use of Power Styles of Lead

Pastors in Churches with 300-399 Sunday Attendees ...................................124

20. Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Communication Styles and Use of Power Styles of Lead

Pastors in Churches with 400-799 Sunday Attendees ...................................129

21. Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Communication Styles and Use of Power Styles of Lead

Pastors in Churches with 800-1199 Sunday Attendees .................................130

22. Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Communication Styles and Use of Power Styles of Lead

Pastors in Churches with 1200+ Sunday Attendees ......................................133

23. Highest Ranked Communication Style of Lead Pastors Categorized by McIntosh’s Taxonomy of Churches by Size ........................138

24. Level of Education of Pastors Who Have a Referent Use of Power Style as Their Primary Style Cross Tabulation .......................139

25. Highest Ranked Use of Power Style of Lead Pastors Categorized by McIntosh’s Taxonomy of Churches by Size ........................142

26. Level of Education of Lead Pastors by Age Range Cross Tabulation .................160

27. Communication and Use of Power Styles Ranked from Most Common to Least Common among McIntosh’s

Church Size Categories ..................................................................................162

28. Mean and Standard Deviation of Coercive Power Scores among White and Non-White Respondents ....................................................165

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Situational Leadership II Model ............................................................................47

2. Four Styles of Communication ..............................................................................95

3. Bar Graph Depicting the Most Common

Communication Styles of Lead Pastors .........................................................117

4. Scatterplot of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient

between Direct and Referent Scores of Lead Pastors in Churches

with 300-399 Average Sunday Attendees ......................................................125

5. Scatterplot of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Spirited and Legitimate Scores of Lead Pastors in Churches

with 300-399 Average Sunday Attendees ......................................................126

6. Scatterplot of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Systematic and Coercive Scores of Lead Pastors in Churches

with 300-399 Average Sunday Attendees ......................................................126

7. Scatterplot of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Spirited and Expert Scores of Lead Pastors in Churches

with 300-399 Average Sunday Attendees ......................................................127

8. Scatterplot of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Considerate and Coercive Scores of Lead Pastors in Churches

with 300-399 Average Sunday Attendees ......................................................127

9. Scatterplot of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Direct and Reward Scores of Lead Pastors in Churches

with 300-399 Average Sunday Attendees ......................................................128

10. Scatterplot of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Direct and Reward Scores of Lead Pastors in Churches

with 800-1199 Average Sunday Attendees....................................................130

11. Scatterplot of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Spirited and Coercive Scores of Lead Pastors in Churches

with 800-1199 Average Sunday Attendees....................................................131

Figure Page

12. Scatterplot of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Direct and Referent Scores of Lead Pastors in Churches

with 800-1199 Average Sunday Attendees....................................................131

13. Scatterplot of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Spirited and Legitimate Scores of Lead Pastors in Churches

with 800-1199 Average Sunday Attendees....................................................132

14. Scatterplot of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Direct and Reward Scores of Lead Pastors in Churches

with 1200+ Average Sunday Attendees .........................................................134

15. Scatterplot of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Systematic and Referent Scores of Lead Pastors in Churches

with 1200+ Average Sunday Attendees .........................................................134

16. Scatterplot of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Spirited and Legitimate Scores of Lead Pastors in Churches

with 1200+ Average Sunday Attendees .........................................................135

17. Scatterplot of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Spirited and Referent Scores of Lead Pastors in Churches

with 1200+ Average Sunday Attendees .........................................................135

18. Scatterplot of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Systematic and Coercive Scores of Lead Pastors in Churches

with 1200+ Average Sunday Attendees .........................................................136

19. Scatterplot of the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient

between Age and Score of Systematic Communication Style .............................137

20. Scatterplot of the Correlation between Total Years in Ministry and Score of Referent Use of Power Style ......................................140

21. Scatterplot of the Correlation between Age and Score of Referent Use of Power Style ...........................................................141

22. Bar Graph Depicting the Number of Various Primary Use of

Power Styles Displayed by Lead Pastors Categorized by

McIntosh’s Taxonomy of Churches by Size ..................................................142

23. Comparison of Communication Style Scores Among

Lead Pastors and College Presidents .............................................................154

Figure Page

24. Comparison of Communication Style Scores Among Lead

Pastors and Instrument Developers Sample ...................................................155

25. Comparison of Communication Style Scores Among Lead Pastors,

College Presidents and Instrument Developers Sample ................................156

26. Comparison of Power Style Scores Among Lead

Pastors and College Presidents ............................................................................157

27. Scatterplot of the Correlation between Total Years in

Ministry and Score of Referent Use of Power Style ......................................159

28. Scatterplot of the Correlation between Age and

Score of Referent Use of Power Style .................................................................159

ABSTRACT

A CORRELATIONAL STUDY OF THE COMMUNICATION

STYLES AND USE OF POWER AMONG LEAD PASTORS

Stephen Aaron Grusendorf

Capital Graduate School and Seminary, 2016

Chairperson: Michael J Anthony

The leadership responsibilities of the local lead pastor are many. At any given

time the lead pastor is responsible to manage the staff of a church, cast vision for the

organization, effectively preach and teach the Word of God, lead a board, manage a

budget, and assimilate new individuals into the organization. These responsibilities all

hinge on the lead pastor’s ability to exercise his leadership well.

In this age of increasing leadership complexity, many congregations are seeking a

competent lead pastor. These same congregations are exhibiting progressively lower

tolerances for ineffective leaders within their churches. Thus, lead pastors of large

churches must consistently exhibit strong leadership skills.

Communication is a core element of leadership. How a lead pastor communicates

beyond the pulpit is an important topic that does not receive much attention in popular

literature today. Yet perhaps few others skills are more important for effective leadership.

Furthermore, how a leader exercises power both significantly impacts and is impacted by

a leader’s communication style. Thus, the correlation between a lead pastor’s

communication style and use of power is of critical import.

This present research sought to understand what, if any, correlations exist

between the communication style and use of power among large church lead pastors. It

xii

focused on lead pastors of churches with an average main worship attendance of 300 or

more who are part of the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination. Respondents

took two self-assessing instruments. The first instrument was the Communication Style

Inventory (CSI) that assessed the individual’s primary communication style. The second

instrument was the Personal Power Profile (PPP) that assessed the way in which the

individual primarily exercises power in the context of leadership.

Completed surveys were aggregated and analyzed. Responses to the CSI and PPP

were analyzed using means and standard deviations for scaling and were placed in rank

order to determine the most common communication style and use of power among lead

pastors. Furthermore, responses were analyzed for any correlations between responses to

the CSI and PPP. As predictive patterns emerged, a secondary analysis using multiple

regression examined the communication style combinations most predictive of power

style. Finally, the effect of selected demographic variables on both use of power and

communication style were considered and reported if significant. In order to discover any

potential effects, a simple demographic survey was issued to respondents, and responses

were analyzed.

Overall, several moderate and weak correlations were noted to exist between

communication styles and use of power styles among lead pastors when they were

categorized by the size of the church in which they serve. Further, several interesting

observations were noted related to the use of the most common power style of lead

pastors, referent power. Inverse correlations were seen to exist between the use of

referent power and both the age of the pastor as well as the overall years the lead pastor

xiii

has been in ministry. Also, level of education was observed to have an effect on the use

of referent power.

KEY WORDS: Communication, Leadership Communication, Power, Social Power,

Communication Style Inventory, Personal Power Profile, Large Church, Lead Pastor,

Leadership Skills

CHAPTER 1

RESEARCH CONCERN

Leadership is complex. Today’s leader needs to hold in tension the power they

wield over their followers and the trust they need to gain from their followers (Green,

2012). To be successful, the modern leader needs to develop strong relational and

administrative acumen. Church leadership is no exception to this prevailing reality. Lead

pastors are increasingly required to be both relationally and technically proficient.

The leadership responsibilities of the local lead pastor are many. At any given

time, the lead pastor is responsible to manage the staff of a church, cast vision for the

organization, effectively preach and teach the Word of God, lead a board, manage a

budget, and assimilate new individuals into the organization. These responsibilities all

hinge on the lead pastor’s ability to exercise his or her leadership well. As one author

argues, “Second only to the empowering work of Holy Spirit, pastoral leadership is the

most determinative factor in growing churches” (McIntosh, 1999, pp. 67-68). What is

also clear is that as a local church grows the need for excellent leadership is only

exacerbated (McIntosh, 2009; Schaller, 1980, 1983).

A large body of literature exists, written by both religious scholars and church

practitioners, seeking to describe effective leadership methodologies to lead pastors.

Often, lead pastors are encouraged to emulate certain effective personalities or adopt a

certain approach to leadership. Surprisingly, however, lead pastors are often at a loss

when it comes to understanding how their ability to lead is impacted by the way they

communicate and their use of power (Green & Hunter, 2010; Price, 2002).

Most books relating to communication for lead pastors surround preaching and

teaching. A prolific body of literature exists representing this topic. However, the same is

not true when it comes to understanding how a lead pastor communicates in general,

apart from his or her distinct role as teacher. One recent Barna study sought to identify

the most important leadership trait for Christians (Barna, 2013). The survey offered ten

leadership characteristics and asked participants to rate the relative importance of each

trait. Communication was not even a selection on the list. However, the same study

identified that the most important leadership trait for Christians is integrity. Multiple

studies exist showing the important role effective communication plays in developing

trust, a key component of integrity (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012; Palanski & Yammarino,

2009; Thomas, Zolin & Hartman, 2009). The reality facing many lead pastors is that the

impact of their communication apart from the pulpit is a malnourished subject.

The use of power in leadership is also an underrepresented topic among lead

pastors. While a stalwart body of literature exists on the use of power by leaders in the

broader field of management, few of these resources are directed toward clergy or lead

pastors. In fact, there seems to be confusion as to the place of pastors in this modern era.

Price (2002) suggests that a gradual shift has occurred within churches since the 1960s.

The shift has been one from institutionalism toward a “new paradigm” of

deinstitutionalism. One unintended result of this gradual shift has been confusion as to

the place of clergy within broader culture. The old order of institutionalism had been

pushing to make the clergy a professional class. However, the new paradigm began

fighting for the concept of an ideal clergy over that of a professional one. The new

paradigm seemed more interested in the pure of heart than it did in the highly qualified.

As this dichotomy persists, a lingering question grows silently more potent. Is the lead

pastor of today part of a professional class or simply a servant leader?

The answer to this question is critical. For the answer helps inform the pastor as to

which body of literature holds proper prescriptive authority over his or her life. Should

the pastor be a modern servant-leader as portrayed by Greenleaf (1977) and others? Or,

should the pastor look to Scripture for a different model? Jones (2012) compared servant

leadership from both the social science and biblical perspective. His research indicated

that each groups’ conception of servant leadership has different end goals. He noted that

societal transformation through altruistic and moral humanistic efforts is the goal of

social science’s conception of servant leadership (p. 134). Christianity, however, achieves

societal transformation through a call to immediate, radical, and costly obedience to

Christ. (p. 135). Niewold (2006) discusses this disparity, arguing that while both social

science and Scripture articulate a concept of servant leadership, the servanthood of social

science is not akin to the call of Christ found in Scripture, a call he argues is a call to

martyrdom (pp. 281-283). According to Niewold (2007), it is the ability of the Christian

leader to act as a witness of Jesus Christ, his definition of a martyr, which will ultimately

lead to societal change. Thus, for some, the professional conception of servant leadership

and the ideal form of servant leadership are different.

However, not all within the ministry would seem to agree based solely upon their

actions. Flemister (1989) highlighted within his research that most parishioners perceived

their pastor to be using an expert power base rather than a legitimate power base. The

concept of the pastor as a content expert seems to be more in line with the old order

thinking.

These examples highlight the tension that Price (2002) notes exist among clergy

today, a tension related to the nature of pastoral leadership. Is the pastor a professional

who is supposed to function as a social science servant leader who exerts expert power?

Or, is the pastor a prophet who is to function as a martyr and exercise legitimate power?

Thus, while many lead pastors are genuinely interested in exercising power responsibly,

there seems to be a shroud of mystery surrounding the impact the use of power has on

their leadership.

Without a proper understanding of the impact communication style and personal

use of power has on their leadership, lead pastors are at a distinct disadvantage. In this

age of increasing leadership complexity, many congregations are seeking a competent

lead pastor. These congregations are exhibiting progressively lower tolerances for

ineffective leaders within their churches. In her review of pastors who had left a

leadership position within the church, Stewart (2009) noted that many former pastors did

not feel a lack of “competency” was a major contributing factor to their departure.

Stewart, however, suggests that the evidence disagrees, noting that many pastors would

not have had to leave if they had been more competent in areas of leadership relating to

communication and power. Stewart’s insights seem to confirm what the Barna Research

Group (2009) identified as one of the most common weaknesses among pastors, an

inclination to see themselves as more effective in certain leadership competencies than

their performance suggests.

However, the issue at hand is more than a simple knowledge of both

communication style and power style. Each of these things impacts the other. Research

has shown that power impacts the way in which individuals communicate. Research has

also shown that one’s ability to communicate impacts their ability to gain, keep, and

exercise power.

Communication is the basis of any relationship (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011). It is

communication that makes certain relationships easy and other relationships difficult.

This extends to leadership as well. Pacleb (2013) notes that leaders project their power

through communication. His research identified the fact that leader communication, when

done well, can strengthen the leader-follower dyadic relationship. However, if done

poorly, the opposite is true as well. Neufeld, Wan, and Fang (2010) stated that a leader’s

ability to communicate well directly contributes to leader effectiveness. They go so far as

to suggest, “It is not enough for managers to have strong leadership convictions, they

must also act on those convictions through effective communication. Without effective

communication, leadership is essentially irrelevant” (p. 241). Thus, communication has a

direct impact on the ability of a leader to gain, increase, and keep their power in a

supervisory relationship.

Power has an impact on communication as well. Clark and Schober (1992) note

that communication is primarily concerned with intent, not meaning. Stated differently, it

is not about what one says but about what one intends for their words to mean. Thus, the

more positional power one has, the less inclined they are to be polite towards a

subordinate. Conversely, the less positional power one has, the more polite they tend to

be toward an organizational superior (Morand, 2000). Anderson and Berdahl (2002)

conducted research that suggested those with more power were more likely to express

their true attitudes and those with less power were more likely to repress their true

attitudes in a given relationship. Berger (2003) conducted research showing that power

impacts both message construction as well as message interpretation. She noted that those

with less power tend to interpret written memos more pragmatically while those with

more power tend to interpret written memos more semantically (p. 64). The impact of

power on communication can be further demonstrated by reviewing the research of

Triller (2011). She noted that when a leader, that is one with organizational power,

communicates frequently with subordinates, those subordinates feel more engaged in the

vision, mission, and goals of the organization (Triller, 2011). Thus, it can be observed

that power has a direct impact on communication.

Lead pastors, pastoral search committees, and local churches need to have a

deeper understanding of how the leadership of a lead pastor is impacted by the way in

which he or she communicates and uses power. Furthermore, understanding the

implications of how communication and use of power affect one another will only

increase the ability of lead pastors to exercise effective leadership in a complex world.

Research Purpose

The purpose of this correlational research was to discover what communication

style is most common among lead pastors of Christian and Missionary Alliance churches

with an average attendance of 300 or greater in their main worship service and if there

was a relationship between this communication style and use of power style as defined by

French and Raven (1959).

Delimitations of the Study

It is important to note that this study was delimited to churches that have an

average main worship service attendance of 300 or more. While classification systems

exist that delineate the differences of churches with a greater and smaller number than

300, the 300 threshold represents the minimum number of criteria necessary to identify a

church as being large enough for this proposed study.

This study was also delimited to churches within the US Christian and Missionary

Alliance denomination. Further, this study was delimited to US Christian and Missionary

Alliance churches that currently have a lead pastor. Some churches, which may fit the

numerical delimitation, were excluded because they are in a period of transition and are

either without a lead pastor or are currently served by an interim lead pastor.

Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study:

1. What is the most common communication style (as measured by the CSI)

found among lead pastors within the sample group?

2. What is the most common use of power style (as measured by the PPP) to be

found among lead pastors within the sample group?

3. What is the relationship between communication style and use of power style

among these lead pastors?

4. What, if any, are the effects of selected demographic variables on the

communication style of lead pastors within the sample group?

5. What, if any, are the effects of selected demographic variables on the use of

power of lead pastors within the sample group?

Terminology

Assertiveness: “The effort that a person makes to influence or control the thoughts

or actions of others” (Russo, Hannett, & Topka 2008, p. 7).

US Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA): A denomination from which lead

pastors of churches with an average main worship service attendance greater than 300

will be surveyed.

Coercive Power: The power to inflict punishment or the threat of punishment in

order to effect compliance; power based on fear (French & Raven, 1959).

Communication: A shared social experience between two or more people who

have their own expectations and intentions (Coyle, 1993).

Communication Competence: “The knowledge of effective and appropriate

communication behavior, together with the motivation, skills, and meta-cognitive skills

that enable one to interact in a communication situation in a way that the participants of

the situation find efficient and appropriate” (Rouhiainen, 2006, p. 5).

Communication Style: An individual’s unique blend of verbal, paraverbal, use of

body language, and use of personal space in the communication process.

Considerate: A communication style characterized by high expressiveness and

low assertiveness (Russo et al., 2008).

Direct: A communication style characterized by low expressiveness and high

assertiveness (Russo et al., 2008).

Expert Power: The ability for someone to influence another based on his or her

specialized knowledge or skills (French & Raven, 1959).

Expressiveness: “The effort that a person makes to control his or her emotions

when relating to others” (Russo et al., 2008, p. 7).

Large Church: A church with 300 or more in average attendance at the main

worship service of the church.

Lead Pastor: The pastor recognized as the main leader of the church. Other titles

may include Senior Pastor, Head Pastor, Elder, or Preaching Pastor.

Leadership Style: An approach to leadership that is concerned with what leaders

do and how they do it (Northouse, 2013). As such, it is focused exclusively on leadership

behaviors. There are two primary leadership behaviors: task behavior and relationship

behavior. Task behavior is related to the accomplishment of a goal. Relational behavior is

related to making followers at ease with themselves, each other, and the situation in

which they find themselves. As leaders use these two behaviors to influence followers,

they form observable patterns of behavior (Field, 2008).

Legitimate Power: Power that is derived from an individual position within an

organization (French & Raven, 1959).

Main Worship Service: The primary corporate gathering of a church body for the

purposes of teaching and worship.

Nonverbal: Communication that takes place through the medium of gesture and

movement (Remland, 1981).

Personal Power: Power derived from an individual, not an organization (DuBrin,

2015).

Personality Style: “The way people act when they are able to do things their own

way” (Russo et al., 2008, p. 6).

Power: “The capacity or potential to influence” (Northouse, 2013, p. 9).

Prestige Power: A form of personal power derived from an individual’s status

(DuBrin, 2015).

Referent Power: The ability for a leader to influence others based on their

desirable traits or characteristics (French & Raven, 1959).

Reward Power: The power to reward in order to effect compliance; power based

on incentive (French & Raven, 1959).

Spirited: A communication style characterized by both high expressiveness and

high assertiveness (Russo et al., 2008).

Systematic: A communication style characterized by both low expressiveness and

low assertiveness (Russo et al., 2008).

Procedural Overview

The purpose of this correlational research was to identify the most common

communication style and the most common use of power style among lead pastors of

churches with an average attendance of 300 or greater in their main worship service

among churches in the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination in the United

States. Also, this correlational research sought to uncover what, if any, relationship exists

between the communication style and use of power style as defined by French and Raven

(1959) among these lead pastors. This quantitative research utilized a descriptive survey

method in order to make these determinations.

Qualified respondents from the US Christian and Missionary Alliance were

surveyed using two separate instruments. The first instrument was a 24-item

questionnaire entitled the Communication Style Inventory (CSI). The questions in this

instrument helped determine the respondent’s primary communication style. Those styles

include direct, spirited, systematic, and considerate. The second instrument was a 20-item

questionnaire entitled the Personal Power Profile (PPP). The questions in this instrument

helped determine how respondents primarily use power. The five primary uses of power

are reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert.

Research Question 1 addressed the primary communication style of respondents.

Research Question 2 addressed the primary use of power by respondents. Research

Question 3 investigated what, if any, correlations exist between the communication style

(from Research Question 1) and the use of power (from Research Question 2) as reported

by respondents. Research Question 4 investigated what, if any, effects selected

demographic variables have on the communication style of lead pastors within the sample

group. Research Question 5 investigated what, if any, effects of selected demographic

variables have on the use of power of lead pastors within the sample group.

Research Assumptions

The follow assumptions were foundational to the research:

1. The researcher assumed that the characteristics of the style of communication are

represented by the CSI and its formative research. As such, this researcher

assumed that the findings of each CSI questionnaire were accurate and relevant.

2. The researcher assumed that the characteristics of the use of power are

represented by the PPP and its formative research. As such, this researcher

assumed that the findings of each PPP questionnaire were accurate and relevant.

3. This researcher assumed that survey respondents were able to accurately

understand and rate the items on the research instruments and that their ratings

were an accurate self-representation.

4. This researcher assumed that churches with an average attendance of less than

300 at their main worship service face a different set of leadership challenges than

churches with an average attendance of 300 or more. This makes the potential

findings of this research less than completely relevant to the particular leadership

context of a church with average attendance of less than 300.

5. The researcher assumed that the research sample is large enough to offer reliable

answers to the research questions.

Significance of the Study

Solid pastoral leadership is critical for the large church (McIntosh, 1999).

Communication has been shown to be a critical skill for the effective leader (Neufeld et

al., 2010; Pacleb, 2013). While many leadership skills related to pastoral leadership have

been investigated in depth, no known empirical study exists that investigates the

relationship between communication and use of power style among lead pastors. This

study seeks to broaden the research in the field of pastoral leadership in large churches by

looking at these relationships in detail.

As chapter 2 will demonstrate, effective communication requires the appropriate

use of power and an insightfulness of the communication style of others. The first step to

developing effective communication is for the speaker to recognize his or her own

communication tendencies. As individuals develop a better awareness of their own

communication tendencies, they can also begin to accurately assess the communication

tendencies of others and communicate accordingly. Having a greater awareness of the

communication styles of self and others will allow lead pastors to better communicate

vision to staff, board, and church members alike. It will improve their ability to

communicate accurately and effectively during interpersonal communication both inside

the church and within the community.

This research also sought to add to the literature base focused on the relationship

between communication and use of power style in leadership in general. This work

sought to expand on the initial inquiry of Kelton’s work with college presidents (2005).

This research also sought to identify whether communication and use of power styles are

common across various populations or if differing populations of leaders display varied

communication and power style correlations.

Finally, this research sought to add to the literature base focused on

communication-based leadership. Hackman and Johnson (2013) argue that “political

leaders, executives, coaches, educators, and religious figures alike all share this common

characteristic – the higher the level of leadership, the higher the demand for

communication competence” (p. 21). As will be discussed in chapter 2, effective

leadership is dependent upon effective communication.

Since communication is critical to leadership, a communication-based approach to

leadership offers several distinct advantages. First, solid leadership communication is

essential no matter the theory being used to explain leadership. So, for instance,

leadership communication is empirically important to all theories of leadership. Whether

one uses the LMX approach or a Servant Leadership approach, communication is critical.

Thus, by looking at one of the core essentials of leadership and developing an

understanding of leadership based on that core essential, this study sought to impact the

whole of leadership by looking at its foundation. Second, as Chapter 2 will detail,

communication is a skill that may be developed. By empirically studying a trainable skill,

this work sought to offer data that may be used in the development of future material

aimed at improving the leadership of lead pastors through the honing of communication

styles relative to the unique environments experienced by lead pastors.

Chapter Summary

Lead pastors of today’s large churches need to be aware of the amount of

influence communication and power wield over their leadership. Far from being merely

academic, this need stems from the pragmatics of church leadership. Power is associated

with leadership. It is the primary way an individual holds influence over others. However,

ignorance or even fear of power can cause great damage. Johnson (2012) argues that to

act oblivious to the reality of power can cause a leader to enter into what he calls the

shadow side of leadership: a side of leadership that is typified by ineffective or even

unethical behavior. Similarly, if lead pastors are not keenly aware of the way in which

they communicate, they can run the risk of damaging their ability to lead (Cooper, 2001).

As Alessandra and Hunsaker (1993) argue, every breakdown in leadership has, at its core,

a breakdown in communication.

This research helps researchers and lead pastors alike understand the most

common communication style utilized by lead pastors of churches with an average

attendance of 300 or more at a main worship service and what, if any, relationships exist

between styles of communication and the use of power among lead pastors of large

churches.

Communication and power are essential ingredients for leadership. This current

research is positioned to help lead pastors, researchers, and academics. First, lead pastors

stand to benefit from this current research because it is intended to identify the most

common communication/power correlations experienced by lead pastors of larger

churches. These individuals will profit from the insights gleaned from the identified

correlations. This current research also stands to aid researchers who are seeking to better

understand how leadership should be exercised in a church context. Finally, this current

research is advantageous to academics in that it will better help them prepare the next

generation of lead pastors by offering them solid scientific research into correlations that

exist between communication style and the use of power.

CHAPTER 2

PRECEDENT LITERATURE

The purpose of this research was to determine the most common communication

style among lead pastors of churches within the Christian and Missionary Alliance of the

United States with an average attendance of 300 or more in the main worship service. In

addition, this research also sought to determine the most common use of power style

among these pastors. Finally, this research sought to determine what, if any, correlations

exist between communication style and the use of power among these lead pastors. This

chapter presents a review of relevant literature for the research concern. The issues of

organization and leadership dynamics of large churches, the use of power in leadership,

and the role of communication in leadership will be considered. Biblical and theological

considerations will also be given.

Organizational Dynamics of Large Churches

This section of the research deals with defining and explaining the unique traits of

a large church. It first focuses on adequately determining the appropriate threshold for

considering a church to be large by tracing the development of various church size

classification taxonomies. It then considers the make up of a large church staff with a

particular focus placed on the role of a lead pastor within the large church.

A Review of Church Size Taxonomies

The characteristics of a church change along with the size of the congregation.

One aspect of a church that grows increasingly complex the larger the congregation

becomes is organizational structure. McIntosh (2009) offers an excellent overview of the

various ways individuals have grouped churches by size (Table 1). While authors have

used differing terminology, what must be discovered is a general point at which a church

is considered sizeable enough to be “large”.

Table 1

Summary Comparison of the Breakdown of Church Sizes

According to Church Growth Writers

Schaller Womack Schaller George McIntosh

(1975) (1977) (1980) (1991) (2009)

30-35 50 <35 35 35

70-85 90 35-100 50 85

115-135 120 100-175 100 125

175-200 200s 175-225 200 200

300s 225-450 400 400

600 450-700 800 800

1,200 >700 1,000 1,200

3,000 3,000

Note. Adapted from Taking Your Church to the Next Level: What Got You Here Won’t

Schaller (1975), one of the first to group churches based on size, initially

suggested that a large church was any church with 200 or more congregants. Over the

years, Schaller continued to observe churches and classify them based on their size. He

amended his original classification in 1980 and offered a more detailed taxonomy of

churches based on size. For Schaller, a church with 225 or more congregants was large.

Schaller also suggested two greater categories beyond what he defined as a large church.

These two categories were the huge church, which had 450 or more congregants, and the

minidenomination church, which had 700 or more congregants.

Another early categorizer of churches by size was David Womack. Womack

(1977) suggested grouping churches at the 280, 400, 600, 800, and 1,200 marks. Womack

noted that observable plateaus in church growth often occurred at or near each

delineation. Womack deduced from this observation that one of the problems facing

churches that have plateaued is that the strategies of church organization that had allowed

them to grow needed to change as the church grew larger.

In the 1990s, Carl F. George (1991) offered another taxonomy of churches based

on the size of their congregation. In his early work, George (1991) noted that a large

church was one that had 200 or more congregants. He named three grander categories as

well. Later, George (1993) further defined his taxonomy and suggested grouping

churches at the 200, 400, 800, 1,000, 3,000, 6,000, and 30,000 marks. He observed how

church growth was related to overall population growth trends. He also suggested that

“churches have more in common by their size than by their denomination, tradition,

location, age, or any other single, isolatable factor” (p. 129).

After offering an excellent overview of the development of the categorization of

churches by size, McIntosh (2009) offers his own taxonomy. McIntosh suggests grouping

churches at the 200, 400, 800, 1,200, 3,000, 6,000, and 10,000 marks. McIntosh

particularly notes how the role of the lead pastor changes predictably in each grouping.

He also notes that effective leadership is a critical component for a church to successfully

move from a smaller classification to a larger one. He argues that churches have more in

common with secular organizations than many might at first think (pp. 116-121).

A Synthesis of Key “Large Church” Identifiers

With a variety of differing taxonomies, it is important to select a clear mark by

which one can understand a church to be large no matter the language used to describe it.

Three points help determine this number. First, the number must take into account the

significant sociological shifts and population trends that have occurred in the United

States as they relate to religion in the past three decades. Some of the earlier works,

particularly that of Schaller and Womack, did not take into account the global population

growth and culture trends that would take place in the decades following their research, a

point Schaller (2000) later admitted. Second, the number should be large enough where

the church requires multiple paid staff in addition to the lead pastor (George, 1991;

McIntosh, 1999, 2009). Finally, the number should require a clear change in

organizational structure that reveals the lead pastor must transition from a manager to a

leader (Green, 2005; McIntosh, 2009).

Sociological shifts and population trends related to religion in the United States.

One way to understand how sociological trends have impacted what most people

consider to be a large church can be understood by reviewing the development and

growth of megachurches within the United States. In the year 2000, the Leadership

Network commissioned a study of some of the largest Protestant churches within the

United States (Thumma, 2001). In this study, Scott Thumma served as the principal

researcher. Since then, the Leadership Network and the Hartford Institute for Religion

Research have commissioned several more studies focused on these churches (Bird &

Thumma, 2011; Thumma & Bird, 2009, 2015; Thumma, Travis, & Bird, 2005). Thumma

was later joined by David Travis and Warren Bird in this research. They have become

respected leaders within the field of those who study the largest Protestant churches

within the United States.

The widely accepted standard for a church to be considered a megachurch is a

Sunday attendance of 2,000 (Thumma & Bird, 2015). In the 1970s there were

approximately 50 megachurches in the United States (Ellingson, 2010). In a 2011 survey

of megachurches in the US, the Hartford Institute for Religion Research identified 1,611

megachurches (Bird & Thumma, 2011). When compared to US census data, the growth

of megachurches in the United States is outpacing the growth of the general populace

(Bird & Thumma, 2011; Mackun, Wilson, Fischetti, & Goworowska, 2011, p. 1;

Thumma & Travis, 2007). In the past three decades, there has been a massive growth of

very large churches within the United States.

Several scholars have attempted to pinpoint the reasons for such growth since the

1970s. Ellingson (2010) suggests three reasons for the growth of megachurches. First, he

states that religious consumerism has allowed for the growth of the megachurch. The

megachurch is growing faster because it can produce the desired religious goods

demanded by religious consumers quicker than smaller churches. Second, Ellingson

suggests that the church as sect theory fuels megachurch growth. In his opinion, the

megachurch is able to create a clear culture tension between itself and secular society.

Lastly, Ellingson suggests that organizational dynamics explains the explosive growth of

the megachurch. In this way, he suggests that the megachurch approach is fundamentally

different than the approach of smaller churches in that both the leadership and the laity

seek to involve new people in the organization on a regular basis and are willing to

change methodology in order to stay relevant with their communities (p. 253).

Chaves (2006) suggests that the growth of the modern megachurch is

economically driven. He notes that the problem facing churches is the same problem

faced by other struggling organizations like the orchestra and the theatre. There is no

ability for the church to reduce its overhead through efficiency. Chaves points out that a

preliminary analysis of financial data collected by 20 denominations revealed that real

giving did not keep pace with the real costs of churches (p. 343). This means that many

churches have been forced to curtail ministries and programs. The one notable exception

is the megachurch. The megachurch is able to keep offering programs because it has the

financial resources to do so. Chaves argues that the data supports a reality in which

people of a consumeristic culture will go to the church that offers more choice and avoid

the church with less choice (p. 337).

Among other points, Karnes, McIntosh, Morris, and Pearson-Merkowitz (2007)

note that the growth of megachurches is strongly and positively associated with

population and urbanization. They note that for megachurches to thrive they need both an

adequate population from which to draw and an adequate infrastructure to support the

populations’ attempts to join the megachurch. Because the United States population is

growing more numerous and more urbanized, accessibility to megachurches is also

growing (see Colby and Ortman (2015) Figure 1 of Projections of the Size and

Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060 for full details). Thumma and Travis

(2007) note that 80% of the population within the United States lives within a ninety-

minute drive from a megachurch.

How has this reality and all the research changed the thinking of people as it

relates to religion in the United States? Thumma and Travis (2007) suggest that the focus

on the megachurch has fundamentally altered the thinking of people as to the make up of

a typical church:

The predominance of small churches contributes to the general mental picture of

churches in our culture. The assumption is that the “typical” church is a small

organization that is fortunate if it has one full-time pastor…In the last century,

with the increasing urbanization, research has focused more on larger churches

and in some ways has shifted the mental image. In many denominational and

congregational studies, the mental picture of a representative church is one that

has a few staff members in addition to a pastor and has an attendance of around

three hundred. These mental images of the “typical” church carry considerable

power and influence when one begins to assess the place of the megachurch.

(p.5)

Furthermore, Thumma and Travis also put forth that while many smaller churches exist,

fewer people worship in these smaller churches than do those in churches with 300 or

more in attendance on a Sunday morning. More pragmatically, they argue, “The top 20

percent of churches account for 65 percent of the total resources that might be found in

churches in the United States” (2007, p. 6). The United States is growing more populous

and more urban. Research, resource allocation, and the cult of personality all have

conspired to transform society’s view of the common church.

Trends in hiring paid staff within the local church.

In his research, McIntosh (2009) notes that in order for a church to break the 125

barrier it needs to add an additional pastor on its staff ( p. 140-141). However, further

investigation reveals the ratio at which a church should add a second pastor seems to

have shrunk over time. In the 1960s, the ratio ranged between one pastor for every 350-

500 congregants (Anderson, 1965; Sweet, 1963). In the 1980s, the ratio was drastically

decreased to around one pastor for every 100 congregants (Schaller, 1980). Later,

McIntosh (2000) increased the number to 125 partly due to the pragmatic reason that in

his opinion most churches struggle to finance such a ratio ( p. 39).

Recent research conducted by Warren Bird (2014) highlights the fact that the

larger a church becomes, the lower the staff to church attendance ratio becomes. In

summary, it seems that churches have approximately one professional staff member for

every 125 Sunday morning worshippers until they reach mega-church status or slightly

below. At this point, the ratio tends to decrease the larger a church becomes.

McIntosh (2009) considers a church of 200-400 people to be a midsized church.

For the midsized church to grow it must add professional staff (p. 149). He suggests that

in order to break the 400 barrier, a church needs to hire a third full-time pastor.

According to McIntosh (2000), this hire should take place sometime when a church has

300-400 in attendance. Also, the third pastoral hire, while often a Pastor of Education,

should have as their primary focus that of finding and keeping new people engaged in the

life of the church (p. 26-27). Thus, according to the research, a true pastoral staff, that is

one that includes multiple professional staff beyond the lead pastor, likely originates

when a church has between 300-400 Sunday morning worshipers.

The impact of organizational change within the local church.

As churches grow they experience significant organizational change (McIntosh,

1999). Table 2 identifies some of the significant organizational changes that occur within

churches as they grow. There are several clear organizational metaphors that aptly

describe the church as it grows. This section will seek to articulate how the large church

is organizationally different than churches of other sizes. To do so, it will first observe

how both small and medium churches operate; next, it will review how the medium to

large transitional church operates, and finally, it will reveal how the large church

operates. Furthermore, this section will summarize the key transition point within the

growth of a church where the lead pastor must significantly change his or her approach to

leadership in order to allow the church to grow in a healthy manner.

Table 2

McIntosh’s Typology of Church Sizes

Factors

Small Church

Medium

Church Large Church

Size

15-200

worshipers

201-400

worshipers 401+ worshipers

Orientation Relational Programmatical Organizational

Structure Single Cell Stretched cell Multiple Cell

Leadership

Resides in key

families

Resides in

committees

Resides in select

leaders

Pastor Lover Administrator Leader

Decisions

Made by

congregation,

Driven by

history

Made by

committees,

Driven by

changing needs

Made by staff

and leaders,

Driven by vision

Staff

Bivocational or

single pastor

Pastor and small

staff Multiple staff

Change

Bottom up

through key

people

Middle out

through key

committees

Top down

through key

leaders

Note. Adapted from One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Bringing Out the Best in Any Size Church,

The small sized church as a family.

McIntosh (1999) suggests that when considering the small church, one needs to

envision it as a large extended family. What keeps the small church functioning properly

are good relationships within the church family. As in a normal family, celebration plays

a significant role in small churches, and one should not be surprised to find the members

of a small church celebrating many of life’s milestones together.

Because of their importance, it is often relationships that drive the decision

making process in the small church. Thus, in order for the lead pastor of a small church to

lead effectively, he must be adept at developing and nurturing key relationships within

the church family (McIntosh, 1999). What one quickly discovers, however, is that as a

church grows, the way it is lead must change in order for leadership to continue to be

effective.

The medium sized church as an organism.

In his classic work, Images of Organization, author Gareth Morgan (2006)

suggests that an organization acts as an organism when it does two key things. First, it

focuses on advancing its mission while developing its human capital. Second, it advances

its mission in light of its unique environment. He goes on to argue that in order for an

organization to succeed as an organism it needs to develop interrelated sub-systems

within the organization and allow for there to be managerial variance within each sub-

system (pp. 39-54). However, while managerial variance may exist, the successful

organization as organism will still ensure alignment among its subsystems in order to

“identify and eliminate dysfunctions” (p. 39). When healthy, the medium sized church

functions as an organism.

Table 2 notes that the medium church is often programmatically oriented,

committee led, and administrated by pastoral oversight. In many ways, the medium

church functions like Morgan’s organism. In the medium church, each various ministry

exists to meet a particular need within the local environment. For instance, a church

might offer an addiction recovery program in order to deal with high levels of alcoholism

within the local community.

Medium churches most likely have a small staff that includes a second full- time

pastor. However, the likelihood that the second full-time pastor will be able to manage all

ministry programs is impractical for two reasons. First, the most common church hire for

a second pastor is the position of youth pastor (McIntosh, 2000). These pastors are

typically not entrusted with the care of adult programs. Furthermore, the ability of a

single pastor to oversee all the programs, youth and otherwise, of the church grows more

and more unlikely the larger a church grows. Thus, the medium church would normally

place a committee over an addiction recovery program or any other adult ministry in

order to direct the ministry and details of that program. The lead pastor of the medium

church regularly connects with the committee in order to stay informed concerning the

effectiveness of the ministry and to monitor the needs of the program relative to the

larger organizational goals of the church. This process repeats itself for each major

program functioning within the local church. In the end, it is the lead pastor who is

responsible to make sure that the various programs within the church are aligned to the

overall mission of the medium church. Furthermore, the lead pastor is responsible to deal

with dysfunction as it appears in the various programs of the church.

The healthy medium church should resemble an organism. This means that the

medium church is highly aware of and responsive to its unique environment. It means

that the medium church creates various programs to meet the needs of those it hopes to

serve and that these programs function as sub-systems within the organization. There is a

reasonable amount of variance among these programs in order to meet the particular

mission of the program. At the same time, the lead pastor seeks alignment among the

various programs of the church by administrating each sub-system. However, as the

medium church grows, it faces the danger of becoming a machine in its transition into a

large church.

The medium to large transitional church as a machine.

As a church grows it faces unique organizational and leadership challenges.

Schaller (1975) notes that both growth and decline do not occur in a smooth linear

fashion, but rather growth and decline may be visualized as a stair step where churches

regularly hit plateaus that require them to do things differently (pp. 41-47). Furthermore,

Schaller argues that what works for one size church may not always work for a church of

another size. One unique challenge that churches face as they transition from being a

medium church to being a large church is the risk of becoming an organizational

machine.

Morgan (2006) notes that an organization functions as a machine when the

primary concern of the organization becomes meeting predetermined goals in the most

efficient manner possible. One of the primary differences between the organism and

machine metaphors, as laid out by Morgan, is their ability to adapt to their environment.

The organization that functions as a machine is at a significant disadvantage when it

comes to changing in order to meet the unique needs of its environment. Furthermore, the

organization that functions as a machine can contribute to the development of oppressive

bureaucracy and can actually harm those within the organization because it places

organizational goals above the particular needs of those within the organization (Morgan,

2006, p. 28).

As a medium church grows, it faces the need to adjust the way it functions. The

medium church is able to respond quickly to the unique needs found within its

environment. However, as the church grows, it can no longer rely on more and more

programs to sustain its growth. It needs to transition to a more individualized approach to

growth. Where growth came through key programs in the past, future growth will come

through the word of mouth communication of those who attend the church. If this

transition is not realized, the likelihood that the medium to large transitioning church will

become an organizational machine greatly increases. McIntosh (2009) notes that

churches are never static; they are always growing or shrinking. If churches cannot

master the needed growth transitions, they will, by default, shrink. It is imperative, then,

that the medium to large transitional church avoid becoming a bureaucracy driven

organizational machine.

The medium to large transitional church becomes an organizational machine

when it struggles to let go of a growth model that holds programs as the key to growth. If

a church becomes too big, the program approach begins to become more important than

the people who run them. This means that increased turnover, within both the volunteers

who run certain programs and the participants who are involved in these programs, will

become a reality. The larger the church becomes, the more difficult it will also become

for a church to adapt to the needs within the environment.

The large church as a culture.

Morgan (2006) identifies that an organization functions as a culture when it

successfully develops shared meaning and value among its organization. Further, an

organization as a culture requires that the organization has sufficient buy into the shared

meaning and values among its members. Morgan also notes that an organization that is

functioning as a culture recognizes that the relationship between an organization and its

environment is shared, that is it is socially constructed.

Table 2 identifies the fact that the large church is organizationally ordered, leader

led, and top down in its approach to decision making. Vision becomes increasingly

important in the large church as it is the primary driver of change and decision-making.

The large church seeks to define what the shared values of the church are and then help

its members internalize those values through various venues such as membership classes

and through select church wide programs. The large church is also concerned with

developing a relationship with its environment that is shared. It seeks to have a healthy

relationship with the community in which it is situated. This relationship is often forged

by the lead pastor who spends time interacting with those who are in positions of

influence outside the church itself.

The healthy large church develops as a culture. It works to develop shared

meaning among those involved with the church. It works diligently to imprint its shared

values into every person who regularly attends the church. It also seeks to develop a

harmonious relationship with its environment.

Examining the Role of the Large Church Lead Pastor

Certain aspects of pastoral leadership are static no matter the size of a church. For

instance, any lead pastor should meet the foundational biblical qualifications for church

leadership as laid out in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. 1 Timothy states that a pastor should be

“above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable,

hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a

lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his

children submissive…He must not be a recent convert…he must be well thought of by

outsiders” (1 Tim. 3:2-4,6a,7a, ESV). Titus adds to that list that a pastor should also be

someone whose “children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or

insubordination…not arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent, or greedy for

gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He

must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give

instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:6b, 7b-

9, ESV). Lead pastors should also hold a minimum set of core competencies regardless

of the size of their congregation. These competencies should include, at a minimum,

effective Bible teaching, interpersonal skills, and decision-making skills (Boersma, 1988,

Moates, 1981, Woodruff, 2004).

However, from the above review of organizational change that occurs in the

growing church, it has been demonstrated that the role of the lead pastor is also dynamic.

The function of the lead pastor will change given the size of the church. In medium

churches, a lead pastor needs to function as a manager or administrator of various

programs and committees. However, as a church grows, the lead pastor needs to shift

focus. Rather than managing programs, the lead pastor of a large church needs to focus

on casting a common vision and ensuring that the vision is embedded within the various

individuals who constitute the church. This transition seems to take place as a church

enters into the 300-400 range of Sunday morning attendees as will be further

demonstrated below.

A Review of the Changing Roles of the Lead Pastor Based on Church Size

Literature dealing with both church growth and pastoral leadership notes that a

significant leadership shift needs to occur as a church becomes a “large” church. This

transition seems to take place somewhere between when a church has 300-400 regularly

attending members. While the numbers vary slightly between authors, they do agree on

the basics of what type of shift is required.

Green (2007) has done some considerable work in understanding the veracity of

the various classifications first put forth by Rothauge (1984) and adapted by Crow

(1997). Rothauge originally categorized Nazarene churches into four main groups based

on size. Crow later redeveloped the groupings keeping their size classifications while

changing their titles.

Originally, Rothauge (1984) noted that a significant change occurred in pastoral

leadership as a church transitioned between being a family enterprise church (150-350

members) and a corporate enterprise church (350+ members) as can be seen in Table 3.

For the smaller church, “the pastoral work of the clergy is carried out in the setting of

administration” (p. 18). However, in the larger church, the lead pastor becomes the

symbol of “unity and stability for the church” (p. 26). Green (2007) agrees with this

observation, noting that “organizational complexity increases with size, the way pastors

function is reshaped, new and different pastors skill sets are required, and congregations

exhibit very different expectations” (p. 5).

In his discussion of how the lead pastor needs to change as a church transitions

from being a smaller church to being a larger church, Green (2005) noted several

important milestones: “Essential qualities in the Corporate Enterprise church included the

following: the ability to release ministry to others; trusting others with ministry tasks,

responsibilities, and authority; delegation” (p. 162). The role of the lead pastor at this

level also shifts in that he spends more of his time interacting with key staff, the

governing board of the church, and the community in which the church is situated.

Table 3

Comparison of the Lead Pastor’s Role Based on Size of Church

Role of the Lead Pastor in a Extended

Family Enterprise Church (150-350)

Role of the Lead Pastor in a

Corporate Enterprise Church

(350+)

Sustain physical points of contact with

parishioners.

Ministers through others.

Be present in times of crisis. Willing to sacrifice relationships for

the sake of the vision.

Desire to know everyone. Narrow the scope of relationships to

strategic contacts.

Relate to larger body through structure. Relate to the larger body through

communication (i.e. - preaching)

Manage specialized leaders (i.e. -

children's pastor, youth pastor, etc.)

Define mission, vision, values

Oversee business aspects of the church

McIntosh (2009) titles a church of 200-400 individuals as the “managerial

church.” One of the key characteristics of a church of this size is that the lead pastor

functions as an administrator of the organization. The lead pastor may have at his

disposal a small team, but he is primarily responsible for making sure each committee

accomplishes the right work. He manages the work. However, for a church to grow

larger, “the senior pastor must begin thinking as a leader more than an administrator”

(p.150).

McIntosh (2009) names a church of 400-800 an “organizational church.” At the

400 mark and above, a church is required to take on a certain level of organizational

complexity that requires the lead pastor to lead. The lead pastor begins to spend less time

directly overseeing or running ministry and more time casting vision for the future to a

skilled team of staff and volunteers.

George (1994) argues that a large church must slowly begin to hire staff whose

primary role is to develop other leaders. McIntosh (2009) agrees, suggesting that in the

church of 400 or more the lead pastor begins to function as one who trains other leaders.

The larger the church grows, the further down the organizational structure the leadership

development travels. Large churches are those that have a staff focused on developing

teams to do ministry.

A Review of the Unique Competencies of the Large Church Lead Pastor

It has been demonstrated thus far through the literature that a church transitions to

being a large church at some point between having 300-400 regular attendees. As a

church approaches this transition, it is important to note what competencies the lead

pastor must gain or sharpen. The core competencies of the lead pastor of a large church

should be focused. The large church lead pastor must cast vision for the board and staff

(Green, 2005; McIntosh, 2009; Schaller, 1983). The larger the church, the greater the

expectancy on the part of the membership that the lead pastor will actively cast a vision

for the future (McIntosh, 2009). He must lead through developing relationships with

other key leaders within the church (George, 1994; McIntosh, 2009). The lead pastor

must also lead through effective communication. Finally, the lead pastor of the large

church must be able to lead by functioning as the church figurehead within the

community.

Leading through strategic vision casting.

The large church lead pastor must be skilled in casting a strong vision for the

future. Thumma and Bird (2015) note that larger churches are almost twice as likely to

say that they have a clear purpose and mission than are smaller churches. In his

discussion of the large church minister, Keller (2006) suggests that not only must the

large church minister be a vision caster, but he must also be a vision keeper. In this way,

Keller suggests that two key ways the large church pastor keeps vision is through

intentional assimilation and intentional staff hiring. As it relates to assimilation, the large

church minister must cast vision for potential new members by ensuring that they have a

solid understanding of the type of church they are seeking to join. As it relates to hiring

staff, the large church minister must not only look for skill and tenure but, according to

Keller, must also look for a vision fit since the large church only does two or three key

things very well.

As a general rule, the larger the church the more the lead pastor is independent of

any denominational ties as it relates to casting vision (Gramby-Sobukwe & Hoiland,

2009; Keller, 2006). One particular place that this is clearly seen is in the area of global

missions. The smaller denominational church most often participates in denominationally

developed mission programs while larger churches will often create their own

partnerships or programs. This is not to say that this is done against the wishes of the

denomination, but rather in most cases the larger church is more directly involved in the

strategic development and vision casting of the mission initiative. This in turn requires

the large church lead pastor to be a strategic thinker and vision caster in a variety of

settings beyond the walls of the church.

Vision casting also includes the concept of strategic planning. Shah, David and

Surawski (2004) note that larger churches are more likely to engage in strategic planning

than are smaller churches. Furthermore, among those churches that do utilize strategic

planning, Barna (2012) notes that large church pastors are more interested in measuring

demographics, revamping financial processes, and working with fundraising consultants

than are pastors of smaller churches. The larger the church, the more the lead pastor must

be adept at reading numbers, engaging experts and/or consultants, and crafting long term

strategies for the church.

Leading through relationships with other leaders.

The large church lead pastor must develop a core leadership team that supports

him in running both the staff and daily ministries of the local church. For the large church

at the lower end of the scale, this may simply be one or two other associate pastors who

in turn run a core team of volunteers. For the lead pastor of a large church at the higher

end of the scale, this team is a critical group of executive pastors or associate lead pastors

who help run the rest of the staff and set vision with the lead pastor. This process of

ministering through a key team is actually a critical part of the process of the lead pastor

transitioning from the role of manager to the role of leader (Hawco, 2005). McIntosh

(2000) illustrates how the lead pastor’s role changes as the church grows increasingly

large in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4

The Changing Nature of the Lead Pastor’s Shepherding Role

Church

Size

Senior Pastor's Shepherd Role

Up to 200 Shepherd all people personally

200-400 Shepherd all people through volunteers

400-600 Shepherd all people through leaders

800 or

Shepherd all people through pastoral staff

Note. Adapted from Staff Your Church for Growth: Building Team Ministry in the 21st

Table 5

The Pastor's Transition from Manager to Leader

Church

Size

Management Role of the Senior

Pastor

1-29 Worker

30-54 Skilled Worker

55-74 Lead Man

75-199 Foreman

200-249 Supervisor

250-349 Middle Management

350-799 Top Management

800-1,999 President

2,000+ Chairman

Note. Adapted from Staff Your Church for Growth: Building Team Ministry in the 21st

The large church lead pastor must also relate to the governing board of the large

church. The lead pastor of the large church must begin to rely on the collective leadership

of a governing group. Malphurs (2005) suggests that a governing board should be

primarily focused on praying, monitoring, deciding, and advising with and for the lead

pastor of the large church. He points out that the governing board is ultimately

responsible for the church but invests most of its authority into the lead pastor. In this

situation, the lead pastor must relate well to the governing board. He must guard against

micromanagement while avoiding the pitfall of getting ahead of the governing board.

The relationship between lead pastor and board is particularly dynamic. Cornforth

(1999) asserts, “There is no single determinant of board power and influence over senior

managers” (p. 26). However, the lead pastor would do well to develop informal

relationships with board members while at the same time providing the right amount of

information for board members to be well-informed decision makers. One of the key

markers of an effective board manager relationship is the ability for the board to be

comfortable and informed enough to ask the right questions of senior management

(Cornforth, 1999).

Leading through communication.

The large church lead pastor needs to be able to communicate effectively in a

large group setting (McIntosh, 2009, Schaller, 1983). Communication is a critical aspect

of leadership. Hackman and Johnson (2013) broadly define communication as “the

transfer of symbols, which allows individuals to create meaning” (p. 5). They further

suggest that “leadership is human (symbolic) communication that modifies the attitudes

and behaviors of others in order to meet shared group goals and needs” (p. 11).

Communication is what builds and develops the relationships necessary for leadership to

exist (DuBrin, 2015; Graen & Uhl-Bein, 1995).

The large church lead pastor must be a highly effective communicator on the

stage. A brief glance over job descriptions for large church lead pastors reflects

expectancy on the part of large churches that their lead pastor has extensive experience

and skill in the discipline of preaching. A survey of large church pastors done by the

Leadership Network noted that the majority of large church pastors choose to identify as

“preacher-teacher” rather than pastor (Bird, 2009). The same study noted that pastors of

the largest churches spend more time preaching and more time in sermon preparation

than do pastors of smaller church.

Recent research also notes that the larger a church becomes the more likely it is

that the church, and by necessity its lead pastor, will be adept at utilizing social media for

religious purposes (Fogenay, 2013). In her discussion, Foegenay (2013) notes that large

churches are more likely to utilize Facebook and Twitter for community among their

congregants. A 2013 Barna report effectively supports this research by noting that large

church pastors are among those who utilize both Twitter and Facebook most frequently.

Further, this same Barna study noted that most large church lead pastors believe that

social media would comprise “a significant part of their ministry” in the next two years

(Barna, 2013). Thus, the large church lead pastor must be able communicate effectively

both in person and via social media.

Leading by functioning as the church figurehead within the community.

Finally, the large church lead pastor must connect well with the community in

which the church is situated. Rananaware (2015) conducted research that sought to

discover whether Mintzberg’s model of leadership roles applied to church leadership. In

his research, he concluded that 90% of pastors play the role of figurehead in the church

and represent the church to the entire community (p. 30). He also noted that 100% of

pastors play the role of spokesman for the church (p. 34). As spokesman, the pastor is

required to represent the church well within the community, society in general, and

within the denomination if applicable (p. 33).

While all pastors fill the roles of figurehead and spokesperson, the larger a church

becomes, the more vital it is that the lead pastor function exceptionally well in these

roles. The larger a church becomes, the more well-known it is to the community in which

it is situated, the denomination of which it is a part, and society in general. McIntosh

(2009) notes that part of the function of the large church lead pastor is brand

management. One of the key functions of the large church pastor is to ensure that the

church develops and keeps a solid reputation within the community. He must be

comfortable interacting with key political, social, and religious leaders within the

community. He must be ready to engage those who would confuse the brand of the

church with clarity and warmth. By doing so, the large church lead pastor will ensure that

the church is understood correctly in the community.

A Summary of the Large Church Lead Pastor

As has been clearly demonstrated through the literature, the large church lead

pastor differs significantly from his counterparts who are pastoring smaller churches.

Churches who successfully navigate the path to becoming a large church must then

ensure that they have a large church lead pastor at the helm. The large church lead pastor

is one who is an adept teacher yet is also one who displays strong administrative skills.

The large church lead pastor forgoes knowing everyone in his congregation and chooses

instead to develop specific relationships with key leaders within the church. He is skilled

at casting vision and strategic thinking and is able to communicate the vision at all levels.

He is an experienced teacher and is not afraid to represent his church on a larger stage by

acting as the figurehead and brand manager for his church.

Leadership and Power

This section of the study focuses on the unique role power plays in the life of the

leader. First, the theological and theoretical bases of leadership will be considered.

Second, both the theological and theoretical connections of power will be studied. Third,

the unique role of social power will be presented and contrasted against other forms of

leadership. Fourth, using French & Raven’s taxonomy, the major forms of social power

will be discussed from both a secular and a biblical point of view. Finally, some of the

implications power has on leadership will be considered.

Theological Basis for Leadership

Throughout Scripture it is abundantly clear that God is concerned with the issue

of leadership. From the opening of Scripture, God presents Himself as the sole authority

within creation. It was God who set the world into motion and He who set the boundaries

within creation for what is good (Gen. 1-2).

God is the leader over sacred organizations.

God displays a desire to exert leadership over sacred organizations. He identifies

Himself as the ultimate authority of Israel in the Old Testament (Exod. 20:2) as well as

the head of the church in the New Testament (Col. 1:18). God also discloses that He

desires for humanity to share in the leadership of sacred organizations in both the Old and

New Testaments. In the Old Testament, God established an order of priests (Lev. 8),

judges (Exod. 18), kings (1 Sam. 9-11) and prophets (Exod. 7; Num. 12:6-8). In the New

Testament, God established elders to shepherd the church (1 Pet. 5) and gives leadership

as a spiritual gift to empower believers to accomplish God’s work (Rom. 12:8).

God is the leader over secular organizations.

God also displays a desire to exert leadership over secular organizations. He

identifies Himself as the ultimate authority over the nations in the Old Testament (Jer. 32,

Isa. 51, Ps. 46). He also makes it known that He is the ultimate authority over the nations

in the New Testament (Rom. 13).

God exerts influence within sacred and secular organizations.

In Scripture, God also displays a desire to affect the leadership activities within

particular organizations. Thus, the Word of God offers counsel and instruction to all the

major functions that take place within an organization. The functions of an organization

are organizing, planning, staffing, directing, and evaluating.

Organizing is a critical process within any organization. Anthony (2005) notes

that organizing is the process by which an organization “depicts the relationships between

each of the members of the organization and…prepares job descriptions so those who

serve will know what is expected of them in terms of qualifications and responsibilities”

(p. 18). The Bible is clear that God should play a part within the organizational process.

Organization should be done under the leadership and influence of God (Prov. 10). When

organizing, the book of Proverbs reminds the leader to seek godly and wise advice (Prov.

12). The Bible also suggests that contentment and benevolence should be visible within

any organizational plan (Prov. 29-30).

Planning is the process of determining where one wants to be in the future and

developing a reasonable course of action to arrive at that destination by using the

resources available (Anthony, 2005). According to MacKinney (1984), planning is a

universal reality within every organization . The Bible makes it evident that God desires

to be part of the planning process. In the book of Proverbs, God offers wise counsel to the

organizational leader who is preparing to plan. First, the leader is reminded to involve

God in the process (Prov. 2). Next, the leader is told that God gives insight to leaders who

are seeking to discover the right path (Prov. 3). God reminds the leader that hard work

helps the planning process succeed (Prov. 12). Finally, God informs the leader that

reflection and advice are invaluable to the planning process (Prov. 14-15).

Staffing is the process of “selecting, orienting, training, and developing the

competent people who are needed to accomplish the goals and objectives of an

organization” (Anthony, 2005, p. 21). The Bible makes it transparent that God desires to

be part of this process. Proverbs 6 reminds the leader that hiring a skilled employee who

is immoral will always lead to ruin. Proverbs 12 reveals that hiring a lifelong learner is

wise. Proverbs 22 suggests that the best staff members are those who display both skill

and morality. Staffing is critical for any organization because it multiplies leadership. As

one author suggests, “Multiplying leadership is another expression often referred to as

discipleship” (Purcell, 2005, p. 246).

“Directing is concerned with managing people once they have arrived on the

scene,” according to Anthony and Estep (2005, p. 293). In the endeavor of directing, the

Bible states that God should be involved. Leaders should direct people to honor God first

in all things (Prov. 3). When directing, leaders are encouraged by the Bible to see the

healthy use of discipline as an expression of love (Prov. 13). The Word of God

encourages leaders to think before speaking (Prov. 15) and to direct with patience (Prov.

25).

Evaluation is related to the process of determining how an organization is

administrating its resources (Anthony, 2005). Evaluation closely aligns with the biblical

concept of stewardship, a topic on which the Bible has much to say. In Proverbs 1,

leaders are challenged to inform their evaluations with the Word of God. This means that

what God finds important, leaders should find important. It also means that leaders

should be less concerned with the things God finds unimportant. Furthermore, the Word

of God urges leaders to seek truth in the evaluation process (Prov. 12).

God involves humanity in the process of leadership.

Biblically speaking, leadership is a gifted office. Early within the Scriptures, God

identifies that one of the roles humanity would be endowed with was that of vice-regent

(Gen. 1:28). God gave humanity dominion over all of creation. This dominion was,

however, purposeful: “The divine mission to ‘subdue’ and to ‘dominate’ was no license

for mankind to abuse the creative orders…rather man was only to be God’s viceroy and

therefore accountable to Him” (Kaiser, 1991, p. 76). Accordingly, humanity has been

tasked with leadership and, as such, must exercise leadership appropriately. In his

discussion of Genesis 1:28, theologian Kenneth Mathews (1996) suggests, “The Hebrew

love for life and the sacredness of all life assumed a linkage between human

righteousness and the welfare of the earth” ( p. 174-175). Thus, human leadership in

general must be exercised for the good of creation and the glory of God.

Jesus is God’s example of leadership par excellence

Jesus Christ is the ultimate example of human leadership. First, Jesus exercised

leadership for the good of humanity (Eph. 2). Second, Jesus exercised leadership for the

good of creation (Rom. 8). Third, Jesus also exercised his leadership for the glory of God

(Heb. 12:2). As such, Jesus serves as the model leader for all humanity. Ford (1991)

offers eight reasons for Christ to serve as the model for leadership.

First, Jesus was truly human…Second, Jesus said his model is for us…Third, the

kingdom which he proclaimed and embodied is for now as well as for the

future…Fourth, Jesus has clearly influenced leadership in a very practical

way…Fifth, Jesus’ leadership was both culturally relevant to his time and

transcultural…Sixth, Jesus’ leadership was…value driven…Seventh, the

knowledge that Jesus is a perfect leader may keep us from holding unrealistic

expectations of ourselves and others…Eighth, Jesus gave his followers

responsibilities, but he also promised them the gift and leadership of his Holy

Spirit. (pp. 31-31)

These eight reasons reinforce the reality that God has offered Jesus as the model leader

for all of humanity.

God reserves ultimate authority and leadership over all creation.

While God shares His leadership with humanity, it is important to note that He

has retained overall authority and leadership over creation for Himself. The book of

Revelation reveals that at the end of time God will re-establish His reign over creation in

a visible and irrevocable way (Rev. 20-22). Thus, the Bible starts with God having all

authority, and the Bible ends with God having all authority. In between the beginning and

the end, the Bible reveals a God who is still in control but chooses to work through His

creation, not in spite of it.

Theoretical Basis for Leadership

From both a macro and micro level, God is intensely interested in the topic of

leadership. The Word of God makes clear that all authority, which is exercised on earth,

is derived from Him. As such, how one chooses to exercise authority must be in line with

the stated will of God in Scripture. Over the past century, many theories have been

discussed that seek to help the reader understand how leadership is situated in real life

and how the influence of leadership is exercised. Several key theories have been put forth

that seek to explain the essence of leadership. Briefly tracing the development of these

theories will aid the overall development of both the conception and definition of

leadership itself.

Trait based approach to leadership.

The first theory developed in the twentieth century was the trait theory. This

theory was built on the earlier idea that leaders were great men born and fashioned by

history itself. Thomas Carlyle most notably developed this “Great Man” theory in the

mid-nineteenth century. The trait theory assumes that leadership requires the exercise of

certain traits on the part of the leader. Countless scholars have sought to correctly define

which particular traits are necessary for leadership to exist (Bowden, 1926; Cowley,

1931; Kohs & Irle, 1920). While this theory has fallen out of popularity, due in large part

to the difficulty that exists in adequately narrowing a list of leadership traits via the

research, two more modern studies offer a high level and relevant view of the trait theory

today. Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002) provide a qualitative review and meta-

analysis of the trait perspective in leadership research noting that the trait based theory

may still have some fruit for those researchers focused on leadership. Judge, Piccolo, and

Kosalka (2009) see connections between future leadership research and the trait theory by

suggesting a link may be present between the trait theory and such modern topics as

“evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics, and socioanalytic theory” (p. 871).

Style based approach to leadership.

The next major theory to develop was the style theory of leadership. Many see

Stogdill’s (1948) work as the launch of this theory. He suggested that leadership is a

blend of task behaviors and relationship behaviors. Two landmark studies conducted

during this era were the Ohio State Studies and the Michigan State Studies.

A group of researchers at Ohio State determined to investigate how individuals

acted when they led a group (see Stogdill & Coons, 1957). They discovered that leaders

needed to be adept at both organizational structuring and human relations. Similarly, a

group of researchers at the University of Michigan investigated the impact of a leader’s

behavior on performance (see Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, 1950). Their research found

similar results as that of the research done at Ohio State. Namely, a leader displays

various amounts of skill related to the human and non-human sides of management.

These two studies identified the fact that leaders needed to be consciously aware of the

impact their behavior has on their followers. These two studies also identified the need

for both technical and human proficiency in a leader.

Blake and McCanse (1991) published The Leadership Grid based, in large part,

on the research flowing from the style approach to leadership. Their work was built on

the earlier research done by Blake and Moulton (1964) originally published as The

Managerial Grid. The Leadership Grid attempted to offer to leaders a scale by which

they could understand how their concern for results, as well as their concern for people,

impacted their leadership. This grid offers one of the best examples of the practical

application of the style based approach to leadership.

The leadership as a style theory is interested in discovering the right skills or

behaviors that are required on the part of the leader in order to exercise influence

(Uleman, 1991). This theory believes that the behaviors are universal, context dependent,

and can be taught (Field, 2003).

The situational approach to leadership.

Following the style approach to leadership was the situational approach to

leadership. The situation based leadership approach was developed by Hersey and

Blanchard (1969) and was based on the work of Reddin (1967). These two works

suggested that in order to be effective, a leader needed to recognize and adjust his or her

approach based on the individual needs of the follower as well as the dictates of the

particular situation the leader and follower faced. Situational leadership challenges a

leader to understand the best level at which to engage the follower in order to exert

influence. As such, situation based leadership theory seeks to determine how best to act

given the context of a particular situation (Dansereau, Cashman, & Graen, 1973; House,

1971; Vroom & Yetton, 1973).

Hersey and Blanchard (1985) also highlighted the idea that the situation dictates

the approach a leader should take. Blanchard, Zigarmi, and Zigarmi (1985) developed the

Situational Leadership II model dividing leadership into two segments: directive (task)

behaviors and supportive (relational) behaviors (see Figure 1). From this point, the

Figure 1. Situational Leadership II model. Adapted from “Situational Leadership After

25 Years: A Retrospective, by K. H. Blanchard, D. Zigarmi, & R. B. Nelson, 1993,

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1, p. 26.

authors identified four possible leadership styles that may be appropriate in any given

situation. Each style has a varying degree of direction and support based on the maturity

of the follower. The first level is directing, which requires high task behavior and low

relational behavior. The second level is coaching, which requires high task behavior and

high relational behavior. The third level is supporting, which requires high relational

behavior and low task behavior. The fourth level is called delegating, which requires low

relational behavior and low task behavior.

Where the style theory of leadership believes that a universal list of behaviors

exists which, if followed, can help an individual learn to be a leader, the situation theory

disagrees. The situation theory simply states that certain behaviors are necessary for

effective leadership, but these behaviors vary depending on the situations and the players

involved.

Servant leadership theory.

In the 1970s, Robert Greenleaf (1977) suggested a different approach to

leadership that became known as “servant leadership.” Servant leadership argues that the

leader must serve his or her followers if he or she desires to lead them. It places the needs

of the follower before the needs of the leader and believes that in doing so all will benefit.

Greenleaf and Spears (2002) noted the presence of 10 characteristics in Greenleaf’s

writing that are central to the development of servant leadership. These 10 characteristics

are listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight,

stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community.

The servant leadership approach focused researchers and leaders alike onto the

needs of the follower. As time progressed, the focus of leadership theories progressed

more and more toward understanding the follower.

The leader-member exchange theory of leadership.

The leader-member exchange (LMX) theory traces its roots back to research done

by Dansereau, Graen, and Haga (1975), Graen (1976), and Graen and Cashman (1975).

The LMX theory suggests that leadership develops as the relationship between the leader

and the follower develops. It is traditionally marked by three phases.

The first phase is known as the “stranger phase.” In this phase, subordinates

submit to a leader out of obligation and act in self-interest rather than for the good of the

team. The second phase is known as the “acquaintance phase.” In this phase, trust begins

to develop between the leader and the subordinate that leads the subordinate to begin

acting in the best interest of the group as opposed to only acting out of self-interest. The

third phase is called the “mature partnership phase.” In this final phase, trust has been

fully developed between the leader and the subordinate. This leads to negotiated working

conditions between the leader and the subordinate. It also leads the subordinate to make

decisions for the betterment of the team on a consistent basis.

The above does not represent an exhaustive history of scholarly research related

to the topic of leadership. However, it does reveal that the understanding of leadership

has progressed significantly over the past century. After having reviewed the following

development of the concept of leadership, it is important to pause and seek to properly

define both leadership and power.

Defining leadership.

While leadership may be, in the words of Burns (1978), “the most observed and

least understood phenomena on earth,” it is not completely indefinable ( p. 2). In all

actuality, a proliferation of definitions exist that seek to help the reader understand the

essence of leadership. For example, Kotter (1990) defines leadership as “developing a

vision of the future, communicating the direction to those whose cooperation may be

needed, and keeping people moving in the right direction toward that vision of the future

despite the obstacles (p. 5). Rost (1993) suggests that leadership is “an influence

relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their

mutual purposes (p. 102). Kouzes and Posner (2012) posit that leadership is the “art of

mobilizing others to want to struggle for shared aspirations” (p. 30). Peter Northouse

(2013) defines leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences a group of

individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 5).

As these definitions suggest, there are at least a few core concepts required in any

leadership definition. The exercise of influence, a person exerting the influence, an

individual or group of individuals being influenced, and a common goal are all necessary

requirements of leadership.

A Theology of Power

The Bible is far from silent when it comes to the topic of power. This section will

look at how power is displayed in the Old Testament as belonging to and originating in

God. It will then look to the New Testament to understand how power is kept and

displayed in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Finally, biblical service will be reviewed as

a key expression of power.

Power in the Old Testament.

The Old Testament offers the reader a rich understanding of the power of God

through the various acts of God particularly within creation. By extracting a well-

developed understanding of the power of God in the creation act, one can then begin to

understand the power activity of God displayed throughout the Old Testament.

God is omnipotent.

The Bible in general and the Old Testament in particular present to the reader a

God who is all-powerful. As Hodge (1872/1997) suggests, “The simple idea of the

omnipotence of God, that He can do without effort, and by a volition, whatever He wills,

is the highest conceivable idea of power, and is that which is clearly presented in the

Scriptures” (p. 407). Thus, throughout the Old Testament the reader finds many allusions

to the omnipotence of God (Jer. 32; Ps. 115, 135; Job 42). Packer (1993) defines God’s

omnipotence as “the power to do everything that in his rational and moral perfection (i.e.

His wisdom and goodness) God wills to do.” Thus, God’s power is not absolute in the

idea that He can do anything He wants no matter the consequence. Because of God’s

rationality, holiness, and perfection, He wills not to do things that contradict His other

attributes (Henry, 1999). God is powerful enough to effect any type of change that is in

alignment with His character.

God is creator.

One of the key ways God has revealed His power is through the act of creation.

The opening verses of the first book of the Bible are dedicated to the creative activity and

power of God: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). The

first thing one must note prior even to God’s creative activity is God’s being. Bonhoeffer

(1937) notes that due to God’s complete freedom and ability to create something out of

nothing creation rests entirely in God’s hand by God’s power (Grouch, 2004). The Bible

makes clear that the Trinitarian God is the one who created all things (Gen. 1, 2; Ps. 33;

Isa. 48; Jer. 10; John 1; Col 1; Heb. 1, 11). Furthermore, the Old Testament articulates

that God created all things alone, from nothing, and without outside help (Harris, Archer,

& Waltke, 1980, p. 126). God has displayed His power through the creation of the world,

yet His power to create also reveals that through His power He is sovereign.

God is sovereign.

Because God is the sole creator, He is the sole sovereign ruler over all creation.

This means that God has the power to rule over all things. This reality is clearly displayed

in the Old Testament. After offering an excellent summary of the historical understanding

of God’s power and sovereignty, Henry (1999) summarizes the subject well:

The God of the Bible is declared to be the everlasting inexhaustible God (Isa.

40:28–31), the sovereign lord of all creation and of universal history (Isa. 40–55).

His covenant embraces the behavior of nature and the direction of history and

overrules all chaos and calamity. Whether in Genesis or in the Psalms or Isaiah or

elsewhere, bara designates God’s incomparable creative activity not only in the

cosmos but also in history and in the redemptive renewal of sinners (cf. Ps. 51:10,

“Create in me a clean heart, O God”). One and the same term is used for God’s

originating activity in fashioning man and fashioning the world (Gen. 1:1, 21, 27,

2:3 f., 5:1 f., 6:7; Deut. 4:3; and often in the Psalms and in Isaiah) as well as for

God’s shaping of history (Ex. 34:10; Nu. 16:30; Jer. 31:32; Isa. 45:7, 48:7, 65:18).

(p. 330)

God is an omnipotent, creative, and sovereign God. As such, God was able to call to

Himself a people through Abraham. The nation of Israel consistently viewed God as

being their sole sovereign ruler even if their practice contradicted with their confession

(Buber, 1990). The reality of God’s sovereign power also leads the reader to understand

that His plans will ultimately come to pass, that in fact He is the sovereign God of past,

present, and future events (Henry, 1999).

God created humanity as His image bearers and vice-regents.

In the act of creating, God created humanity with a unique purpose and plan. God

fashioned human beings in His image (Gen. 1:27). Human beings are the only part of

God’s creation that share a similar image as God. Kaiser (1991) points out that the

possibility of fellowship and communication with God, the exercise of responsible

dominion, and leadership over the creation owned by God all flow from the fact that

humanity bears God’s image (p. 74-75).

When God created humanity, He endowed them with the ability to rule over His

creation (Gen 1:28; Ps. 8). Humanity has been appointed by God to be His royal

representatives to rule the earth in His place (Mathews, 1996). As vice-regents, man is to

steward all of God’s creation (Gen. 1:28). Man is to use his own will to bring the will of

God to all creation. Man is to develop the full potential of God’s creation and extend the

glory of God over the entire face of the earth.

God determines what is good.

As the sole sovereign creator, God has also exercised His power in determining

the good (Gen. 1-2). It is important to note that God alone has the power to deem

something good. Henry (1999) suggests this reality can be seen in many of God’s acts in

the Old Testament including His declaration of the essential goodness of the original

creation (Gen. 1), a sovereign command that formulated the nature of good and evil (Gen.

2), in the condemnation of sinners and the promise of salvation (Gen. 3), in His covenant

with Israel (Gen. 15; Jer. 31), in His supreme salvific manifestation in Jesus the sinless

Savior (Isa. 53), and in His coming final judgment and separation of mankind for a dual

destiny in eternity (Rev. 20). Bonhoeffer (1937) essentially agrees with the idea that it is

God alone who can determine the good (Grouch, 2004). Accordingly, Bonhoeffer argues

that it is for man to submit to the sovereign will of God through obedience and not to

question the essence of good and evil within their own power.

God ordained social relationships, social leadership, and the exercise of power.

The Old Testament also lays out the makings of human social interaction and the

proper exercise of power. All human authority is couched under God’s ultimate rule and

power (Ps. 96; Isa. 43). God sets out laws for the daily living of His people (Deut. 4).

God allowed for humanity to lead itself through public offices (1 Sam. 8). God is

involved in the leadership of all nations (Dan. 2). God is concerned that human leaders

act ethically and responsibly (Deut. 17). God is particularly interested that all people

interact with one another in a socially responsible manner and lays out a variety of

stipulations for social interaction throughout the Old Testament (Lalleman de-Winkel,

2005; Wright 1983, 2013).

Power in the New Testament

The New Testament offers two key additions to the idea of power as developed

within the Old Testament. First, the New Testament reveals the power of Jesus Christ in

both the sustaining of God’s creation and in the completion of God’s sovereign plan.

Second, the New Testament uncovers the empowering work of the Holy Spirit in the life

of God’s people.

The power of Jesus Christ.

The New Testament clearly states that all authority and power have been

bestowed upon Jesus Christ (Matt. 28; John 13; Col. 1; Heb. 1). As part of the triune

Godhead, Jesus sustains all of creation through His power (Acts 17; Col 1; Heb. 1). It is

Jesus who will bring about the completion of God’s sovereign plan (Rev. 5, 20, 21).

Because Jesus offered his life as a willing sacrifice, the New Testament states that

He has power over death and sin (Rom. 6; 1 Cor. 15). Through the will of God the Father,

Jesus will also reign eternally over all creation (Phil. 2). Jesus has the power to grant

certain people access to his eternal kingdom (Luke 23). Jesus also has the power to deny

certain people access to his eternal kingdom (John 14). Because Jesus has been given

such authority and power by God the Father, Jesus has the right to direct the actions and

attitudes of his followers, and He also has the power to help them (Blomberg, 1992).

Jesus also has the power to unite people together through his blood (Eph. 2). It is

Jesus alone who is able to cease the hostility that exists among humanity through his

powerful work on the cross. Jesus stands as a mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2)

and, as such, is working to bring the kingdom of God to bear on the earth through His

people (Matt. 16; 2 Cor. 10).

The empowerment of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is a gift from Jesus Christ (John 16). The Holy Spirit has been

given to Christians specifically and to the world in general. The Holy Spirit empowers

believers to accomplish the mission of Jesus through His indwelling (John 14, 16). The

Holy Spirit empowers through the giving of gifts and through the enlightenment of

teaching (John 14; Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4; 1 Pet. 4). Borchert (2002) notes that the

Holy Spirit has the power to confirm and interpret the message of Jesus in the life of the

believer (p. 132). The Christian is able to live the Christ-like life precisely because of the

indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit acts as a seal on the lives of

Christians, assuring them of divine sonship (1 Cor. 1; 1 John 5).

Yet the Holy Spirit is not for the Christian alone; rather He also serves to convict

the unregenerate concerning the presence of sin in their life. So one of the key roles that

the Holy Spirit plays is in helping humanity to understand how God has called them to

live in right relationship with God and each other (Eph. 2).

Biblical service as an expression of power.

The Bible presents Jesus as the best example of how a Christian is to exercise

power properly. Jesus directed His power in a God-honoring way (John 1). Ford (1991)

asserts, “Jesus’ leadership is not value-neutral…it is uniquely a leadership related to the

dynamic of God’s purposes” (p. 31). Jesus also modeled a power in service to others

(John 13). What the canon makes clear is that Jesus as the servant is the unique Christian

model for the correct use of power in leadership.

Service begins with a person offering his services to God. Two separate Gospel

writers, Matthew (Matt. 6:24) and Luke (Luke 16:13), make mention of this very fact.

Stein (1992) suggests that the primary reason for this singleness of focus is the issue of

loyalty. Loyalty toward God demands that service be offered. Thus, while one finds

multiple references to acts of service rendered to someone other than God, any discussion

of service given in the New Testament is ultimately related back to being done while

maintaining loyalty toward God throughout the process.

The Apostle Paul offers an excellent example of service functioning as a trait of

the servant leader. For Paul, serving God was the basis of his motivation for leadership.

There are several texts that reveal this, but the clearest are Romans 1:1 and 1 Corinthians

9:16. In the latter verse, Paul acknowledges necessity, or a very specific obligation, laid

upon him in regard to his preaching—serving as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ

(Rom. 1:1; Tit. 1:1). Thus, for Paul, service was motivation for leadership in the context

of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Biblical service can, at times, serve as the motivation for an

individual to be a leader, as is evidenced by Paul.

Fairholm (1997) defines service as “helping people realize their own power and

using that newly realized strength to win improvements in their situations” (p. 91). The

New Testament employs the word “service” in ways that communicate several varying

nuances about service as a behavior. Analyzing these various nuances will enable the

reader to piece together a full understanding of how the New Testament understands

service to be a behavior. The New Testament presents service with the understanding that

service is rendered out of an obligation of status, an obligation of means, and as an act of

love.

Sometimes the word “service” is used in the New Testament to convey a sense of

obligation to serve based on status (Matt. 6:24; Rom. 12:11; Gal. 5:13; Eph. 6:6-8; 1 Tim.

6:2; 1 Pet. 4:10; Col. 3:22). This concept of service as a sense of obligation may be fully

grasped when one investigates the Greek word from which the English word derives.

According to The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, “All the words in this

word group serve either to describe the status of a slave or an attitude corresponding to

that of a slave” (Kittel & Friedrich, 1964, p. 261). The New Testament speaks of times

when one’s status obliges him to serve, times when an individual simply has no choice

but to serve. George’s (1994) reference to Paul’s usage of service in Galatians 5 as an

ethic of obligation reinforces the way in which service is to be understood. In Ephesians

6, service is used to show that Christians are obligated, by their status, to serve God.

Thielman (2010) sees service as highlighting the subordinate position of the server in

respect to the one being served. In 1 Peter 4:10, the Apostle Peter uses service to obligate

those who have been given gifts from God to use them to serve each other for God’s

sake. Thus, the New Testament reminds the reader that there are times when service,

whether done toward God, His people, those in need, or earthly masters, is done out of an

obligation of status.

At other times the word service is also used to stress the fact that some are obliged

to serve because of their means (2 Cor. 9:12, 11:8; Heb. 9:14). Garland (1999) points out

a very important point in regards to this type of service: “The word translated ‘service’

was used in Paul’s day for public service, such as the contributions of money or services

for a specific cause by the wealthier residents the city-state” (p. 413). The wealthy of

Paul’s day were under obligation to do something with their wealth that would benefit the

state. Paul borrows this word and retools it with a Christian perspective by arguing that

there are times when individuals are obligated to serve because of the means with which

God has entrusted them.

The New Testament also advocates that service can be an act of love (Matt. 8:15;

Mark 1:21; Luke 4:29, 10:40, 12:37; Acts 6:2; 1 Tim. 3:10; Rom. 12:7). Narrowly

defined, this usage of the word “service” is simply a translation of a Greek word that

means to serve someone else or to wait tables (Kittle & Friedrich, 1964). However, Jesus

transformed the understanding of what it means to serve by pointing out that to be great

one must become a servant (Luke 22:26-27). This reversal elevated the importance of

serving to a new level making service interrelated with love:

Jesus’ view of service grows out of the OT command of love for one’s neighbour,

which He takes and links with the command of love for God to constitute the

substance of the divinely willed ethical conduct of His followers. In so doing, He

purifies the concept of service from the distortions which it had suffered in

Judaism. Jesus’ attitude to service is completely new as compared with the Greek

understanding. The decisive point is that He sees in it the thing which makes a

man His disciple. (Kittle & Friedrich, 1964, p. 84)

When Jesus transformed service in this way, he made it about an expression of

love. Thus, one is invited to serve another out of genuine affection for that individual.

The act still may be menial and physical, but for the Christian, the attitude makes all the

difference. It is important to see that the New Testament instructs that love is to be one of

the greatest motivational factors that should cause a Christian to serve another individual.

A New Testament conception of service infers that service is a voluntarily obliged

action. Service is obligatory because it is against the nature of the one who has

experienced the call to serve to do otherwise. Thus, according to the New Testament, a

refusal to serve is a refusal to obey God (Stein, 1992). According to social science, a

refusal to serve places one in conflict with his or her nature (Van Dierendonck, 2011).

However, one is never truly forced to serve another. It seems that service must be

voluntary if it is to remain an authentic act of service. So while the New Testament

mandates a Christian to serve, it does not coerce the Christian into service. The challenge

before Christians is to act upon the voluntary obligation they feel they are under to serve.

The Bible is anything but silent on the issue of power. Power belongs to and

emanates from God the Father. God created human beings in His image and for His

purpose. As such, the exercise of power by humanity is to be done under the instruction

of God’s Word. Jesus has become God’s example for the use of power done through

service. Furthermore, Jesus Christ is drawing together humanity through His blood and

affecting peace among God’s creation. Finally, the Christian can be assured that God will

help him use power correctly through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in his

life.

The Theoretical Basis of Power

Power is a well discussed but not widely agreed upon subject within social

science. Kreisberg (1992) offers an excellent summary of some of the disagreements that

have fueled the debate as to the essence of power over the years. However, a review of

some of the more important nuances of power is in order at the outset.

Russell (1938) defines power as the capacity of some persons to produce intended

and foreseen effects on others. Russell believed that this could be achieved through one

of three forms of power: coercion, inducement, or propaganda. Coercion is direct

physical power over another person’s body. Inducement is reward or punishment.

Propaganda is influence over opinion. Russell’s definition sets up one important

demarcation among forms of power. Power is either physical or social. As leadership has

already been defined as relational in nature, this work will focus on the social power

given that Goldhamer and Shils (1939) point out that most forms of physical power are

not seen as legitimate in the eyes of the one being forced to submit.

Social power, therefore, requires relationship. Dahl (1957) defines power as a

“measurable relationship among people” (p. 204). Burns (1978) goes further, suggesting

that power is not an entity in and of itself but rather that it is a derivative of the

relationship between a leader and a follower. Thus, he argues that power should be used

to promote collective goals. The social nature of power brings up another point of

difference between forms of power. Power is either formal or informal. Power is formal

when it comes through position or class within society and is informal when it comes

through the relationship shared between two individuals (Northouse, 2013). Northouse

(2013) actually refers to formal power in the context of leadership as positional power

and informal power as personal power. Both positional and personal power are legitimate

and can be found within most leader follower relationships. This work will focus on both

positional and personal power within the context of leadership.

Finally, in the words of Galbraith (1983), power is controversial, ubiquitous, and

necessary. As such, the exercise of social power can be both ethical and unethical

(Johnson, 2012) depending on how it is used. This work will seek to focus on the ethical

use of social power in the context of leadership.

The Role of Social Power in the Context of Leadership

Dahl’s (1957) definition of power had all the makings of what would become the

concept of social power. His definition stated, “A has power over B to the extent that he

can get B to do something that B would otherwise not do” (pp. 202-203). In this simple

definition of power, Dahl identified the essence of influence over another as one of the

key components of power. Two years later, Dorwin Cartwright (1959) edited a collection

of articles that attempted to offer a clearer understanding of the impact of power. It was

within this work that John French and Bertram Raven wrote the article “The Bases of

Social Power.”

In their article, French and Raven (1959) defined social power in a bit of a

circuitous manner:

Since we shall define power in terms of influence and influence in terms of

psychological change…we want to define change at a level of generality which

includes changes in behavior, opinions, attitudes, goals, needs, values, and all

other aspects of the person’s psychological field…Psychological change is

defined as any alteration of the state of some system a over time. (p. 260)

In essence, French and Raven argued that social power is potential influence. It is the

power to influence another person to change. As they sought to develop their taxonomy,

French and Raven relied on previous works such as “An Analysis of Compliant

Behavior” by Festinger (1954) as well as the work of Max Weber and Kurt Lewin to

build a framework of their own (Raven, 1993).

Lewin (1935, 1951) was particularly useful as they used his work to articulate

what the change social power had the potential to bring about would look like. According

to Lewin (1951), change is any alteration of an individual’s life space. Life space is the

total combination of all factors that influence an individual’s behavior at a given time.

Lewin used the term valence to describe the attractiveness or aversiveness of an event,

object, or situation. When an object is attractive, it is described as having positive

valence. When an event is aversive, it is described as having a negative valence. Lewin

also used the term vector to describe the force that would arise from the presence of a

need. Vectors push an individual toward a positive valence and away from a negative

valence within an individual’s life space. French and Raven (1959) relied heavily on the

concept of valence as they tested and validated the various forms of social power.

In developing their definitions, French and Raven (1959) limited social power to

the relationship shared between two individuals. In their power equation, P stands for a

person while O can either be another person, a role, a norm, a group, or a part of a group.

The symbol a is any alteration of some system over time. The only other factor to

consider is the force that both P and O can exert in opposite directions. O exerts force

toward P in order to create an alteration in some system a over time. However, P exerts

force to resist the change being foisted by O. “Thus the power of O with respect to

system a of P is equal to the maximum resultant force of two forces set up by any

possible act of O” (p. 261). French and Raven represented this dynamic in the equation:

power of O/P(a) = (£,.- / - ) » -. If O exerts greater force, positive power exists. If P exerts

greater force, negative power exists.

French and Raven (1959) initially developed a taxonomy that included five forms

of power: reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert (see Table 6). Eventually,

Raven (1965) added a sixth form of power to the taxonomy developed by him and

French. He entitled this new power informational power.

Table 6

French and Raven’s Taxonomy Defined

Reward

power

The ability to administer to another things he or she desires or to

remove or decrease things he or she does not desire.

Coercive

power

The ability to administer to another things he or she does not

desire or to remove or decrease things he or she does desire.

Legitimate

power

The ability to administer to another feelings of obligation or

responsibility.

Referent

power

The ability to administer to another feelings of personal

acceptance or approval.

Expert

power

The ability to administer to another information, knowledge, or

expertise.

Note. Adapted from “Development and Application of New Scales to

Measure the French and Raven (1959) Bases of Social Power,” by T. R. Hinkin and C. A.

Informational power is the power to persuade and is based on “the information, or

logical argument, that the influencing agent could present to the target in order to

implement change” (Raven, 1993, p. 235). Raven (2008) noted that this was the one point

on which he and French disagreed in the initial development of their taxonomy. When

Raven began to do his own research, he included this form of power in his individual

research consistently.

The idea of power is complex. However, it is not unknowable. Power can be

physical or social. It can be formal or informal. Further, it can be ethical or unethical. The

research provided by French and Raven (1959) has provided modern researchers with a

solid understanding as to the nature of social power in our world today.

Unique aspects of social power.

Social power is not simply the exercise of brute force. Goldhamer and Shils

(1939) identified three primary forms of power: force, domination, and manipulation.

They defined force as a “physical manipulation of the subordinated individual (assault,

confinement, etc.)” (p.171). In the case of the core elements of leadership as mentioned

above, the consistent and sole use of force cannot be constituted as a legitimate use of

social power in leadership. There are two reasons for this conclusion. First, as Goldhamer

and Shils point out, “Persons who are subject to force frequently do not recognize the

legitimacy of such acts of power” (p. 173). Thus, force may be used to make someone

accomplish a goal, but it cannot make an individual embrace that goal as a common goal

between themselves and their leader. Second, French and Raven (1959) define coercion,

which is a legitimate form of power to be discussed below, not in terms of force but in

terms of manipulation. Their primary intention in describing coercion, although not

exclusively so, was to discuss psychological coercion.

Social power is person focused. Social power is not power that is applied to things

but rather to people. According to French and Raven (1959), the object that applies the

power to influence a person may be a person or thing, but the focus of social power is

always and only human. Furthermore, the authors also state that the object that applies

the power to influence a person is always other oriented. In other words, an individual

cannot exert social power on himself or herself, only on another.

Social power is intercursive. Wrong (1968, 1999) correctly differentiates two

different forms of social power: intercursive and integral. He defines intercursive power

as a type of social power characterized by a balance of power and a division of scopes

between the leader and the follower. It exists “where the power of each party in a

relationship is countervailed by that of the other, with procedures for bargaining or joint

decision making governing their relations when matters affecting the goals and interests

of both are involved” (p. 674). The underlying concept is that in most natural settings

where social power is exercised, such power is not exclusive. In normal circumstances

the leader is not always leading the follower. For example, intercursive power is

exercised when a factory foremen instructs the individuals during his shift but later plays

basketball with them after work. In one setting the foremen is the leader who exerts

power, and in the next he is not the leader. Intercursive power is contrasted against

integral power. Integral power exists when “decision making and initiatives to action are

centralized and monopolized by one party alone (Wrong, 1968, p. 674). In normal

circumstances, individuals should be able to display both power and resistance in any

relationship precisely because most relationships are in fact intercursive as it relates to

power and not integral (Haugaard, 2002, p. 268). Furthermore, the leader best leverages

social power when that power is considered to be intercursive and not integral.

Finally, social power is socially dependent. Interestingly, while leaders exercise

social power, followers legitimatize it. Research shows that “power is afforded to those

individuals who advance the interests of the group” (Keltner, Van Kleef, Chen, &

Krause, 2008, p. 44). The core components of any definition of leadership require more

than one person. In this way, it is absolutely essential to understand that social power

exercised by leaders is dependent upon others in order for their leadership to be

legitimate.

Social power is unique in several ways. It is not dependent on brute force. It is

person focused. It is intercursive. Finally, social power is socially dependent. With these

unique qualities in mind, attention will now be given to the various forms that social

power takes as defined by French and Raven (1959).

French and Raven’s Forms of Social Power

French and Raven’s (1959) taxonomy of the forms of power is by far the most

influential, despite having been developed 65 years ago. This may be evidenced by the

proliferation of modern research that still relies on their work (Brauer & Bourhis, 2006;

Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989; Mann, 2012; Olsen, 2009; Orta, 2015). French and Raven

identified five primary bases of social power within their taxonomy. Their taxonomy

includes reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, referent power, and expert

power.

Reward power.

The first form of power French and Raven (1959) discussed was reward power.

Reward power is defined as “power whose basis is the ability to reward” (p. 263).

Rewards may be the provision of something positive to the follower or the removal of

something negative from the follower in order to hold power over them. A common

expression of this within the workplace would be when a leader within an organization

ties the annual wage increase of followers to their ability to perform well within their job

function. In this scenario, the leader is choosing to provide something positive to

followers provided that the followers comply with the desired action of the leader. French

and Raven point out that this form of power is specific to those regions within which O [a

person, a role, a norm, a group, or a part of a group] can reward P [a person] for

conforming (p. 260).

The biblical corpus is teeming with examples of the various bases of power. As it

relates to reward power, both the Old and New Testaments offer the reader leaders who

held power over followers by utilizing this form of power. Two examples, one from each

testament will offer illustration, Laban and Simon the Magician.

In Genesis 29, Laban, the brother-in-law of Isaac, received Jacob into his home.

Isaac began to work for his Uncle Laban, and in the course of time, Laban offered to pay

Jacob for his work. Laban invited Jacob to name his price. The text states, “Jacob loved

Rachel. And he said, ‘I will serve you seven years for your younger daughter Rachel.’”

(Gen. 29:18, English Standard Version). Laban agreed to these terms. In this way, Laban

exercised reward power over Jacob for seven years. Laban was able to keep Jacob

conformed to his wishes on the fact that Jacob wanted the reward promised by Laban at

the set time. After seven years, Laban was able to extend his influence over Jacob

through trickery. Because Laban did not deliver the promised reward but rather a

different reward, Jacob chose to submit himself once again to the desired conformity of

Laban in order to receive the reward that he desired.

In Acts 8, Simon the Magician is described as someone who held power over the

people of Samaria for some length of time. However, when the disciples of Jesus came

upon the scene, they wrested the influence of the people from Simon. The reader is even

told that the disciples exerted such power that Simon himself converted to their teaching.

However, after converting, Simon attempted to buy the ability to confer with the Holy

Spirit as the disciples did. In this act, Simon was attempting to gain power over the

disciples by offering them a reward. Here, the observation of French and Raven (1959)

holds true in that reward power is only effective if it is exercised in a region within which

one person can actually achieve conforming through the giving of reward. The disciples

were not interested in the reward offered and, therefore, did not conform to the desires of

Simon.

In a modern setting, reward power can be clearly seen in the archetype of the nice

boss. The nice boss is the individual who leads through encouraging words and positive

reinforcement. This is the individual who is often friends with his employees and who is

quick to incentivize his employees to work harder. This individual also seeks to minimize

any negativity in the office whether it is actual or perceived. In this way, the nice boss is

seeking to provide positive reinforcements to his employees and minimize any negative

aspects his or her employees are experiencing.

Coercive power.

French and Raven (1959) see many similarities between coercive and reward

power. They define coercive power as “the expectation on the part of P that he will be

punished by O if he fails to conform to the influence attempt” (p. 263). The authors point

out a correlation between the magnitude of coercive power that may be exercised by the

leader and the perceived probability of follow through on the part of the follower. The

more the follower believes that the leader will act, and thereby punish the follower, the

more power the leader receives over the follower. This form of power is similar to reward

power because just like the promise of a bonus for good work enables conformity (i.e. –

through reward), so the promise of being fired for lack of work enables conformity (i.e. –

through punishment).

In the Old Testament, King Saul is an excellent example of a leader exercising

coercive power. In 1 Samuel 14, King Saul made a demand over his army: “Cursed be the

man who eats food until it is evening and I am avenged of my enemies” (1 Sam. 14:24b,

ESV). Later that day Saul’s son Jonathan, who had not heard the demand, ate food. After

hearing of his son’s actions, Saul attempted to make good on his threat of punishment by

stating he would kill his son because of his disobedience. However, because Jonathan had

won a great victory for the people of Israel, the people would not allow Saul to exercise

power over Jonathan. In this instance, the attempted coercive power of Saul is ultimately

ineffective.

In the New Testament, the Jewish authorities serve as a good example of leaders

exercising coercive power. When Jesus was delivered over to Pilate for questioning from

the Jewish leaders, Pilate did not find Jesus guilty. After several exchanges between Jesus

and Pilate, the biblical text states, “From then on Pilate sought to release him [Jesus]”

(John 19:12a, ESV). When Pilate pressed for Jesus’ release, the Jewish leaders employed

the tactic of exercising coercive power over Pilate. They argued, “If you release this man,

you are not Caesar’s friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar” (John

19:12b, ESV). Theologian Gerald Borchert (2002) points out, “The Jewish leadership

could not have chosen a more forceful argument…It was an insidious argument, used by

a people who hated Caesar, but it was a wedge that was powerful…” (p. 255). The Jewish

leadership threatened a punishment on Pilate. Pilate perceived that they were very likely

to act on that threat. Pilate placed himself under the authority of the Jewish leaders who

exercised coercive power.

A modern example of an individual who exercises coercive power is the

archetype of the mean boss. The mean boss is the leader who is constantly threatening his

or her employees with termination or other forms of punishment if they do not perform in

a satisfactory manner. French and Raven (1959) point out that one of the primary

differences between reward and coercive power is that coercive power makes P withdraw

more and more from O, where reward power actually draws P closer to O over time.

Thus, the mean boss is the one who isolates and alienates his followers in order to create

an atmosphere where the leader’s authority is ultimate and the followers have little to no

ability to respond as a group to the demands of the leader.

Legitimate power.

The third form of social power French and Raven (1959) describe is legitimate

power. Legitimate power is the most complex of all social powers because it embodies

notions of structural sociology, group-norms, role oriented social psychology, and

clinical psychology. Legitimate power is defined as “the power that stems from

internalized values in P which dictate that O has a legitimate right to influence P and that

P has an obligation to accept this influence” (p. 265). The complexity of this power

resides in the fact that what is legitimate to one may not necessarily be legitimate to

another. There are three general spheres where legitimacy may be established: cultural

values, social structure, and legitimizing agents. With these three spheres in mind,

consider the following biblical and modern examples of the exercise of legitimate power.

The installation of Solomon as king offers a solid Old Testament example of the

exercise of legitimate power. 1 Kings 1 relates that as King David drew near to death, his

son Adonijah began to establish himself as David’s successor. However, Adonijah did

this without the legitimization of David. When David heard of this through the prophet

Nathan, he took steps to legitimize Solomon as the next king of Israel. David called to

himself Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada. He gave

them strict instructions which, when followed, would legitimize Solomon as king. This

act of legitimization on the part of David secured Solomon as the next king. The act also

placed Adonijah in a precarious position because he lost his support and ultimately his

life. David was able to exercise legitimate power over the people of Israel because the

Israelites (i.e. - legitimizing agents) had empowered him to do so. David was also able to

exercise such power because of the social structure of Israel and because of the cultural

values of the day. In this instance, David used all three spheres to gain and exercise

legitimate power over the nation of Israel.

Interestingly, another instance in the New Testament also serves as a positive

example of the exercise of legitimate power. In Acts 1, Matthias was installed as the next

disciple to replace the vacancy created after the death of Judas. In this scenario, the other

followers of Jesus developed and agreed upon a set of pre-requisites that would be

required of the individual who would be selected. In doing so, they set for themselves

common cultural values and common social structure. From there the group selected

Matthias through an agreed upon process and legitimized him through their personal

agreement concerning his ascension into the position of disciple. Again, in this instance,

all three spheres were utilized to exercise legitimate power over an individual.

By way of a modern example, the United States senator serves as an excellent

example of someone who regularly exercises legitimate power. A senator is elected

through a process that follows a particular social structure and is supported by cultural

values. By the fact that the senator wins an election, the constituents within his or her

district empower the individual by serving as legitimizing agents. Thus, because of these

facts, the senator may represent his or her constituents, help write and enforce laws

within the congress, and exercise legitimate power over both his or her constituents and

the federal government accordingly.

Referent power.

The fourth base of social power that French and Raven (1959) discuss is referent

power. Referent power is described as “the feeling of oneness of P with O, or a desire for

such an identity” (p. 266). Referent power is empowered by a feeling of identification on

the part of P with O. There are times when O may not even be aware of the power being

exercised over P because referent power does not always require intentional exercising on

the part of O to exist. Referent power grows stronger as the desire on the part of P to

relate to O grows stronger. French and Raven offer a simple example of the influence of

referent power when they suggest that a group of expert campers might exert referent

power on an individual within the group as it relates to what type or brand of camping

gear to purchase.

David offers an example of what referent power looks like in the Old Testament.

2 Samuel 2 reveals after the death of King Saul that Abner, the commander of Saul’s

army, declared Saul’s son Ish-bosheth king. However, the people wanted David to be

king in Saul’s place. What ensued was a time of violence and division that ultimately

resulted in the death of Ish-bosheth. Upon the resolution of this violence and division, the

people of Israel desired for David to be king. 2 Samuel 5 describes the desire of the

people to identify with David: “Behold, we are your bone and flesh. In times past, when

Saul was king over us, it was you who led out and brought in Israel” (vs. 1-2, ESV).

What may be observed from this passage is a strong desire on the part of the people to

relate to David as king. In this way, David was exercising referent power over the people.

In Acts 8 Philip offers another example of referent power in action. As was

mentioned previously, Simon the Magician was a man who exercised considerable power

over the people of Samaria. Acts 8:13 states, “Simon himself believed, and after being

baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he

was amazed” (ESV). Philip’s ability to act in such a way that Simon desired to be

associated with Philip reveals Philip was exercising referent power over Simon.

A modern example of the use of referent power may be found in a board member

who holds a surprising amount of power when viewed from the legitimate position which

he or she holds relative to the officers of the board. Because of their ability to exercise

referent power, individuals on a board may empower a particular board member with

more power than an individual who should hold the most authority given their legitimate

position within the organization.

Expert power.

The final base of social power discussed by French and Raven (1959) is expert

power. The authors define expert power as “the extent of the knowledge or perception

which P attributes to O within a given area” (p. 267). According to the authors, expert

power primarily results in the influence of P’s cognitive structure. In other words, expert

power is the ability for O to impact the thinking of P. The exercise of expert power

requires that P trust that O is telling the truth relative to O’s area of expertise.

Moses is an excellent example of how a leader uses expert power. In Exodus 20-

24, Moses interacted with Yahweh and ultimately received the Ten Commandments.

After receiving the law of God, Moses went on to explain these laws to the people of

Israel. In so doing, Moses was exercising expert power. Moses was impacting the way

that the people of Israel thought. Their actions would and should change, but this only

happened secondarily. The Israelites had to first change the way they thought.

In the New Testament, the speech of Peter and John before the Jewish council is

another example of the exercise of expert power. The response of the Jewish leaders to

the speech revealed that Peter and John had exercised expert power: “When they saw the

boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated, common men, they

were astonished. And they recognized that they had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13).

Clearly, the leaders saw that Peter and John were speaking truth, despite the fact they did

not want to believe them. They were influenced by their ability to speak with expertise on

the subject of who Jesus was.

The scholar is an excellent modern archetype for a leader who can exercise expert

power. By nature of his or her mastery of a particular subject base, a scholar is able to

exert influence over others when he or she writes or lectures. Because individuals believe

this expert knows the truth, they believe he or she is speaking truthfully. The word of a

scholar is given greater weight than the word of a non-scholar. The ability to influence

others in such a way is an example of expert power in action.

These five forms of social power are still relied on today. In their taxonomy,

French and Raven (1959) have offered a full understanding of the range power can take

as one individual relates to another. These forms of power include reward power,

coercive power, legitimate power, referent power, and expert power.

The Implications of Social Power on Leadership

Power has a definite and measurable impact on the leader personally as well as a

leader’s interaction with others. What follows is insight into this impact. The impact

social power has on the leader individually will be investigated. The impact of social

power on management will be viewed. Finally, the mark of social power on team

development will be considered.

Social power and the leader.

Brauer and Bourhis (2006) pointed out that social power affects both

interpersonal and intergroup relations. A key impact noted in their research was the fact

that those with power display less behavioral inhibition. It is easier for leaders to lack the

self-control they once had as followers.

Other research revealed that as a leader experiences an increase in power, it can

lead to less team communication (Tost, Gino, & Larrick, 2013). Pfeffer (2013) also

argued that these and other findings should not surprise a leader because the pursuit of

power is all about survival. Pfeffer’s observation may be pessimistic, but an effective

leader must understand the impact power can have and work to continue to communicate

no matter the change that will inevitably come from being given power within a certain

context.

Leaders need to see the value of empowerment. Empowerment requires leaders to

share their power while still retaining enough to effectively lead. By building

relationships and building coalitions within their organizations, leaders will create a more

effective organization in the long run (Orta, 2015; Pape, 2011).

Social power and team building.

As was noted above, expert and referential power tend to be the most potent

power bases for leaders/managers. However, the exercise of these two power bases alone,

while effective at producing results, may not necessarily build teams. Yaffe (1998)

investigated the connection between team leadership styles and effectiveness and

observed that in a certain sense, “team effectiveness is not the presence of democratic

leadership, but rather the absence of an autocratic culture” (pp. 62-63). Yaffe goes on to

discuss how teams that are empowered are generally more effective than over-powered or

powerless teams. For Yaffe, empowerment is a key term. He defines empowerment in the

terms of Stewart and Manz (1995) by arguing that an empowered team is one “devoid of

any form of active leadership” (Yaffe, 1998, p. 25). Yaffe believed his research pointed

out that empowered teams are the best type of teams which possess the ability to achieve

bottom-line results.

In a study focused on the longitudinal performance of directive versus

empowering leadership in teams, the researchers’ conclusion confirmed Yaffe’s earlier

observation (Lorinkova, Pearsall, & Sims, 2013). These researchers noted that directive

leadership was quicker at achieving a desired performance but that teams which were

consistently led by an individual using a directive style of leadership often plateaued in

their effectiveness. On the other hand, these researchers also noted that while slower in

the beginning, a team lead by a leader who was empowering showed an overall greater

strength in team effectiveness over the length of the study. In short, power bases that lead

to empowerment are more effective than power bases that are more directive in nature.

These researchers defined directive leadership as “associated with a leader’s

positional power and characterized by behaviors aimed at…compliance” (Lorinkova et

al., 2013, p. 573). This definition seems to align nicely with the coercion, the legitimate,

and, to a lesser extent, the reward bases of French and Raven (1959). The researchers

defined empowering leadership as that which “creates psychological ownership of a task,

heightened efficacy, and commitment…” (Lorinkova et al., 2013, p. 573). This definition

seems to align most closely with the referent and expert power bases of French and

Raven.

Sauer (2011) found similar results in his research. He observed that new, low

status team leaders are generally better served by a direct leadership approach but only

for a short while. As the leader’s status on the team improves, he or she is less and less

served by a directive leadership style. In order to have more effective productivity in the

long run, a team leader should transition to a participative style of leadership.

Referent and expert power can be used to build teams. However, using these two

forms of social power requires intentionality on the part of a leader. The team leader must

use his or her referent or expert power to develop an empowering culture within the team.

The more this is done, the better the team will perform.

A Summary of Leadership and Power

The relationship of power and leadership is both theological and practical.

Modern research of the relationship between power and leadership was born out of

theoretical approaches to leadership. These approaches sought to understand the effect of

leadership on those other than the individual exercising influence. The five power bases

originally identified by French and Raven (1959) still serve as the definitive base of how

to understand the type of power individuals’ exercise over others. Leaders need to

understand the impact power has on their ability to lead. Furthermore, it is critical that

leaders recognize the often negative-leaning impact power has upon their leadership and

compensate accordingly in order to communicate and lead effectively. It has been shown

that various situations require various power bases to be utilized in order for effective

leadership to exist. Leaders would do well to consider varying their approach to

leadership depending on the situation.

Leadership and Communication

This section of the study focuses on the relationship between leadership and

communication. First, the theoretical and theological bases of communication will be

considered. Second, the effects communication has on leadership will be reviewed. Third,

the communication competence approach will be investigated. Fourth, important

communication skills will be reviewed. Finally, the implications of an individual’s

communication style will be investigated

Theoretical Base of Leadership Communication

Communication is a critical aspect of leadership. Hackman and Johnson (2013)

broadly define communication as “the transfer of symbols, which allows individuals to

create meaning” (p. 5). As was stated earlier, for leadership to exist there must be the

exercise of influence. Yet the influence of leadership requires communication. Hackman

and Johnson further suggest that “leadership is human (symbolic) communication that

modifies the attitudes and behaviors of others in order to meet shared group goals and

needs” (p. 11). It was also stated earlier that in order for leadership to exist there must be

a relationship between the one seeking to influence and the ones being influenced. It is

communication that builds and develops the relationships necessary for leadership to

exist (Graen & Uhl-Bein, 1995; DuBrin, 2015).

Communication, especially leadership communication, is much more than mere

information that is passed from leader to follower. Mai and Akerson (2003) suggest that

leadership communication must address “(a) what you say and how you say it, (b) whom

you talk with, and (c) how you get people talking with each other” (p. 14). Leadership

communication must also take into account the various ways in which one

communicates. Obviously, communication can be verbal, but it can also be non-verbal.

The importance of body language cannot be underestimated (Adams, Nelson & Purring,

2013; Bull & Doody, 2013; Kappas, Krumhuber, & Kuster, 2013). The tone

communication takes must be appreciated (Patel & Scherer, 2013). Even the proximity of

the speaker to the intended recipient impacts communication (Andersen, Gannon &

Kalchik, 2013). Remland (1981) argues that managers spend about 90% of their time

communicating, and the bulk of their communication comes in the form of speaking and

listening as opposed to writing and reading. Primarily because communication is both

essential to leadership and a medium that can be manipulated, it is imperative then that

leaders be able to communicate well (Mai & Ackerson, 2003).

Theological Base of Leadership Communication

Since the dawn of creation, communication has played a crucial role within

humanity. The dramatic power and effect of communication is clearly displayed in the

opening chapters of the Bible. God communicated to Adam and Eve certain instructions

pertaining to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2). The serpent questioned

Eve about God’s communication concerning the tree (Gen. 3). This caused Eve to be

deceived, believing the serpent’s interpretation of God’s communication (2 Cor. 11). The

resultant action on the part of Adam and Eve, based on their communication with the

serpent, led to the fall (Gen. 3). It also led Adam and Eve to communicate with God

concerning one another in regard to who was at fault for the fall (Gen. 3). This single

example serves as merely one of many such instances where communication played a

critical role in human history.

The very fact that God can and does communicate with creation should not be

overlooked. First, God communicates with creation via what theologians refer to as

general revelation. General revelation is information that can be known about God from

observing His creation (Packer, 1993). In Romans 1, the reader is told that creation

communicates the truth of God’s existence. In Acts 17, the reader is reminded that God

communicates about Himself by the manner in which human beings have been created.

Further, in Acts 14, the reader is challenged to consider what God is communicating

through kindly providence.

God also communicates with creation via special revelation. Special revelation is

unique truths that God chooses to disclose to His creation that would otherwise be

unknowable (Packer, 1993). The primary way in which God communicates His special

revelation is through the Bible. 2 Peter 1 states that God has given everything that is

needed for life and godliness. 2 Timothy 3 points out that the Bible has what humanity

needs in order to connect with God. Exodus 20 reveals that God communicated with the

nation of Israel by presenting them with laws for their society. In John 1, the reader is

told that Jesus helps explain God. In Hebrews 1, the reader is told that God spoke in the

past through a variety of ways and that God is currently communicating with humanity

through the medium of His son Jesus Christ. From the beginning up through modernity,

communication has been important, and from the beginning God has communicated with

humanity.

The Bible also reveals a communication ethic that should be followed by leaders.

Communication is not a spiritually neutral activity. Communication can be pleasing to

God (Ps. 19). Yet communication can also bring sin (Prov. 10). While there are a myriad

of texts that deal with ethical communication, they can be broadly grouped into three

categories. First, God expects leaders to communicate honestly (Prov. 12:19). This group

is well represented by Exodus 20 where God commands His people not to lie. Second,

God expects leaders to use their communication to bless or encourage (Prov. 24:6,

25:15): “Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing

(1 Thess. 5:11, ESV). Finally, God expects leaders to communicate wisely. This last

expectation carries a two-fold understanding. First, leaders should speak wisdom and not

foolishness (Prov. 15). Second, leaders should avoid listening to or becoming an

individual who babbles ceaselessly (Prov. 10:19; 2 Tim. 3; Eph. 4). While the Bible is

clear about how a leader should communicate, it is also transparent about the fact that to

do so is quite difficult (Jas. 3).

The Effects of Communication on Leadership

It is clear is that communication fundamentally affects leadership (Barrett, 2006;

Riggio, Riggio, Salinas, & Cole, 2003). This fact has led social science researchers to

investigate to great lengths the various effects communication has on leadership. Key

findings of how communication impacts leadership will now be considered.

The ability to effectively communicate is one of the primary ways individuals

gain and keep leadership. Stogdill (1974) highlighted the fact that group participants,

even those who may be more submissive than others, are more likely to receive

leadership status from a team if they are able to control the flow of information and

communication within the team. Hollander (2012) reflected on his earlier work with

Webb (1955) and noted that more than friendship, the ability to effectively communicate

has a greater influence on the determination of who would make a good leader. Multiple

studies reinforce the idea that effective communication and leadership go together

(Barrett, 2006; de Vries, Bakker-Pieper, & Oostenveld, 2010; Riggio, et al. 2003;

Spangler & House, 1991; Stech, 1983).

Another key observation made by researchers is that leaders spend a bulk of their

time communicating with their followers. Mintzberg (1973) noted that top leaders spend,

on average, 80% of their time in communication. Remland (1981) suggests that the

number is 90%. Other studies have been conducted that generally reinforce what

Mintzberg found in his study. Many authors now use a 70-90 percent figure to describe

how much time leaders spend communicating (Barrett, 2006; Bass, 1985; Hollander,

1978; Luthans, Hodgetts, & Rosenkrantz, 1988). More than any other activity,

communication is essential to leadership. While Mintzberg (2009) notes there are various

methods of communication, he makes a point of noting that the most beneficial forms of

communication are interpersonal in nature.

Leaders who communicate well contribute to employee satisfaction and

effectiveness. Koehler, Anatol, and Applebaum (1976) point to the fact that positive and

open communication between a subordinate and his or her superior is a contributing

factor to employee productivity. Cheney, Christensen, Zorn, & Ganesh (2010) note that

the supervisor subordinate dyad is the most studied relationship in organizational

communication. They note that trust is a critical component of the dyad and that this trust

is built through effective communication. It has also been shown that prolonged and

effective communication on the part of the supervisor leads to greater levels of trust and

productivity (Dansereau, et al., 1975, Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

Finally, communication is a key way that leaders develop and retain relationships.

Mai and Ackerson (2003) suggest that leadership communication and relationship

building go hand in hand: “When leaders manage communication effectively, work

relationships are strong, well informed, and purposeful” (p. 14). In his discussion

concerning the social skill of leadership, Goleman (2005) suggests that effective

communication is a critical and highly valued leadership skill in the modern workplace.

Bradberry and Greaves (2009) note that the weaker a relationship becomes, the more

difficult communication becomes in turn. Thus, regular and effective communication is

critical to the maintenance of good relationships.

The Communication Competence Approach

Effective communication is essential to leadership. This is true because leadership

is enacted through communication (Barge, 1994). Yet leaders must develop effective

communication if they hope to reap the benefits listed above. Social science researchers

have, for many decades, researched the idea that effective communication is born through

the development of a competence in communication. Competency itself is a critical

leadership skill (Kouzes & Posner, 2012). Yet communication competency is especially

critical given that, as Flauto (1999) suggests, communication is a key affecter of one’s

ability to lead.

Communication competence is the term used to describe one’s ability to correctly

code and decode social or interpersonal interactions (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1989). It came

into popularity in the late seventies and early eighties. Wiemann, Takai, Ota, and

Wiemann (1997) note that communication competence has been called many different

names, “interpersonal competence, social competence, and social skills among others” (p.

25). A brief review of the relevant literature on the topic reveals that there are two broad

understandings of how communication competence may be defined, a cognitive approach

and a behavioral approach.

Some researchers take the lead of Wiemann and Backlund (1980) who suggest

that communication competence is strictly a mental phenomenon. Accordingly, being a

competent communicator does not necessarily mean behaving correctly in every

situation, but rather it means having a knowledge of how one should communicate

correctly. Larson, Backlund, Redmond, and Barbour (1978) defined communicative

competence as “the ability of the individual to demonstrate knowledge of the appropriate

communicative behavior in a given situation” (p. 16). For those who take this view of

communication competence, the key is knowing how to communicate, not

communicating correctly in every situation.

Other researchers take the lead of McCroskey (1982) who suggests that

communication competence is completely tied to behavior. According to McCroskey,

communication competence is “the ability of the individual to perform the appropriate

communicative behavior in a given situation” (p. 5). These behaviorists see

communication competence as the ability to behave appropriately in a given context.

Some further research has been done concerning several mitigating issues related

to communication competence. Cupach and Spitzberg (1983) noted that communication

competence is at times situational and at others times it is dispositional. They sought to

measure the impact and effectiveness of both forms of communication competence. They

were also interested in understanding which of the two had greater leadership efficacy.

What they discovered was that situational communication competence required a

different set of skills than did dispositional communication competence. The skills

needed for dispositional communication competence deal with a person’s proclivity to

behave in a certain way while communicating. The skills needed for situational

communication competence deal with the specific ways in which a person acts during a

conversation. Thus, dispositional skills are tendency-focused, and situational skills are

event-focused (p. 366). The authors discovered that situational communication

competence has greater leadership efficacy.

Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam & Jablin (1999) conducted research with Thai

business leaders to identify what skills were needed in order for a leader to have

communication competence within the Thai culture. They were trying to understand if

communication competence skills are universal or culture bound. What they determined

was that communication competence skills are indeed culture bound. What works for

Western culture leaders may not work for Eastern culture leaders. Their findings

reinforce the findings of Cupach and Spitzberg (1983), who noted that being able to

communicate situationally is more effective than being able to communicate

dispositionally.

Communication competence is an essential component of effective leadership. It

is the ability to communicate competently within the situation. It requires that leaders

gain and keep a specific set of communication skills within their grasp. It further requires

that leaders utilize these skills in an effective, situationally based manner that allows

them to communicate appropriately in any given situation.

Communication Skills

Many scholars have set out to define the appropriate skills needed in order to

communicate competently (Bass, 1990; Hackman & Johnson, 2013; Sypher & Zorn,

1986). According to Hargie, Saunders, and Dickson (1994), these skills, or behaviors,

must be (a) goal directed, (b) interrelated, (c) appropriate to the situation, (d) defined in

terms of identifiable units of behavior, (e) learnable, and (f) under the cognitive control of

the individuals. Table 7 offers two of the better-known lists of communication skills.

Table 7

Communicative Skill Sets

Sashkin & Burke (1990) Bass (1990)

Making points clearly Quality of communication

Attending to others' ideas and feelings Ability to convey meaning

Rephrasing for clarification Consistency

Giving feedback Timing

Answering Questions Style

Summarizing Competence with linguistic forms

Quality of writing

Competence in nonverbal communication

For some scholars, the primary issue as it relates to communication skills is the

ability to code and decode correctly (Riggio et al. 2003; Cheney et al., 2010). Riggio et

al. (2003) refer to coding as expressivity. It is the ability to, for example, speak well.

They refer to decoding as sensitivity. It is the ability to, for example, listen well.

Furthermore, they add one more term to their list called control. This is the ability to

regulate one’s communication. Riggio et al. suggest that coding and decoding takes place

through two distinct communication mediums, verbal (termed social) and nonverbal

(termed emotional). Their work was based on the earlier development of the Social Skills

Inventory (see Riggio, 1989; Riggio & Carney, 2003). The SSI is an instrument that

measures an individual’s ability to communicate via six various communication skills:

social sensitivity, social expressivity, social control, emotional sensitivity, emotional

expressivity, and emotional control. These authors argue that communication competence

rests on the ability to develop and hone these particular communication skills.

Cheney et al. (2010) use similar language when categorizing necessary

communication skills. They suggest that communication skills can be grouped into one of

three categories. The first category is referred to as social perception skills. Developing

social perception skills allows an individual to adroitly assess his or her surroundings in

order to understand how he or she might communicate effectively within a complex

situation. The second category is referred to as message design skills. This set of skills

builds on the first and crafts an effective communication for the given context. The third

set of necessary skills is grouped together under the rubric of interaction management.

Interaction management skills are those that help an individual manage the flow of

communication as it happens.

Communication competence rests upon the fundamental ability of an individual to

develop and hone a certain set of core communication skills. While no one singularly

definitive list of skills exists, the need for these skills is overwhelmingly identifiable.

Individuals need to develop mastery over both verbal and nonverbal communication. As

individuals gain mastery over their communication and become increasingly competent,

they can then turn their attention to the style in which they communicate. Focusing

attention on the style of the communicator will help complete the understanding of the

various impacts communication has on leadership.

Communication Style

The content one intends to communicate is much different than the manner in

which they communicate it. Norton (1978, 1983) suggests that the manner in which we

communicate what we want to communicate is called communication style. Norton

(1978) defines communicator style as “the way one verbally and para-verbally interacts

to signal how literal meaning should be taken, interpreted, filtered, or understood” (p.

99). Gaining a clear understanding of one’s communication style is a critical step for the

leader. Communication style seems to offer better insight into who is a more effective

leader than does simply having a broad understanding of a leader’s personality style

(Bakker-Pieper & de Vries, 2013; de Vries, Bakker-Pieper, Konings & Schouten, 2013;

de Vries, Bakker-Pieper, Siberg, van Garmen & Vlug, 2009).

Every individual has a particular communication style. Over time, this style

develops certain expectations in others. Interaction with an individual can move from

random to nonrandom as the individual displays a particular communication style. This

happens when others develop a sense of an individual’s particular communication style

and understand the way in which this individual communicates (Norton & Brenders,

1996).

Norton’s communication style variables.

Norton (1978, 1983) identified nine independent variables that are descriptive of

an individual’s communication style through the development of The Communicator

Style Measure (CSM). These variables are dominant, dramatic, contentious, animated,

impression leaving, relaxed, attentive, open, and friendly. Table 8 offers a brief

description of each of Norton’s independent variables.

Table 8

Norton’s Nine Communication Variables

Variable Description

Dominant high self-esteem (high levels), avoidant (low levels)

Dramatic

manipulates, exaggerates, fantasies, uses story, metaphor,

rhythm, voice, and other stylistic devices to highlight or

understate content

Contentious argumentative

Animated

frequent and sustained eye contact, uses facial expressions, and

gestures often

Impression

Leaving memorable

Relaxed calm, peaceful, serene, confident, comfortable

Attentive Uses feedback to show responsiveness

Open

conversational, expansive, affable, convivial, gregarious,

unreserved, unsecretive, somewhat frank, possibly outspoken,

definitely extroverted, and obviously approachable

Friendly confirms, strokes, and positively recognizes others

Note. Adapted from “Cross-cultural Communication Styles in Multinational Companies

in Malaysia,” by R. G. Segumpan, A. A. Christopher, and R. Rao, 2007, Human

Every individual combines these variables in various ways in order to maximize

communication effectiveness. The way in which an individual combines these variables

develops that individual’s communication style. Every individual displays a distinct

communication style; however, not every individual is consciously aware of his or her

communication style. Some individuals are aware of their style and evaluate their

communication effectiveness based on their own personal criteria for the effective

implementation of their communication style (Parrish-Sprowl, Carveth, & Senk, 1994). It

is important to note that an individual’s style is varied, patterned, and perceivable.

Communication style and leadership.

Stech (1983) further developed and applied the concept of communication style to

the arena of leadership. He determined that leaders communicate using two primary

communication styles, the task-oriented style and the interpersonal-oriented style. The

task-oriented style is characterized by rigid, fact-based communication. The

interpersonal-oriented style is characterized by an open, opinion-inviting, feeling-oriented

form of communication. Stech suggested that each style of communication offers the

leader various advantages when communicating.

Research has shown that the task-oriented style of communication is less

leadership focused than the interpersonal-oriented style of communication (de Vries et

al., 2010). According to these authors, a task-oriented style of communication is much

more managerial in nature. Research has also shown that leaders who are able to exercise

both a task-oriented style and an interpersonal-oriented style of communication have

highly satisfied followers (Castandea & Nahavandi, 1991; Madlock, 2008).

The Forms of Communication

This study will look at the definition of communication from the perspective of

the four different forms of communication detailed in the Communication Style

Inventory (CSI) instrument (detailed in Chapter 3). The CSI uses four sub-scales of

communication: verbal, paraverbal, body language, and personal space.

Verbal. While individuals hold complete control over the words they use, they do

not have control over the meaning those words have upon those with whom they are

speaking. As has been described above, communication is the proper coding and

decoding of symbols between two or more individuals. Differences in age, experience,

and background can result in differing interpretations of the same statement. The words

individuals choose to use are determined by their communication style (Russo et al.,

2008).

Paraverbal. How an individual communicates is as important as what an

individual communicates. Paraverbal communication is concerned with the how of

communication. Paraverbal communication includes the speed at which one

communicates and the tone of one’s voice as well as the intensity of the communication.

Paraverbal cues help people interpret the meaning of what someone is saying. In other

words, they help the listener decode a communication signal. For instance, paraverbal

cues are what help people recognize sarcasm. These cues are also important for helping

individuals know when to respond during conversation because they signal a break in

one’s communication with another. Understanding an individual’s communication style

can enhance an individual’s ability to receive communication correctly (Russo et al.,

2008).

Body Language. An individual’s stance, handshake, and manner of eye-contact all

communicate meaning to others. Body language can communicate attentiveness,

emotions, and reactions (Bull & Doody, 2013). Facial expressions are another form of

communication related to body language and often communicate a great amount of

meaning even before an individual speaks. Body language is heavily influenced by an

individual’s communication style. Understanding an individual’s body language

preferences can help ensure that intended communication is received correctly (Russo et

al., 2008).

Personal Space. Personal space, as defined by the CSI, has a two-fold application.

First, personal space refers to the distance between the one sending and the one receiving

a communication; that is interpersonal space. Second, it refers to the way in which the

communicators order the space around them. An example is where or how their desk,

their office, or their home is ordered. So the distance one places between them and

another impacts communication. Interpersonal distance has been studied at some great

length, and it has been shown that there are four zones of interpersonal distance: intimate,

personal, social, and public. How close one prefers to be to another while communicating

impacts said communication. Furthermore, an individual’s workspace whether cluttered

or neat, organized or disorganized, is a function of his or her communication style (Russo

et al., 2008). (see also Table 9 for a list of how each communication style affects the

various forms of communication.)

Table 9

Impact of Communication Style on Forms of Communication DIRECT SPIRITED CONSIDERATE SYSTEMATIC

VERBAL

decisive generalizes listens precise language

direct

speech

persuasive close, personal

language

avoids emotions

does not

stop to say

hello

expresses

opinions

readily

supportive

language

focuses on

specific details

PARAVERBAL

speaks

quickly

loud tones speaks slowly even delivery

loud tones animated soft tones brief speech

formal

speech

lots of voice

inflection

patient speech little vocal variety

BODY

LANGUAGE

direct eye

contact

quick

actions

slow movement poker face

bold visual

appearance

lots of body

movement

likes hugging avoids touching

firm

handshake

enthusiastic

handshake

gentle handshake controlled

movement

PERSONAL

SPACE

keeps

physical

distance

cluttered

workspace

family pictures in

workspace

a strong sense of

personal space

work space

suggests

power

personal

slogans in

office

likes side-by-side

seating

charts, graphs in

office

displays

planning

calendars in

work space

likes close

physical

space

carries sentimental

items

prefers an

organized desktop

Note. Adapted with permission from “What’s My Communication Style” by E. M. Russo,

Development, Inc.

The Impact of Personality Styles on Communication

One’s personality style affects his or her interactions with others (Hunsaker &

Alessandra, 1980). Knowing and understanding an individual’s personality style allows

one to correctly interpret the actions of others (Snavely, 1981). The concept and the basic

dimensions of style date back to Jung (1923, see Adler & Hull 1971). Since that time,

many have sought to further Jung’s ideas. (e.g., Alessandra & O’Connor, 1994; Marston,

1979; Merrill & Reid, 1999).What has become clear from this research is that the number

of possible personality styles is not unlimited.

While each individual is unique, certain commonalities exist that may be

categorized. Research has identified two basic dimensions of personality style that Russo

et al. (2008) refer to as assertiveness and expressiveness. They indicate that

“assertiveness is the effort that a person makes to influence or control the thoughts and

actions of others” (Russo et al., 2008, p. 7). Those with a high level of assertiveness

might be described as demanding, aggressive, or forceful (Merrill & Reid, 1999). Highly

assertive people tell others what to do while less assertive individuals ask

others how things should be. Russo et al. elaborate that “expressiveness is the effort that a

person makes to control his or her emotions when relating to others” (2008, p. 7).

Individuals who are highly expressive tend to decide and act quickly, often

displaying their emotions along the way (Bolton & Bolton, 1984). Those who are not

highly expressive tend to be viewed as more private and independent.

An individual’s personality is determined by how much assertiveness and

expressiveness they exert. There are four possible combinations that exist whereby an

individual might express their assertiveness and expressiveness. Various names have

been given to these four combinations (see, e.g. Alessandra & Hunsaker, 1993; Hamilton,

2013; Wheeless & Lashbrook,1987). This study will use the language employed by the

Communication Style Inventory for this research: Direct, Spirited, Considerate, and

Systematic. How each of these combinations are associated with assertiveness and

expressiveness may be observed in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Four styles of communication. Adapted with permission from “What’s My

Communication Style” by E. M. Russo, S. McBrier Hannett, and D. Topka. Copyright

1985-2008 by Organization Design and Development, Inc.

A S

HIGH ASSERTIVENESS

LOW ASSERTIVENESS

L O

W E

X P

R E

S S

IV E

N E

S S

H IG

H E

X P

R E

S S

IV E

N E

S S

SYSTEMATIC CONSIDERATE

DIRECT SPIRITED

DISPLAY EMOTIONS CONTROL EMOTIONS

T E

L L

Direct. According to Russo et al. (2008), those who have a predominately direct

style of communication like to get to the point. They often speak forcefully and maintain

eye contact throughout the duration of their communication. An individual who expresses

a direct form of communication tends to be decisive, thrives on competition, and prefers

to be in control (Bolton & Bolton, 1984). Interestingly, Kohn & O’Connell (2005) point

out that many direct communicators can and do have sincere feelings for others; they just

struggle with expressing their feelings.

Russo et al. (2008) suggest that direct communicators avoid being overbearing or

abrasive with their communication. They need to work hard at being a good listener and

at being patient with others. Direct communicators can be too argumentive, at times

confusing communication for a compeition that must be won.

Spirited. Individuals with a predominately spirited style of communication like to

persuade others (Russo et al., 2008). These individuals tend to be good storytellers and

like to focus on the big picture. They like working with others and working at a fast pace.

At times, a spirited communicator can seem impulsive, speaking first and thinking later

(Kohn & O’Connell, 2005).

Bolton & Bolton (1984) point out that spirited communicators are most often

those that become enthusiatic about something first. Spirited communiators need to be

careful not to exaggerate a story. They should also be careful not to respond to criticsm

with verbal attacks. (Russo et al., 2008). Spirited communicators also need to be aware

that enthusiasm is not a replacement for detailed planning. These inviduals need to

properly value deadlines and work hard at managing their time efficently.

Considerate. On the positive side, considerate communicators are good listeners

and good counselors (Russo et al., 2008). A considerate communicator is a team player.

Considerate communicators will often look to avoid ego clashes and work hard to

integrate conflicting ideas (Kohn & O’Connell, 2005). For considerates, it is important to

feel they are making a personal connection with the individual with whom they are

talking (Russo, et al., 2008).

However, considerate communicators can tend to avoid change and prefer to do

what is comfortable. They dislike conflict and will often tell other people what they want

to hear.

Systematic. Systematic communicators are accuarate and objective (Russo et al.,

2008). They rely on facts not emotions. They excel at problem solving and rely heavily

on data. Systematic communicators can tend to favor written over verbal communication

(Kohn & O’Connell, 2005). These individual’s speak efficiently, like a well-organized

work space, and are constantly seeking information, wherever it may be found.

At times, systematic communicators can over emaphize data and facts, allowing

these things to slow down their decision making. Their desire to value accuracy over

feelings can also be, at times, a hinderance to effective communication. Systematic

communicators can also be flat and dry in their verbal communication, occasionally

making it difficult for listeners to stay engaged with them.

Individuals display recognizable communication patterns that reveal their

communication style. The ability to recognize and correctly respond to a particular

communication style will greatly increase an individuals’ ability to effectively

communicate (Pearman & Albritton, 2013). An understanding of communication style

can go a long way in helping an individual form lasting and respectful relationships

because the way an individual both recieves and expresses information can be understood

through looking for the predictable patterns of a particular communication style.

Understanding how one communicates and knowing what to look for within an

individual’s communication can help the careful listener avoid many of the most common

misunderstandings experienced when communicating.

While individuals display a dominate communication style in their interactions

with others, hardly anyone communicates purely from one style. Most people display a

combination of the styles in their interactions with others (Quenk, 2002). This is an

important point to note as each style has its own unique weaknesses and trouble spots

(Montgomery, 2002). An important step in developing communication comptence is

taken when individuals learn how to consciously adjust their communication style based

on the style of the invidual with whom they are communicating; this is called style

flexing.

Style Flexing

Style flexing is “the temporary adjustment of a person’s behavior to encourage

others to act more productively” (Bolton & Bolton, 1984, p. 130). The first step in

learning how to flex one’s style is for an individual to consciously understand how he or

she communicates. Once an individual has a good understanding of his or her own

communication style, the individual can then turn attention to the second step, which is

reading the style of others. Russo et al. offers several observations on how one can

“speed read” the communication style of others. These observations are recorded in Table

10.

Table 10

How to Speed Read Communication Style

Direct Spirited Considerate Systematic

Talking

Gets to the

point

Tells good

stories

Does not offer

opinions Precise

Listening Poor listener

Does not hear

details

Sympathetic

listener Seeks facts

Handshake Firm Enthusiastic Gentle Brief

Personal

Space

Maintains

distance Likes to be close Likes hugging

Avoids

touching

Movement Bold Quick Slow Controlled

Workspace

Suggests

Power Cluttered

Displays

Photos Organized

Note. Adapted with permission from “What’s My Communication Style” by E. M. Russo,

Development, Inc.

After identifying another’s primary communication style, it becomes necessary

for the one attempting to communicate to “flex” his or her style in order to communicate

in the most effective manner possible. This can be done in a number of ways. One way an

individual can style flex is by adding or subtracting certain less habitual behaviors in

order to foster a more mutually beneficial interaction (Bolton & Bolton, 1984). Russo et

al. (2008) suggest several ways that one might effectively communicate with a differing

type of communicator.

When communicating with someone who is a direct communicator, focus on his

or her goals and objectives. Russo et al. (2008) also suggest that an individual (a) keep

the relationship business like, (b) argue facts not personal feelings, (c) be well organized

in presentations, (d) ask questions directly, and (e) speak at a relatively fast pace (p. 17).

When communicating with someone who is a spirited communicator, focus on his

or her opinions and inspiring ideas. Russo et al. (2008) also suggest; (a) be supportive of

100

their ideas, (b) do not hurry the discussion, (c) engage in brainstorming, (d) be

entertaining and fast moving, and (e) allow them to share their ideas freely (p. 17).

When communicating with someone who is a considerate communicator, focus

on the relationship with him or her. Russo et al. (2008) also suggest (a) be supportive of

their feelings, (b) make sure their needs are understood, (c) be informal, (d) maintain a

relaxed pace, and (e) give them time to build trust (p. 17).

When communicating with someone who is a systematic communicator, focus on

facts, not opinions. Russo et al. (2008) also suggest (a) be thorough and organized, (b)

provide data when possible, (c) be precise in presentations, (d) avoid gimmicks, and (e)

allow time for analysis (p. 17).

Another way style flexing can be done is by inviting a third party into the

conversation that better matches the communication style of the one with whom an

individual is trying to have a conversation (Russo et al., 2008). This method of style

flexing is particularly useful for individuals who feel they may not be able to personally

flex their style enough to communicate effectively with another on their own.

Field (2003) also suggests that when communicating with a group or team, an

individual should identify and flex his or her communication style based on the dominant

communication style of the team as a whole. This should be done in place of trying to

communicate individually with each member of the group or team.

Research has shown that successful leaders are all able to flex their

communication style effectively (Barrett, 2006; Penley, Alexander, Jernigan, &

Henwood, 1991; Riggio et. al. 2003; Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam & Jablin, 1991).

Hartman and McCambridge (2011) argue that developing the necessary skills for style

101

flexing in the next generation of leaders is crucial for their long-term success. It is

imperative that pastors of large churches develop the ability to effectively flex their

communication style if they desire to be competent leaders.

Chapter Summary

Chapter 2 has presented a review of the literature related to the research problem

stated in chapter 1. The first section of this chapter focused on the unique dynamics of

large churches. The second section dealt with the relationship between leadership and

power. The third section dealt with the relationship between leadership and

communication with a focus on the communication styles of Russo et al. (2008).

Lead pastors of large churches require a unique set of skills in order to lead

successfully. At their core, they must be leaders. Without losing sight of the need for

ministerial interaction or ministry management, lead pastors must effectively

communicate a compelling vision to those within the church. They must manage a

complex network of interrelated relationships. Yet, much of the literature aimed at these

lead pastors is focused on helping them emulate the leadership style of other dynamic

personalities or develop strategic processes that will help their church thrive.

In conclusion, there seems to be a lack of solid research aimed at helping lead

pastors of large churches understand that their everyday communication style and their

use of power impact their ability to lead. Chapter 3 will highlight the methodology of the

current study.

102

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the

communication style of lead pastors of large churches belonging to the Christian and

Missionary Alliance (as measured by the Communication Style Inventory) and their use

of power style (as measured by the Personal Power Profile). This study was designed to

provide basic research information on church leadership, communication style, and the

use of power in leadership.

This current research sought to bring clarity to the impact of communication style

and the use of power on the leadership of lead pastors of large churches. The previous

chapters detailed the research problem and relevant literature related to the subject. In this

chapter the methodological design will be considered.

Research Question Synopsis

This research is designed to address the following questions:

1. What is the most common communication style (as measured by the CSI)

found among lead pastors within the sample group?

2. What is the most common use of power style (as measured by the PPP) found

among lead pastors within the sample group?

3. What is the relationship between communication style and use of power style

among these lead pastors?

4. What, if any, are the effects of selected demographic variables on the

communication style of lead pastors within the sample group?

103

5. What, if any, are the effects of selected demographic variables on the use of

power of lead pastors within the sample group?

Research Design

This research was designed to determine what, if any, relationship exists between

the communication style of lead pastors of large churches and the way in which they use

power in leadership. In order to accomplish this, a descriptive study was utilized.

Population

The population for this study was lead pastors of churches within the Christian

and Missionary Alliance Church (C&MA) that have an average main worship attendance

of 300 or more. A.B. Simpson began the Christian and Missionary Alliance in 1887

(www.cmalliance.org). The C&MA was founded because of Simpson’s deep-seated

belief that the return of Christ would be hastened as all peoples from around the globe

were given access to the Gospel. Thus, the C&MA was originally begun as an

organization that could facilitate a wide array of outreach ministries. Long known for its

international missions involvement, it was not until 1974 that the C&MA, recognizing the

need to disciple those impacted through local outreach, became an evangelical

denomination. Originally, the C&MA included all ministries that took place in Canada.

However, in 1981, through mutual agreement, the C&MA Canada became an

independent and autonomous denomination.

The C&MA is made up of over 2,000 churches in the United States including

Puerto Rico. These churches are organized into 30 districts and 7 associations. C&MA

districts are geographically bounded. C&MA associations are grouped by ethnicity and/or

104

language. According to C&MA national office records from 2015, there are 202 C&MA

churches with an average attendance of 300 or more at the main worship service.

This population was selected for several reasons. First, the researcher is a C&MA

pastor serving within a large C&MA church. While not currently serving as a lead pastor,

this researcher has served in several large C&MA churches over the past 15 years and is

keenly aware of the potential benefit such research may hold for lead pastors of large

C&MA churches. Second, the C&MA represents a wide array of geographic, ethnic, and

generational diversity. This reality can only serve to strengthen the results of the

proposed research. Finally, this denomination is representative of many beliefs

commonly held among most evangelicals. This made the current research more

generalizable.

Sample

The sample of this current research was made up of the full population of lead

pastors from C&MA churches with an average main worship attendance of 300 or more.

To qualify, churches needed to currently employ a senior pastor or lead pastor at the time

the research was conducted.

According to the website for Survey System, to reach a 95% confidence level,

with a confidence interval of 5, in a population of 202 churches one needs a sample of

133 churches (http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm).

Limitations

This research generalizes to churches within the US Christian and Missionary

Alliance. It is possible, although it cannot be claimed, that similarities may exist between

C&MA churches and the broader community of evangelical churches. One may come

105

across similar findings in other various evangelical populations due to the presence of

significant alignment between the C&MA and mainstream evangelicalism.

This research took place in a denomination that does not ordain women. As such,

this research may not generalize to female lead pastors. Furthermore, this research may

not fully generalize to denominations that do ordain women.

This research may not be generalizable to every cultural pocket within the United

States. While there is a good representation of states and regions represented within the

proposed population, not all states and regions were tested uniformly. In other words,

there may be individuals from various cultural contexts within the United States who

would respond differently than the population that was sampled.

This research was conducted within churches with an average Sunday attendance

of 300 or more, so it is possible that it will not generalize to churches with less than 300

in attendance on an average Sunday. It is quite possible that sampling from churches with

less than 300 in attendance on an average Sunday would yield different results.

This study was also limited by the ability of various instruments to accurately

measure their intended focus. As such, this study was limited to the ability of the CSI to

measure the communication style of lead pastors. This study was also limited to the

ability of the PPP to measure the use of power style used by these lead pastors.

Finally, this study was limited to the ability of the individual to answer truthfully

questions of a personal nature. This study assumed that each participant who completed a

survey instrument did so truthfully and accurately.

106

Instrumentation

This current research utilized two instruments. The first instrument was the

Communication Style Inventory. This instrument was used to determine the most

common communication style of lead pastors. The second instrument was the Personal

Power Profile. This instrument was used to determine the most common use of power

style utilized by these lead pastors.

Communication Style Inventory (CSI)

The Communication Style Inventory (CSI) was utilized in this research to

determine the communication style used by lead pastors involved in the study. Dr. Eileen

Russo et al., along with the research and development team at HRDQ, developed the

Communication Style Inventory in 1995.

The Communication Style Inventory (CSI) is a 24-question survey designed to

measure various communication behaviors. These 24 communication behaviors were

selected from over 100 possible behaviors that had been collected through extensive

research and review on personality styles and forms of communication.

The sample size of the CSI.

HRDQ used a simple random sampling method to determine the appropriate

sample size needed to accurately assess the efficacy of the CSI. During the original

analysis of the What’s My Communication Style? assessment, it was determined that a

sample size of 210 would provide a 98% confidence level that the data presented would

be representative of the population.

107

The face validity of the CSI.

Face validity is concerned with whether the CSI makes sense to the average

person and whether it will help that person learn more effective behavior. The What’s My

Communication Style? assessment was distributed to 30 training and development

practitioners to determine its face validity. Comments were received and leveraged in the

development of the facilitator guide. Ultimately, the panel responded that the What’s My

Communication Style? assessment did in fact achieve face validity.

The content validity of the CSI.

Content validity is concerned with answering the following question: “Is the

content on the assessment representative of the theory on which it is based?” First, a

thorough review of the literature on personality styles and specific forms of

communication was conducted. Second, the test was distributed to clients interested in

communication styles. Their comments were used to revise the assessment and the

facilitator guide.

The construct validity of the CSI.

Construct validity is concerned with whether the What’s My Communication

Style? assessment items actually measure what they claim to measure. A two fold

literature review was conducted that led the research team to finalize the 24 behaviors

used in the test version of the assessment. Once the initial list of 24 behaviors was

complete, the assessment was given to 30 training and development practitioners. The

results were analyzed, and it was revealed that 10 items were not in sync with the other

items within each style. These items were then revised, and more analysis of the

instrument was conducted.

108

The assessment was then given to the same individuals who participated in the

pilot version of What’s My Style? (an earlier instrument developed by HRQD). The

comparison indicated that 81% of the respondents showed the same pattern of style as in

What’s My Style? and What’s My Communication Style? Researchers attributed the fact

that 19% did not show the same pattern to the fact that some individuals have the

tendency to be unaware of how they communicate, which can lead to differences in self-

perception between the two assessments.

Finally, HRQD used the Principal Component Analysis method processed

through the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program. During this

process, the research team looked for anything that seemed to be an outlier. They did not

identify any significant outliers.

The ranges, means, and standard deviations of the CSI.

The ranges show the highest and lowest scores found within the sample. Mean

scores offer the statistical averages of the scores. Finally, the standard deviation shows

how closely the scores have clustered around the mean. Table 11 shows the initial

Table 11

Initial Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations for the CSI

Dimension N Range Mean

Standard

Deviation

Direct 918 0-12 4.12 2.11

Spirited 918 0-18 5.28 2.52

Systematic 918 0-17 7.53 2.86

Considerate 918 0-17 6.99 2.86

Note. Adapted from What’s My Communication Style? by E. M. Russo, S. McBrier

Development Inc.

109

statistical data from the development of the CSI. Table 12 shows the most recent

statistical data taken from the ongoing collection of data at HRQD. As Tables 11 and 12

note, all the standard deviations fall between 2 and 3 deviations points, which is

considered acceptable for an assessment of this type.

Table 12

Recent Ranges, Means, and Standard Deviations for the CSI

Dimension N Range Mean

Standard

Deviation

Direct 3,628 0-20 4.519 2.24926

Spirited 3,628 0-18 5.2867 2.55396

Systematic 3,628 0-17 7.0174 2.70617

Considerate 3,628 0-18 7.1309 2.8566

Note. Adapted from What’s My Communication Style? by E. M. Russo, S. McBrier

Development Inc.

The Personal Power Profile (PPP)

The Personal Power Profile was used to determine the power style of the lead

pastors involved in this study. Hinkin and Schriesheim (1989) are the originators of the

PPP. It was designed to be used by individuals as a reporting tool of a supervisor’s use of

power style. Hackman and Johnson later developed it into a self-reporting instrument in

2004.

The content validity of the PPP.

Hinkin and Schriesheim (1989) each separately developed definitions for each of

French and Raven’s (1959) bases of power. Following this, they jointly evaluated the

proposed definitions and came to an agreement on the definitions. They then developed

an initial list of 53 items to be used in their questionnaire.

110

The face validity of the PPP.

Hinkin and Schriesheim (1989) distributed questionnaires to respondents in the

classroom and encouraged voluntary participation. Via this process they collected three

distinct samples. After reviewing the responses to the questionnaire, they reduced the

total number of power items from 42 to 20. Linear Structural Relations (LISREL)

analysis was conducted on the 20 items, and it was concluded that there was an excellent

fit to the data.

The construct validity of the PPP.

In order to ensure construct validity, Hinkin and Schriesheim (1989) conducted

three separate analyses. First, they conducted an assessment of scale independence. The

scale was highly reliable in all three sample groups. Second, they conducted factor

analysis of item discriminant validity. Their findings showed that in none of the sample

groups did participants allow their affective attitudes toward the scale to impact their

perceived bases of power. Finally, they conducted a concurrent validity analyses. They

did this to examine the relationships between the power scales and the dependent

variables that were measured in each sample. They reported their findings to this analysis

in detail in their published work. Each analysis supported the idea that their instrument

was sound.

The self-reporting PPP.

Hackman and Johnson developed the PPP into a self-reporting instrument in

2004. This instrument asks the respondents to consider 20 items. There are four items tied

to each of the five power bases described by French and Raven (1959). The self-reporting

instrument encourages respondents to respond to each item by “thinking about how you

111

prefer to influence others” (Hackman & Johnson, 2013 p. 138). Using a Likert-type scale,

respondents then mark what number most closely represents how they feel about the

particular item. Using the completed instrument, values are tabulated for each power

base. The individual tally for each base is then divided by four, giving the respondent a

score for each power base ranging from one to five. Hackman and Johnson (2013) note

that a score of four or five means that the respondent is most likely to prefer influencing

others using that particular form of power. They also note that scoring a two or less

indicates that the respondent does not prefer to use that particular form of power to

influence others.

Procedures

This current research followed a three phase administrative process following the

successful completion of an institutional review process through Lancaster Bible College.

During phase 1, the researcher emailed the lead pastor of each of the churches

within the research sample to cast a vision for the value of this study and ask for their

participation within the study. This took the form of an email (see Appendix A). This

email asked for a response within ten days of receiving the email.

During phase two, follow up reminders were sent to all lead pastors within the

sample group who had yet to respond to the initial query from the researcher (see

Appendix B).

Phase three was the distribution of the research instruments. Study participants

received a packet in the mail with instructions including the two surveys (CSI and PPP)

and one demographic questionnaire (see Appendix C). Participants were asked to

complete the surveys and return them to the researcher.

112

Upon receiving the competed surveys, the researcher aggregated responses in an

Excel spreadsheet, and the responses were analyzed. For research question one, total

scores for communication styles were calculated for each participant. Averages for each

subscale total were compared to determine which style was the most common among

lead pastors. Means and standard deviations for the scales were also calculated and

placed in rank order for interpretation. Research question two utilized the same analysis

using the use of power subscales.

For research question three, Pearson correlations between the CSI and PPP were

calculated. As predicative patterns emerged, a secondary analysis using multiple

regression examined the communication style combinations most predictive of power

style.

For research question four, Chi-Square tests and Pearson correlations were used to

measure whether there was a significant difference between the effects of categorical

independent variables on the selected categorical dependent variable. For question four,

communication style serves as the dependent variable while demographic variables

served as the independent variables. Research question five utilized the same analysis

using use of power as the dependent variable and demographic variables as the

independent variables.

Chapter Summary

This chapter detailed the current research design, the research population and

sample, research limitations, instrumentation, and the research procedures. This research

was designed to examine the communication styles and use of power styles of lead

pastors of large churches. The population was selected from churches within the C&MA.

113

The instruments used during this research were the Communication Style Inventory (CSI)

and the Personal Power Profile (PPP). The CSI was used to measure the particular

communication style of lead pastors. The PPP was used to measure the particular use of

power styles of lead pastors.

114

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

The purpose of this research was to examine the relationship between the

communication style of lead pastors and their use of power in leadership. Chapter one

introduced the subject and discussed the inter-related nature of both communication and

power in the life of a leader. Chapter two offered an in-depth review of the literature

directed at the organizational dynamics of large churches, power and leadership, as well

as communication and leadership. Chapter two also introduced the four communication

styles and five power styles that were utilized within this research. Chapter three detailed

the research and how it would be approached. It laid out the population, the sample, and

also detailed the two instruments that were utilized in this study. Chapter four will detail

the results of the study and offer detailed analysis of the data.

The following research questions guided this study:

1. What is the most common communication style (as measured by the

Communication Style Inventory, CSI) found among lead pastors within the

sample group?

2. What is the most common use of power style (as measured by the Personal

Power Profile, PPP) to be found among lead pastors within the sample group?

3. What is the relationship between communication style and use of power style

among these lead pastors?

4. What, if any, are the effects of selected demographic variables on the

communication style of lead pastors within the sample group?

115

5. What, if any, are the effects of selected demographic variables on the use of

power of lead pastors within the sample group?

The population for this study was lead pastors of churches within the Christian

and Missionary Alliance Church (C&MA) that have an average main worship attendance

of 300 or more. It was determined that there were a total of 202 churches in the Christian

and Missionary Alliance with an average Sunday attendance in their church of 300 or

more. Emails were sent to the lead pastor of each of these churches asking them to

participate within the research. During this initial stage of data gathering, it was reported

that four churches did not meet the requirement of having 300 or more in attendance on

Sunday mornings. Seven churches had pastors who were either on sabbatical or otherwise

currently unavailable due to prolonged illness or extended travel. Twelve churches

reported that they currently had no lead pastor or were utilizing the gifts of an interim

lead pastor. Five lead pastors said they were too busy to participate in the study. Finally,

it became clear with 21 churches that significant language, cultural, or communication

barriers would prohibit them from participating in the study. For some churches, no

working website, email, or phone number could be located. For other churches, the lead

pastor could not communicate in English. This left the potential number of participants at

153. Therefore, the sample of this population comprised lead pastors from these

churches. Data was collected from 108 of these lead pastors. This gave a return rate of

70%. The following sections contain the statistical results of the data collected.

Research Question 1

The first research question sought to answer what was the most common

communication style among the lead pastors in this sample. This research utilized the

116

Communication Style Inventory (CSI) to collect the necessary data related to the

communication style of the lead pastors in this sample. The CSI is comprised of 24 items

grouped into four categories: Direct, Spirited, Systematic, and Considerate

communication styles. A Direct communication style is marked by high assertiveness and

low expressiveness (Russo et al., 2008). A Spirited communication style is marked by

high assertiveness and high expressiveness (Russo et al., 2008). A Systematic

communication style is marked by low assertiveness and low expressiveness (Russo et

al., 2008). Lastly, a Considerate communication style is marked by low assertiveness and

high expressiveness (Russo et al., 2008). Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between the

expressiveness and assertiveness among the various communication styles.

Each of the 24 questions queried in the CSI offered four possible answers, each

related to one of the four categories. At the completion of the survey, categories were

totaled with each category having a possible minimum score of 0 and a possible

maximum score of 24 with the overall score among the four categories equaling 24.

A descriptive statistical analysis revealed that the Spirited communication style

was the most common communication style among the lead pastors with a mean score of

6.972. The next most common communication style was the Considerate communication

style with a mean score among the lead pastors of 6.710. The third most common

communication style among lead pastors was the Systematic communication style with a

mean score of 5.879. The least common primary communication style among the lead

pastors was the Direct Communication style that had a mean score among the lead

pastors of 4.430 (see Table 13).

117

Table 13

Descriptive Statistics of Most Common Communication Styles of Lead Pastors

Communication Style Range Mean Standard Deviation

Spirited 2-13 6.972 2.451

Considerate 1-14 6.710 2.727 Systematic 1-14 5.879 2.445 Direct 0-12 4.430 2.360

Note. N=107. Possible score of 0 to 24.

Figure 3 offers a visual representation of the relative proximity of the top three

communication styles (Spirited, Considerate, and Systematic). It also contrasts the most

common communication style (Spirited) with the least common communication style

(Direct).

Figure 3. Bar graph depicting the most common communication styles of lead pastors

0 0

.5 1

1 .5

2 2

.5 3

3 .5

4 4

.5 5

5 .5

6 6

.5 7

Direct Spirited Systematic Considerate

M e a n

118

Frequency counts and percentage distributions were calculated in order to

determine the overall distribution of the lead pastors’ primary communication styles. This

was accomplished by counting only the top scored communication style (the

communication style ranked highest) for each of the 108 participants. A total of 122

communication styles are listed because several lead pastors had two communications

styles or three communication styles that tied for their highest rank communication style.

Of note within the percentage distributions is the fact that only 9.84% of respondents had

a Direct communication style as their primary communication style. The other three

communication styles were much more closely clustered while the lowest communication

style, Direct, was considerably lower than its counterparts (see Table 14). The means and

standard deviations for the highest individually ranked communication styles were also

calculated. The minimum range of scores was 0, and the maximum was 24.

Table 14

Descriptive Statistics of Highest Ranked Communication Style of Lead Pastors

Style N Range Mean

Standard

Deviation %

Spirited 46 7-13 9.196 1.360 37.70%

Considerate 39 7-14 9.333 1.883 31.97%

Systematic 25 7-14 9.400 1.607 20.49%

Direct 12 7-12 8.417 1.564 9.84%

Note. N=122 due to ties of highest ranked scores.

119

Research Question 2

The second research question states, what is the most common use of power style

(as measured by the PPP) to be found among lead pastors within the sample group? The

second research question sought to answer what was the most common use of power style

among the lead pastors. This research question utilized the Personal Power Profile (PPP)

to collect the necessary data. The PPP was made up of 20 items grouped into five

categories: Reward, Coercive, Legitimate, Referent, and Expert use of power styles.

Reward power is the power to reward in order to effect compliance. It is a power based

on incentive (French & Raven, 1959). Coercive power is the power to inflict punishment

or the threat of punishment in order to effect compliance. It is a power based on fear

(French & Raven, 1959). Legitimate power is power that is derived from an individual’s

position within an organization (French & Raven, 1959). Referent power is power that is

sourced by the ability of a leader to influence others based on their desirable traits or

characteristics (French & Raven, 1959). Expert power is power that results from an

individual’s ability to influence another based on his or her specialized knowledge or

skills (French & Raven,1959).

Of the 20 questions, a total of four were related to each of the power styles.

Respondents were asked to rate each question a 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly

Agree) on a Likert scale. At the completion of the survey, categories were totaled and

then divided by the sum of questions related to each power style (four). Thus, each

category was scored having a range of scores from 1 to 5.

A descriptive statistical analysis revealed that the Referent power style was the

most common use of power style among the lead pastors with a mean score of 4.367. The

120

next most common use of power style was the Expert power style with a mean score

among the lead pastors of 3.909. The third most common communication style among the

lead pastors was the Legitimate power style with a mean score of 3.470. The fourth most

common primary use of power style among the lead pastors was the Reward power style

with a mean score of 3.124. The least common primary use of power style among the

lead pastors was the Coercive power style that had a mean score of 1.357 (see Table 15).

Table 15

Descriptive Statistics of Most Common Use of Power Style of Lead Pastors

Communication

Style Range Mean

Standard

Deviation %

Referent 2.25-5 4.367 .567 60.61% 80

Expert 1.5-5 3.909 .570 25.00% 33

Legitimate 1.75-5 3.470 .721 9.85% 13

Reward 1-4.75 3.124 .742 3.79% 5

Coercive 1-4.75 1.357 .561 .76% 1

Note. N=108. Possible range of scores 1.00 to 5.00

Frequency counts and percentage distributions were calculated in order to

determine the overall distribution of the lead pastors’ primary use of power styles. This

was accomplished by counting only the top scored use of power style (the power style

ranked highest) for each of the 108 participants. A total of 132 use of power styles are

listed because several lead pastors had two communications styles or three use of power

styles that tied for their highest rank use of power style. Of note within the percentage

121

distributions is the high percentage of respondents who had a Referent power style as

their primary use of power style. 60.61% of respondents had a Referent power style as

their primary use of power style. Furthermore, the low percentage of respondents who

had either a Reward or Coercive power style should also be noted. Only 3.79% reflected

a primary power style that was based on Reward. Even more extreme, less than 1%

reflected a primary power style that was based on Coercion.

Research Question 3

The third research question states, what is the relationship between

communication style and use of power style among these lead pastors? The third research

question focused on the relationship between communication style and use of power style

among the lead pastors of Christian and Missionary Alliance churches with an average

attendance of 300 or greater. In order to test for relationship, the Pearson-Product

Moment Correlation Coefficient analysis was used in order to measure the

interrelatedness of the dependent and independent variables found within this study.

Table 16 presents the data derived from the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation

Coefficient analysis. Each of the four communication styles were analyzed with the five

uses of power styles using a Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient with an

Alpha of .05 being used for all analyses conducted within this study. Pearson-Product

Moment Correlation Coefficients were evaluated based on the significance of r (see

Table 17).

122

Table 16

Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Communication

Style and Use of Power Styles of Lead Pastors

Reward Coercive Legitimate Referent Expert

Direct r .029 .178 .081 -.034 .045

p .904 .069 .561 .649 .659

Spirited r .032 .100 .036 -.010 -.051

p .854 .319 .879 .858 .589

Systematic r .046 -.111 -.005 -.017 .066

p .607 .262 .990 .882 .495

Considerate r -.099 -.149 -.100 -.056 -.049

p .431 .132 .492 .470 .634

N=107

Table 17

Absolute value of r

Value of r Strength of relationship

.80-1.0 very strong

.60-.79 strong

.40-.59 moderate

.20-.39 weak

.00-.19 very weak

Note. Adapted from Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences by J. D.

123

No very strong or strong correlations existed between power and communication

style among the sample group overall. A very weak correlation was observed to exist

between the Direct communication style and the Coercive use of power style. The

correlation was at .178 with a .069 significance level (see Table 16). Also an even weaker

inverse relationship was detected between the Systematic communication style and the

Coercive use of power style. The correlation was at -.111 with no real significance level

(see Table 16).

However, when the sample group is sub-divided into categories based on the

average attendance on Sunday morning and the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation

Coefficient is calculated for each individual category, several correlations become

evident. Using McIntosh’s taxonomy of churches by size (see Table 18), Table 19 offers

the data derived from the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient analysis of

churches with 300-399 average Sunday attenders. For this category, n = 33.

Table 18

McIntosh’s Church Categories Based on Size

125

200

400

800

1,200

3,000

Note. Adapted from Taking Your Church to the Next Level: What Got You Here Won’t

124

Table 19

Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Communication Styles and

Use of Power Styles of Lead Pastors in Churches with 300-399 Sunday Attendees

Reward Coercive Legitimate Referent Expert

Direct r .311* -.175 .118 .373* .098

p .114 .383 .604 .042 .5

Spirited r -.219 -.105 -.364* -.138 -.348*

p .151 .624 .025 .382 .06

Systematic r -.076 .403* .180 -.249 .145

p .712 .023 .303 .175 .442

Considerate r -.181 -.324* -.217 .241 -.056

p .268 .077 .203 .198 .802

N=33

Six correlations are noteworthy within the sample of lead pastors who oversee

churches with an average Sunday attendance of 300-399. First, a weak correlation exists

between the Direct communication style and the Referent use of power style. The

correlation is .373 with a .042 significance level (see Figure 4). Second, a weak inverse

correlation was detected between the Spirited communication style and the Legitimate

use of power style. The correlation was -.364 with a .025 significance level (see Figure

5). Third, a moderate correlation was seen to exist between the Systematic

communication style and the Coercive use of power style. The correlation was .403 with

a .023 significance level (see Figure 6). Fourth, a weak inverse correlation was observed

125

to exist between the Spirited communication style and the Expert use of power style. The

correlation was -.348 with a .06 significance level (see Figure 7). Fifth, a weak inverse

relationship was seen between the Considerate communication style and the Coercive use

of power style. The correlation was -.324 with a .077 significance level (see Figure 8).

Sixth, a weak correlation was seen to exist between the Direct communication style and

the Reward use of power style. The correlation was .311 with a .114 significance level

(see Figure 9).

r=.373, p=.042

Figure 4. Scatterplot of the Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient between

direct and referent scores of lead pastors in churches with 300-399 average Sunday

attendees

126

r=-.364, p=.025

Figure 5. Scatterplot of the Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient between

spirited and legitimate scores of lead pastors in churches with 300-399 average Sunday

attendees

r=.403, p=.023

Figure 6. Scatterplot of the Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient between

systematic and coercive scores of lead pastors in churches with 300-399 average Sunday

attendees

127

r= -.348, p=.06

Figure 7. Scatterplot of the Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient between

spirited and expert scores of lead pastors in churches with 300-399 average Sunday

attendees

r= -.324, p=.077

Figure 8. Scatterplot of the Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient between

considerate and coercive scores of lead pastors in churches with 300-399 average Sunday

attendees

128

r=.311, p=.114

Figure 9. Scatterplot of the Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient between

direct and reward scores of lead pastors in churches with 300-399 average Sunday

attendees

When the sample of lead pastors who oversee churches with 400-799 average

Sunday attendees was investigated, no significant correlations were detected. Table 20

offers the data received from the Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient

analysis of these lead pastors’ relationship between communication style and use of

power style. For this category n = 42.

Four significant correlations were detected among lead pastors of churches with

800-1199 average Sunday attendees. These are evidenced in the full range of data

displayed in Table 21.

Several correlations are observed in the 800-1199 category. For this category,

n=17. The first significant correlation within the sample of lead pastors overseeing

churches with 800-1199 average Sunday attendees is a moderate inverse relationship

between the Direct communication style and the Reward use of power style. The

129

Table 20

Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Communication Styles and

Use of Power Styles of Lead Pastors in Churches with 400-799 Sunday Attendees

Reward Coercive Legitimate Referent Expert

Direct r -.037 .119 .054 -.064 .122

p .808 .467 .776 .915 .411

Spirited r .109 -.007 .009 -.032 -.025

p .488 .938 .994 .977 .894

Systematic r -.116 -.036 .226 -.177 .026

p .470 .824 .155 .257 .873

Considerate r -.035 -.087 -.116 -.210 -.165

p .826 .579 .454 .214 .306

N=42

correlation is -.438 with a .016 significance level (see Figure 10). The second relationship

within this sample is a moderate correlation between the Spirited communication style

and the Coercive use of power style. The correlation is .407 with a significance level of

.114 (see Figure 11). The third relationship within the sample is a moderate inverse

relationship between the Direct communication style and the Referent use of power style.

The correlation is -.453 with a significance level of .105 (see Figure 12). The fourth

relationship within the sample is a moderate correlation between the Spirited

communication style and the Legitimate use of power style. The correlation is .440 with a

.077 significance level (see Figure 13).

130

Table 21

Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Communication Styles and

Use of Power Styles of Lead Pastors in Churches with 800-1199 Sunday Attendees

Reward Coercive Legitimate Referent Expert

Direct r -.438* -.055 -.211 -.453* .081

p .016 .836 .232 .105 .680

Spirited r -.056 .407* .440* -.106 -.060

p .858 .114 .077 .067 .820

Systematic r -.1 -.115 -.278 .296 .216

p .786 .566 .328 .297 .433

Considerate r -.076 .196 -.290 .083 -.160

p .943 .716 .368 .435 .451

N=17

r=-.438, p=.16

Figure 10. Scatterplot of the Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient between

direct and reward scores of lead pastors in churches with 800-1199 average Sunday

attendees

131

r=.407, p=.114

Figure 11. Scatterplot of the Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient between

spirited and coercive scores of lead pastors in churches with 800-1199 average Sunday

attendees

r=-.453, p=.105

Figure 12. Scatterplot of the Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient between

direct and referent scores of lead pastors in churches with 800-1199 average Sunday

attendees

132

r=.440, p=.077

Figure 13. Scatterplot of the Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient between

spirited and legitimate scores of lead pastors in churches with 800-1199 average Sunday

attendees

The last category of lead pastors grouped together by average size showed the

strongest correlations of any category. Table 22 offers the data derived from the

correlational analysis of churches with 1200+ average Sunday attenders. For this

category, n = 15. This table incorporates those churches who fall into two of McIntosh’s

categories, 1200-2999 and 3000+. The reason for this is that only three respondents fell

into the 3000+ category. These two categories were combined in order to look at a more

reliable data set.

The first correlation of note in this category is a moderate inverse relationship

between the Direct communication style and the Reward use of power style. The

correlation is -.570 with a .014 significance level (see Figure 14). The second noteworthy

correlation is a moderate inverse correlation between the Systematic communication style

133

Table 22

Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient between Communication Styles and

Use of Power Styles of Lead Pastors in Churches with 1200+ Sunday Attendees

Reward Coercive Legitimate Referent Expert

Direct r -.570** -.290 -.267 .085 .232

p .014 .340 .292 .850 .483

Spirited r .010 -.078 .331* .514** -.082

p .892 .867 .287 .072 .575

Systematic r .233 .404* -.037 -.486* -.063

p .503 .107 .791 .037 .622

Considerate r -.219 -.139 .196 .118 .213

p .147 .827 .713 .989 .893

N=15

and the Referent use of power style. The correlation is -.486 with a .037 significance

level (see Figure 15). The third correlation within this sample is a moderate correlation

between the Spirited communication style and the Legitimate use of power style. The

correlation is .331 with a .287 significance level (see Figure 16). The fourth correlation is

a moderate correlation between the Spirited communication style and the Referent use of

power style. The correlation is .514 with a .072 significance level (see Figure 17). The

fifth correlation is a moderate correlation between the Systematic communication style

134

and the Coercive use of power style. The correlation is .404 with a .107 significance level

(see Figure 18).

p=-.570, p=.014

Figure 14. Scatterplot of the Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient between

direct and reward scores of lead pastors in churches with 1200+ average Sunday

attendees

p=-486, r=.037

Figure 15. Scatterplot of the Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient between

systematic and referent scores of lead pastors in churches with 1200+ average Sunday

attendees

135

r=.331, p=.287

Figure 16. Scatterplot of the Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient between

spirited and legitimate scores of lead pastors in churches with 1200+ average Sunday

attendees

r=.514, p=.072

Figure 17. Scatterplot of the Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient between

spirited and referent scores of lead pastors in churches with 1200+ average Sunday

attendees

136

r=.404, p=.107

Figure 18. Scatterplot of the Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient between

systematic and coercive scores of lead pastors in churches with 1200+ average Sunday

attendees

Research Question 4

The fourth research question states, what, if any, are the effects of selected

demographic variables on the communication style of lead pastors within the sample

group? It sought to understand what, if any, were the effects of selected demographic

variables on the communication style of lead pastors within the sample group.

Respondents were asked to complete a six question demographic questionnaire.

Respondents provided answers to the following questions: (a) birth year, (b) highest level

of education completed, (c) race, (d) years served at current church as lead pastor, (e)

total years served in pastoral ministry in general, and (f) average Sunday attendance of

their church in 2015. Descriptive statistical analysis was used to measure the responses to

(a), (d), (e), and (f). Chi-Square testing was used to determine the relationship between

(b) and (c) with other sets of categorical data.

137

After analyzing the data for each of these questions, the researcher found only one

significant effect was identified within the data. The data revealed that there was a weak

inverse relationship between the age of the lead pastor and the likelihood that his primary

communication style would be Systematic. The correlation was at -.201 with a .037

significance level (see Figure 19).

r=-.201, p=.037

Figure 19. Scatterplot of the Pearson-product moment correlation coefficient between

age and score of systematic communication style

Additional Analysis of Research Question 4

The literature review discussed the fact that churches display similar

organizational characteristics based in a large part on their size (George, 1991; McIntosh,

2009; Schaller 1975, 1980; Womack 1977). It was also argued that as a church grows the

role of the lead pastor changes. Table 23 offers a breakdown of the primary

communication style of lead pastors based on the size of the congregation they serve.

This table utilizes McIntosh’s (2009) taxonomy.

138

Table 23

Highest Ranked Communication Style of Lead Pastors Categorized by McIntosh’s

Taxonomy of Churches by Size

McIntosh's Size Categories

300-399 400-799 800-1199 1200-2999 3000+

Comm.

Style N % N % N % N % N %

Direct 2 6% 6 12% 1 5% 3 21% 0 0%

Spirited 10 30% 17 33% 11 50% 4 29% 3 100%

Systematic 9 27% 12 24% 2 9% 2 14% 0 0%

Considerate 12 36% 16 31% 6 27% 5 36% 0 0%

Total 33 51 20 14 3

Several observations may be gleaned from this comparison. First, with the

exception of lead pastors within the 1200-2999 category, the likelihood that a lead pastor

will utilize a Spirited form of communication primarily increases steadily as the size of

the church grows. In the descriptive analysis completed above, a very weak correlation of

.183 was observed between the Spirited communication style and the size of a

congregation. However, the significance level of the correlation was only .058. While

weak, it is nonetheless an interesting observation to note the general trend of the Spirited

Communication style among the respondents as it relates to the size of the church.

Second, it should be observed that only one communication style was noted within

churches with 3000+ in attendance. The sample size is too small to make in depth

analysis possible; however, no other size category displayed such communication style

focus as the largest category. Lastly, the Direct communication style was the least

common primary communication style in all but the 1200-2999 size category. In that

category it was the second least common style.

139

Research Question 5

The fifth research question states, what, if any, are the effects of selected

demographic variables on the power style of lead pastors within the sample group.

Respondents were asked to complete a six question demographic questionnaire.

Respondents provided answers to the following questions: (a) birth year, (b) highest level

of education completed, (c) race, (d) years served at current church as lead pastor, (e)

total years served in pastoral ministry in general, and (f) average Sunday attendance of

their church in 2015. Descriptive statistical analysis was used to measure the responses to

(a), (d), (e), and (f). Chi-Square testing was used to determine the relationship between

(b) and (c) with other sets of categorical data.

After analyzing the data for each of these questions, the researcher identified three

significant effects within the data. First, the data revealed that the level of education the

respondent had did indeed affect the likelihood that they would use a Referent power

style as their primary use of power style (see Table 24). Also, a weak inverse relationship

Table 24

Level of Education of Pastors Who Have a Referent use of Power Style as Their Primary

Style Cross Tabulation

Communicatio

n Style

Referent Not Referent Total

Level of Undergraduate Observed 17 2 19

Education Expected 11 8

Graduate Observed 29 20 49

Expected 30 19

Post Graduate Observed 33 30 63

Expected 38 25

Total 79 52 131

Table Chi-Square 9.517

Degrees of Freedom 2

Chi-Square Probability 0.008

140

was noted between the years the respondents had spent in overall pastoral ministry and

their use of the referent power style. The correlation was at -.238 with a .014 significance

level (see Figure 20). Finally, a very weak inverse relationship was detected between the

age of the lead pastors and the likelihood that the lead pastors will exercise a Referent

power style as their primary communication style. The correlation was at -.180 with a

.041 significance level (see Figure 21).

r=-.238, p=.014

Figure 20. Scatterplot of the correlation between total years in ministry and score of

referent use of power style

141

r=-.180, p=.041

Figure 21. Scatterplot of the correlation between age and score of referent use of power

style

Additional Analysis of Research Question 5

The literature review discussed the fact that churches display similar

organizational characteristics based, in a large part, on their size. It was also argued that

as a church grows the role of the lead pastor changes. Table 25 offers a breakdown of the

primary use of power style of lead pastors based on the size of the congregation they

serve. This table utilizes McIntosh’s (2009) taxonomy.

One observation that may be noted about the breakdown in Table 25 is the

gradual decrease of the number of power styles displayed the larger a church becomes.

Figure 22 illustrates the decrease.

142

Table 25

Highest Ranked Use of Power Style of Lead Pastors Categorized by McIntosh’s

Taxonomy of Churches by Size

McIntosh's Size Categories

300-399 400-799 800-1199 1200-2999 3000+

Use of

Power

Style N % N % N % N % N %

Reward 2 5% 1 2% 2 9% 0 0% 0 0%

Coercive 1 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Legitimate 2 5% 4 8% 5 23% 0 0% 2 50%

Referent 24 60% 34 67% 12 55% 8 62% 2 50%

Expert 11 28% 12 24% 5 23% 5 38% 0 0%

Total 40 51 22 13 4

Figure 22. Bar graph depicting the number of various primary use of power styles

displayed by lead pastors categorized by McIntosh’s taxonomy of churches by size

Summary of Findings

The descriptive statistical analysis discussed in this chapter revealed that the

Spirited communication style was the most common communication style among the lead

300-399 400-799 800-1299 1300-2999 3000+

143

pastors with a mean score of 6.972. It was shown that slightly more than 37% of all lead

pastors sampled display this communication style as their primary communication style.

The data also displayed that the least common communication style among lead pastors is

the Direct communication style.

The descriptive statistical analysis discussed in this chapter revealed that the

Referent use of power style was the most common use of power style among the lead

pastors with a mean score of 4.367. Slightly more than 60% of all lead pastors sampled

displayed the Referent use of power style as their primary use of power style. The data

also revealed that the least common use of power style among the lead pastors sampled

was Coercive.

Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient analysis revealed that two very

weak overall correlations exist between the way lead pastors communicate and use power

overall. A very weak correlation was detected between the Direct communication style

and the Coercive use of power style (r=.178, p=.069). A very weak correlation was also

detected between the Systematic communication style and the Coercive use of power

style (r= -.111, p=.262).

When the lead pastors were categorized by church size, several additional

correlations were detected. Among lead pastors of churches with 300-399 attending, a

weak correlation was noted to exist between the Direct communication style and the

Referent use of power style (r= .373, p=.042). A weak inverse correlation was also

detected between the Spirited communication style and the Legitimate use of power style

(r=0.364, p=.025), and a moderate correlation was also seen to exist between the

Systematic communication style and Coercive use of power style (r=.403, p=.023). A

144

moderate inverse correlation was detected between the Spirited communication and

Expert use of power style (r=-.348, p=.06). A moderate inverse relationship was also

noted between the Considerate communication style and the Coercive use of power style

(r=-.324, p=.077). A moderate correlation was also observed between the Direct

communication style and the Reward use of power style (r=.311, p=.114).

Among lead pastors of churches with 800-1199 attending, a moderate inverse

relationship between the Direct communication style and the Reward use of power style

was noted (r=-.438, p=.016). A correlation was also noted between the Spirited

communication style and the Coercive use of power style (r=.407, p=.114). A moderate

inverse correlation was noted between the Direct communication style and the Referent

use of power style (r=-.453, p=.105). A moderate correlation was noted between the

Spirited communication style and the Legitimate use of power style (r=.440, p=.077).

Finally, among lead pastors of churches with 1200+ attending, a moderate to

strong inverse relationship was noted between the Direct communication style and the

Reward use of power style (p=-.570, r=.014). An inverse correlation was also noted

between the Systematic communication style and the Referent use of power style (p=

-.486, r=.037). A weak inverse correlation was noted between the Spirited

communication style and the Legitimate use of power style (r=.331, p=.287). A

moderate to strong relationship was noted between the Spirited communication style and

the Referent use of power style (r=.514, p=.072). A moderate correlation was also noted

between the Systematic communication style and the Coercive use of power style

(r=.404, p=.107).

145

The effect of select demographic variables on the communication style of lead

pastors was considered, and two significant effects were noted. The data revealed that

there was a weak inverse relationship between the age of the lead pastor and the

likelihood that their primary communication style would be Systematic (r= -.201, p=

.037). Additional analysis revealed a weak correlation between the size of a congregation

and the likelihood that the lead pastor would display the Spirited communication style

(r= .183, p=.058).

The effect of select demographic variables on the use of power style of lead

pastors was considered, and several significant effects were noted. The data revealed that

the level of education the respondents had did indeed effect the likelihood that they

would use a referent power style as their primary use of power style. Also, a weak inverse

relationship was noted between the years the respondents had spent in overall pastoral

ministry and their use of the referent power style (r= -.238, p= .014). A very weak inverse

relationship was detected between the age of the lead pastors and the likelihood that the

lead pastors would exercise a referent power style as their primary communication style

(r = -.180, p= .041). It was also noted the population of lead pastors who minister in

larger churches display less variety among which use of power style is primary than do

the population of lead pastors of smaller churches.

This chapter provided a summary of the findings of the research conducted

among lead pastors of Christian and Missionary Alliance churches with an average

attendance of 300 or greater on a Sunday morning. Chapter five will seek to offer a

summary of the data findings accompanied by conclusions and recommendations derived

from these findings.

146

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this research was to examine the relationship between the

communication style of lead pastors and their use of power in leadership. Chapter one

introduced the subject and discussed the inter-related nature of both communication and

power in the life of a leader. Chapter two offered an in depth review of the literature

directed at the organizational dynamics of large churches, power and leadership, as well

as communication and leadership. Chapter two also introduced the four communication

styles and five power styles that were utilized within this research. Chapter three detailed

the research and how it would be approached. It laid out the population, the sample, and

also detailed the two instruments that were utilized in this study. Chapter four detailed the

results of the study and offered detailed analysis of the data. This chapter will complete

the study by offering the conclusions and applications of the study. Furthermore, this

chapter will discuss the limitations of this research as well as future research that might

be conducted given the conclusions ascertained from this study.

Research Purpose

Effective leadership requires that a leader display communication competence as

well as an effective use of power. However, this is not always easy. Previous research has

shown that communication and power both impact each other when it comes to

leadership (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002; Berger, 2003; Clark & Schober, 1992; Littlejohn

& Foss, 2011; Morand, 2000; Neufeld et al., 2010; Pacleb, 2013; Triller, 2011). It has

also been previously shown that in an age of increasing leadership complexity, many

congregations are exhibiting progressively lower tolerances for ineffective leaders within

147

their churches (Barna Group, 2009; Stewart, 2009). Thus, understanding the relationship

between a lead pastor’s communication style and use of power is of critical import.

This present research sought to understand what, if any, correlations exist

between the communication style and use of power among large church lead pastors. It

focused on lead pastors of churches with an average main worship attendance of 300 or

more who are part of the Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA) denomination.

Respondents took two self-assessing instruments. The first instrument was the

Communication Style Inventory (CSI) that assessed the individual’s primary

communication style. The second instrument was the Personal Power Profile (PPP) that

assessed the way in which the individual primarily exercises power in the context of

leadership.

Completed surveys were aggregated and analyzed. Responses to the CSI and PPP

were analyzed using means and standard deviations for scaling and were placed in rank

order to determine the most common communication style and use of power style among

lead pastors. Furthermore, responses were analyzed for any correlations between

responses to the CSI and PPP. As predictive patterns emerged, a secondary analysis using

multiple regression examined the communication style combinations most predictive of

power style. Finally, the effect of selected demographic variables on both use of power

and communication style were considered and reported if significant. In order to discover

any potential effects, a simple demographic survey was issued to respondents, and

responses were analyzed.

148

Research Questions

The following research questions guided this study:

1. What is the most common communication style (as measured by the CSI)

found among lead pastors within the sample group?

2. What is the most common use of power style (as measured by the PPP) to be

found among lead pastors within the sample group?

3. What is the relationship between communication style and use of power style

among these lead pastors?

4. What, if any, are the effects of selected demographic variables on the

communication style of lead pastors within the sample group?

5. What, if any, are the effects of selected demographic variables on the use of

power of lead pastors within the sample group?

Summary of Findings

The results gleaned from the data did not show any strong relationship between

the lead pastors’ communication style and use of power style. Most of the significant

findings were discovered in the effect selected demographic variables had on both the

communication style and use of power style of lead pastors.

Research Question 1

Research Question 1 examined the communication style of the lead pastors. It was

determined that the most common communication style among large church lead pastors

within the C&MA is the Spirited communication style. A Spirited communication style is

marked by high assertiveness and high expressiveness (Russo et al., 2008). The majority

of large church lead pastors (38%) within the C&MA had their highest individually

149

ranked communication style as Spirited. The second most common communication style

was the Considerate style (32%). A Considerate communication style is marked by low

assertiveness and high expressiveness (Russo et al., 2008). The third most common

communication style was the Systematic style (20%). A Systematic communication style

is marked by low assertiveness and low expressiveness (Russo et al., 2008). The fourth

most common communication style was the Direct style (10%). A Direct communication

style is marked by high assertiveness and low expressiveness (Russo et al., 2008). Figure

2 illustrates the relationship between expressiveness and assertiveness among the various

communication styles.

Research Question 2

Research Question 2 examined the use of power styles among lead pastors. It was

determined that the most common use of power style among large church lead pastors

within the C&MA is the Referent style. Referent power is power that is sourced by the

ability of a leader to influence others based on his or her desirable traits or characteristics

(French & Raven, 1959). The majority of large church lead pastors (61%) within the

C&MA had their highest individually ranked use of power style as Referent. The second

most common use of power style was the Expert style (25%). Expert power is power that

results from an individual’s ability to influence another based on his or her specialized

knowledge or skills (French & Raven, 1959). The third was the Legitimate style (10%).

Legitimate power is power that is derived from an individual’s position within an

organization (French & Raven, 1959). The fourth was the Reward style (4%). Reward

power is the power to reward in order to effect compliance. It is a power based on

incentive (French & Raven, 1959). The least common was the Coercive style. Coercive

150

power is the power to inflict punishment or the threat of punishment in order to effect

compliance. It is a power based on fear (French & Raven, 1959). In regard to the

Coercive style it must be noted that only one respondent ranked the Coercive use of

power style as their highest individually ranked style. This accounts for less than 1% of

the total population. It is clear from this research that coercive power is rarely the highest

ranked use of power style among large church lead pastors.

Research Question 3

Research Question 3 asked if there was any relationship between the

communication style and use of power style among large church lead pastors within the

C&MA. For this study, a large church was defined as a church that had an average main

worship attendance of 300 or more. Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Coefficient

analysis revealed that two very weak overall correlations exist between the way lead

pastors communicate and use power overall (see Table 17). A very weak correlation was

detected between the Direct communication style and the Coercive use of power style

(r=.178, p=.069). A very weak correlation was also detected between the Systematic

communication style and the Coercive use of power style (r= -.111, p=.262).

When the lead pastors were categorized by church size, several additional

correlations were detected. Among lead pastors of churches with 300-399 attending, a

weak correlation was noted to exist between the Direct communication style and the

Referent use of power style (r= .373, p=.042). A weak inverse correlation was also

detected between the Spirited communication style and the Legitimate use of power style

(r=0.364, p=.025). An inverse relationship occurs when one variable decreases in

strength as the other variable increases. A moderate correlation was also seen to exist

151

between the Systematic communication style and Coercive use of power style (r=.403,

p=.023). A moderate inverse correlation was detected between the Spirited

communication and Expert use of power style (r=-.348, p=.06). A weak inverse

relationship was also noted between the Considerate communication style and the

Coercive use of power style (r=-.324, p=.077). A weak correlation was also observed

between the Direct communication style and the Reward use of power style (r=.311,

p=.114).

Among lead pastors of churches with 800-1199 attending, a moderate inverse

relationship between the Direct communication style and the Reward use of power style

was noted (r=-.438, p=.016). A moderate correlation was also noted between the Spirited

communication style and the Coercive use of power style (r=.407, p=.114). A moderate

inverse correlation was noted between the Direct communication style and the Referent

use of power style (r=-.453, p=.105). A moderate correlation was noted between the

Spirited communication style and the Legitimate use of power style (r=.440, p=.077).

Finally, among lead pastors of churches with 1200+ attending, a moderate inverse

relationship was noted between the Direct communication style and the Reward use of

power style (r=-.570, p=.014). A moderate inverse correlation was also noted between

the Systematic communication style and the Referent use of power style (r=-.486,

p=.037). A weak inverse correlation was noted between the Spirited communication style

and the Legitimate use of power style (r=.331, p=.287). A moderate relationship was

noted between the Spirited communication style and the Referent use of power style

(r=.514, p=.072). A moderate correlation was also noted between the Systematic

communication style and the Coercive use of power style (r=.404, p=.107).

152

Research Question 4

Research Question 4 examined what, if any, was the effect of select

demographic variables on the communication style of large church lead pastors within the

C&MA. The effect of select demographic variables on the communication style of lead

pastors was considered, and two significant effects were noted. The data revealed that

there was a weak inverse relationship between the age of the lead pastor and the

likelihood that his primary communication style would be Systematic (r= -.201, p=

.037). Additional analysis revealed a weak correlation between the age of the lead pastor

and the likelihood that the lead pastor would display the Spirited communication style

(r= .183, p=.058).

Research Question 5

Research Question 5 examined what, if any, was the effect of select demographic

variables on the use of power style among large church lead pastors within the C&MA.

The effect of select demographic variables on the use of power style of lead pastors was

considered, and several significant effects were noted. The data revealed that the level of

education the respondents had did indeed effect the likelihood that they would use a

Referent power style as their primary use of power style (see Table 24). Also, a weak

inverse relationship was noted between the years the respondents had spent in overall

pastoral ministry and their use of the Referent power style (r= -.238, p= .014). A very

weak inverse relationship was detected between the age of the lead pastors and the

likelihood that the lead pastors would exercise a Referent power style as their primary

communication style (r = -.180, p= .041). Finally, it was noted that as the size of the

153

church increases, the likelihood that the full range of power styles will be visible as the

primary power style of lead pastors diminishes.

Research Implications

The precedent literature review for this research noted that lead pastors should

display different leadership skills based on the size of the congregation (George, 1994;

Green, 2005, 2007; McIntosh, 1999, 2009; Rothauge, 1984). This research offered

empirical evidence supporting that fact. Using McIntosh’s (2009) taxonomy as a

template, the data showed that a noticeable difference does in fact exist between the most

common communication and use of power styles among the lead pastors based on the

size of their church (see Table 18). Noticeable differences also exist between the various

communication and power styles of these lead pastors. This researcher believes that the

larger a church becomes, the more focused the role of the lead pastor becomes in turn.

This is apparent in the fact that there is less variety among the primary communication

and use of power styles the larger a church becomes (see Tables 23 and 25).

Moreover, this research added to the study that was conducted by Kelton (2005).

Kelton piloted similar research among presidents of colleges within the Council of

Christian Colleges and Universities. Comparing the results of the current research with

Kelton’s study derived several implications.

First, this current research showed that Christian leaders, when categorized by

profession, exhibit different primary communication styles. The most common

communication style found among the college presidents surveyed by Kelton (2005) was

the Considerate style. The most common communication style found among the lead

pastors surveyed in this current study was the Spirited style. Given the prior research that

154

exists on the utility of each communication style, this researcher believes that, while all

communication styles are valuable, various communication styles may be more apt for

certain professions than others (Bolton & Bolton, 1984; Kohn & O’Connell, 2005;

Montgomery, 2002; Quenk, 2002; Russo et al., 2008). Figure 23 offers a side-by-side

comparison of the current research with the findings of Kelton. Figure 24 offers a side-

by-side comparison of the current research with the CSI developers mean as of 2008

(Russo, et al., 2008).

Figure 23. Comparison of communication style scores among lead pastors and college

presidents

0 0

.5 1

1 .5

2 2

.5 3

3 .5

4 4

.5 5

5 .5

6 6

.5 7

Direct Spirited Systematic Considerate

M e a n

Lead Pastors

College Presidents (Kelton, 2005)

155

Figure 24. Comparison of communication style scores among lead pastors and instrument

developers research

Second, the two populations also exhibited the same least common primary

communication style. The least common communication style used by both groups was

the Direct style. This researcher believes that this commonality can be contributed to one

of two factors. It may be that because both of the study populations share common

Christian values that a Direct style of communication is the least compatible

communication style with Christian teachings. Christian teachings often highly value

character traits such as humility and servanthood as well as other traits, which may make

the Direct style of communication less likely to be found within Christian leaders. Or,

this similarity may in fact be related to the more germane reality that, as a whole, the

Direct style is least likely to be an individual’s primary communication style (see Figure

25).

0 0

.5 1

1 .5

2 2

.5 3

3 .5

4 4

.5 5

5 .5

6 6

.5 7

7 .5

Direct Spirited Systematic Considerate

M e a n

Lead Pastors

Russo, et al., 2008

156

Figure 25. Comparison of communication styles scores among lead pastors, college

presidents and instrument developers sample population

Finally, as it relates to Kelton’s (2005) work, this current research revealed that

both populations displayed very similar power distributions (see Figure 26). In fact, the

two populations displayed an identical distribution from most common to least common

primary use of style with only the percentages of each style varying. The order between

both groups from most to least common primary use of power styles was Referent,

Expert, Legitimate, Reward, and Coercive. This researcher believes this finding to be

significant to the broad field of Christian leadership. However, future research on varied

Christian ministry leadership would need to be conducted in order to confirm this

postulation.

One of the key commonalities between the two populations is their shared

Christian values. The Scriptures offer clear instructions to the Christian leader for

character, conduct, and speech. It is altogether possible that the accumulated teaching

0 0

.5 1

1 .5

2 2

.5 3

3 .5

4 4

.5 5

5 .5

6 6

.5 7

Direct Spirited Systematic Considerate

M e a n

Lead Pastors

College Presidents (Kelton, 2005)

Russo et al. (2008)

157

Figure 26. Comparison of power style scores among lead pastors and college presidents

aimed at Christian leadership may lead Christian leaders to exercise certain forms of

social power more liberally and others forms more conservatively. As was discussed in

chapter 2, the Scriptures display the appropriate exercise of all forms of social power

within the canon. However, seeing such similar findings among these two groups caused

this researcher to pause and consider whether the teachings of Scripture related to

leadership tend to lend themselves better to the more frequently observed styles displayed

among these two groups of mature Christian leaders.

This researcher also noted some significant implications related to how lead

pastors utilize the Referent use of power style. The data revealed that a relationship did in

fact exist between a lead pastor’s level of education and the practice of a Referent use of

power style as one’s primary style (see Table 24). When comparing the observed and

0 0

.5 1

1 .5

2 2

.5 3

3 .5

4 4

Referent Expert Legitimate Reward Coercive

M e a n

Lead Pastors

College Presidents (Kelton, 2005)

158

expected data from Table 24, it was noted that lead pastors with an undergraduate

education used the Referent use of power style more often than expected. Lead pastors

with a graduate education used the Referent use of power style as often as expected. Lead

pastors with a postgraduate education used the Referent use of power style less often than

expected. Pastors with less than a graduate degree tend to use the Referent style of power

more often than would be expected while those pastors with more than a graduate degree

tend to use the Referent style of power less often than would be expected.

The decreased likelihood that a more educated lead pastor will utilize the Referent

use of power style primarily displays some interesting ramifications. French and Raven

(1959) defined Referent power as the ability for a leader to influence others based on

their desirable traits or characteristics. Also, those who use the Referent power style

display an ability to administer feelings of personal acceptance or approval toward others

(Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989). Thus, more highly educated pastors should be aware of

the fact that they are statistically less likely to feel personally accepted by their

congregation.

Two more factors impact the likelihood that a lead pastor will utilize the Referent

power style as his primary use of power style. First, the longer that a lead pastor is in

ministry overall, the less likely he is to display the Referent style as his primary use of

power style (see Figure 27). Second, the older a lead pastor is the less likely he is to

display the Referent style as his primary use of power style (see Figure 28). In fact, as

Table 26 shows, the data reveals that the age of a lead pastor affects their level of

education. Thus, the longer a lead pastor ministers the less likely he will be, on average,

to display the Referent power style primarily.

159

r=-.238, p=.014

Figure 27. Scatterplot of the correlation between total years in ministry and score of

referent use of power style

r=-.180, p=.041

Figure 28. Scatterplot of the correlation between age and score of referent use of power

style

160

Table 26

Level of Education of Lead Pastors by Age Range Cross Tabulation

Age

30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ Total

Level of Undergraduate Observed 2 6 8 3 19

Education Expected 1.42 4.79 6 7

Graduate Observed 6 13 7 16 42

Expected 3.14 10.6 12 16

Post Graduate Observed 0 8 16 22 46

Expected 3.44 11.61 13 18

Total 8 27 31 41 107

Table Chi-Square 14.864

Degrees of Freedom 6

Chi-Square Probability 0.021

This research also undergirds one of the premises of the literature review.

Namely, this research supports the notion that as a church grows the role of the lead

pastor changes and becomes more focused (McIntosh, 1999, 2009). While lead pastors of

smaller churches within the population showed a full range of the use of power styles,

larger churches revealed that some use of power styles were noticeably absent from their

population of lead pastors (see Table 27). Coercive power was only observed to be a

primary use of power style among the smallest church size category. No lead pastor of a

church with 400 or more congregants exhibited Coercive power as his primary use of

power style. Reward power was only found to be a primary use of power style in the first

three church size categories. No lead pastor of a church with 1200 or more congregants

exhibited a Reward power style as his primary style. Absent among lead pastors of

churches with between 1200-2999 congregants were any who displayed a Legitimate

power style as primary. Absent among lead pastors of churches with 3000+ in attendance

were any lead pastors who displayed an Expert power style as their primary style.

161

Although more research is necessary to substantiate this idea, the absence of both

Coercive and Reward power styles within the larger church categories may be

contributed to the fact that as a church grows the role of the lead pastor shifts from

managing to leading (George, 1994; Hawco, 2005; McIntosh, 2000, 2009). The larger the

church becomes the more likely it is that the lead pastor will pass off to another the

important task of management, a task closely connected with both Coercive and Reward

power.

Further, with few exceptions, the Referent form of communication became

increasingly prevalent as the primary communication style as the size of the church grew.

This growing potency of Referent power may be attributed the increasing ability of the

lead pastor to communicate with large groups of people well. Effective large church lead

pastors have mastered communication with large groups of people and are able to

communicate in a caring and effective manner (Barna Group, 2013; Bird, 2009, Fogenay,

2013). Lead pastors need to be aware of the changes that occur within their church as it

grows and be willing to adapt both their communication and use of power styles

appropriately. Doing so will increase the effectiveness of their leadership.

Research Application

Communication and power are critical elements of leadership, and relationships

do exist between how leaders use these elements. Compared to the entire sample, the

strength of the relationship between communication and use of power increases when the

sample is divided into church size based categories. Based on the findings, several points

of application should be noted.

162

Table 27

Communication and Use of Power Styles Ranked from Most Common to Least Common

among McIntosh’s Church Size Categories

Communication

Style Ranked

from Most

Common to

Least Common

N %

Use of Power

Style Ranked

from Most

Common to

Least Common

N %

300-399 Considerate 12 36% Referent 24 65%

Spirited 10 30% Expert 10 27%

Systematic 9 27% Reward 1 3%

Direct 2 6% Coercive 1 3%

Legitimate 1 3%

400-799 Spirited 17 35% Referent 34 67%

Considerate 16 31% Expert 12 24%

Systematic 12 24% Legitimate 4 8%

Direct 6 12% Reward 1 2%

Coercive 0 0%

800-199 Spirited 11 55% Referent 12 55%

Considerate 6 30% Expert 5 23%

Systematic 2 10% Legitimate 5 23%

Direct 1 5% Reward 2 9%

Coercive 0 0%

1200-2999 Considerate 5 36% Referent 8 62%

Spirited 4 29% Expert 5 38%

Direct 3 21% Reward 0 0%

Systematic 2 14% Coercive 0 0%

Legitimate 0 0%

3000+ Spirited 3 100% Referent 2 50%

Systematic 0 0% Legitimate 2 50%

Direct 0 0% Reward 0 0%

Considerate 0 0% Coercive 0 0%

Expert 0 0%

163

First, the data revealed that certain communication and use of power styles are

more common than others based on the size of the church. While effectiveness is not the

same as frequency, churches may benefit from keeping in mind the most common

communication and use of power style found among lead pastors of churches that are

their size. Thus, churches might benefit from asking potential candidates for the role of

lead pastor to complete the Communication Style Inventory or the Personal Power Profile

in order to have a better understanding of how a particular candidate communicates and

uses power and whether the potential candidates’ primary styles seem to be a common fit

for the size of the church (see Table 27).

Current and potential lead pastors would greatly benefit from having a better

understanding of their own personal communication style. Such knowledge will open

their minds to the various communications styles that exist. In turn, as the precedent

literature notes, this will increase the likelihood that they will develop greater

communication skills across styles and in various situations thereby increasing their

leadership effectiveness (Russo et al., 2008). Furthermore, lead pastors who determine

that their primary communication style is less frequently observed in churches generally

or within the church they currently serve may specifically work to change their primary

style so that the way they communicate is more in line with the communication norms of

the average congregation their size.

Seminaries would do well to consider helping their students grasp a better

understanding of the nuances of communication apart from the pulpit. This can be helpful

in two distinct ways. First, by helping students gain a better understanding of off pulpit

communication, seminaries will increase the overall effectiveness of the interpersonal

164

communication of future church leaders. Second, a better understanding of

communication styles may actually assist future church leaders in selecting churches that

display goodness of fit as it relates to common communication style.

If maturity is taken as an assumption among lead pastors and Christian college

presidents, then one may conclude that those who function primarily out of a Coercive

use of power style are at risk of being at odds with the teachings of Scripture. While more

research is necessary, it seems as though the data of this study along with that of Kelton

(2005) suggests that although the Coercive style may be appropriate in certain situations,

it should not be the primary use of power style consistently expressed by mature

Christian leaders.

Further consideration was given to the impact of race so as to understand if

coercive power may be more prevalent in non-white cultures. As Table 28 notes, those

respondents who were non-white averaged a slightly higher mean Coercive style score

than did those who were white (1.464). Further, those non-white respondents revealed a

mean that was slightly higher than the overall sample while white respondents revealed a

mean that was slightly lower than the overall sample mean. However, no single non-

white respondent exhibited a Coercive power style as his primary use of power style.

Furthermore, only a single white respondent exhibited a Coercive power style as his

primary use of power style. The data seems to indicate that a Coercive power style is not

typically found within a church setting no matter the culture. However, further research is

necessary to fully understand the effect culture has on the use of power among lead

pastors.

165

Table 28

Mean and Standard Deviation of Coercive Power Scores among White and Non-White

Respondents

N Range Mean

Standard

Deviation

White 93 1-4.75 1.341 0.57

Non-

White 14 1-2.75 1.464 0.53

Sample 107 1-4.75 1.357 0.56

N=107

Lead pastors should also carefully consider the above implications related to how

their level of education impacts their use of Referent power. The data presented in this

research suggests that lead pastors should weigh whether further education is actually

beneficial for them given that the most common primary use of power style among lead

pastors of large churches is the Referent style. The pursuit of further education should be

carefully weighed because, depending on the level of education being pursued, further

education may actually decrease the likelihood that the lead pastor will display the most

commonly used primary use of power style among large church lead pastors. Thus, while

higher levels of formal education may be good for some lead pastors, it cannot be

assumed that higher education is good for all lead pastors who desire to have a strong

personal relationship with the members of their congregation.

Denominations and church associations would also do well to note the above

effect of formal education, age, and total years in ministry on the use of Referent power.

These groups should develop well thought out continuing education programs that help

foster a better awareness of current issues and ministry techniques without requiring lead

pastors to pursue formal education. Further, these groups should investigate how

churches under their care express their own form of social power over lead pastors

166

through the medium of continued formal education. Are lead pastors rewarded heavily

for continuing in formal education? Are they coerced into pursuing more formal

education? If lead pastors are incentivized or threatened into the pursuit of continuing

education, the net effect may actually be harmful for the local church or the pastor.

Finally, this study continues to affirm prior research done by church growth

experts as to the relevance and import of church size categorization (George, 1991:

McIntosh, 1999, 2009; Schaller, 1975, 1980; Thumma & Bird, 2009, 2015; Thumma et

al., 2005; Womack, 1977). Given that the lead pastors of various church size categories

showed differing correlations among their communication and use of power styles,

individuals should give proper weight to the dynamic of church size when considering

what type of communication style or use of power style may be best given in a particular

situation. Furthermore, as the church grows, the lead pastor should not be surprised when

the way he communicates and seeks to influence those around him needs to change. It is

true that what worked in one season may not work in another. This may help explain

why, at times, the very pastor who leads a church through a season of sustained growth or

crises may not be the one to lead the church once it has grown past a particular size.

However, this research also gives hope to the pastor who feels unable to grow his church.

Church growth may come more easily if the lead pastor begins to change the way he

communicates and influences those around him. How a pastor communicates and

exercises power matters.

Finally, this research seems to support two approaches to leadership. First, this

research supports a situational approach to leadership (Blanchard et al., 1985, Dansereau

et al., 1973; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969; House, 1971; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). This is

167

based on the fact that a leader’s approach to both use of power and communication can

and should change based on the situation. Second, this research seems to support a style

based approach to leadership (Blake & McCanse, 1991; Blake & Moulton, 1964). This is

based on the idea that communication and use of power are behaviors that can be

effectively taught to leaders.

Limitations of Study

One limitation of this study was its ability to connect with ethnic churches. While

the Christian and Missionary Alliance is fairly diverse, the overwhelming majority of

respondents within the population (86%) were Caucasian. The researcher found that in

some cases significant language barriers prevented him from connecting with ethnic lead

pastors. Other times language barriers kept ethnic pastors from fully understanding the

instructions of the survey instruments themselves. Still other ethnic congregations did not

keep adequate lines of communication open to those not already connected locally to the

congregation. This made it impossible for the researcher to make an initial connection for

participation within the study. For instance, unreliable phone numbers and emails were

listed and no websites were kept for the churches. Potential researchers may want to

consider taking a team approach to future studies, leveraging a multi-ethnic team of

researchers. This approach has the potential to garner greater minority participation

within the study. Also, potential researchers may want to include assistants within various

geographic regions who would be able to personally follow up with churches who seem

to be disconnected from phone and web services.

Another limitation of this study was that it required respondents to self-report on

the survey instruments. Self-reported data is limited by the fact that it is difficult to

168

independently verify (Brutus, Aguinis, & Wassmer, 2013). Given this reality, it is

possible that some within the population may have exaggerated or misrepresented the

responses to their questions. Some may have answered based on what they desired their

communication or use of power style to be, rather than answering more honestly with

what their communication or use of power style actually was.

Another limitation to this study was to be found in the demographic survey. In

this survey respondents were asked to identify the highest level of education completed.

Four possible responses were given: High School, Undergraduate, Graduate, and

Postgraduate. Upon analyzing the data, the researcher discovered that the research would

have been aided if this response were further delineated and more options presented. By

offering only a single option for Postgraduate the research was not able to note what

degree was pursued, a Doctorate of Philosophy or a Doctorate of Ministry. Furthermore

by only offering respondents the option of selecting which level of education was

completed, the researcher was unable to see the nuanced responses of those respondents

who were currently pursuing but had not yet attained a higher education degree. This

limitation turned out to be significant given the impact level education had, particularly

on the likelihood that a respondent would utilize Referent power as their primary use of

power style.

Finally, the generalizability of this research is limited to larger churches within

the Christian and Missionary Alliance. As such, this research may not be completely

generalizable to other specific populations. Furthermore, the generalizability of this

research may also be limited by the fact that participants self-selected. No incentive was

offered for participation. Only those who chose to participate in this study did so. It is

169

possible that different results may have been realized had different individuals chosen to

participate.

Future Research

This current research has opened the door for several new research endeavors.

First, this research should be replicated between two other distinct populations for two

key reasons. This research should be replicated among other populations of Christian

leaders such as Christian business leaders, missionaries, or denominational leaders.

Doing so would prove or dismiss the hypothesis that Christian leaders display various

primary communication styles but common primary use of power styles. This research

should also be replicated among non-Christian leaders in order to ascertain whether the

commonality found among this research and that of Kelton (2005) is limited to Christian

leaders only or is broader, encompassing non-Christian leaders as well.

Further research should also be conducted into the impact that education has on a

lead pastor’s use of power. A more detailed analysis will yield more detailed data. For

instance, consideration should be given to the type of degree earned. Consideration

should also be given to the place, pace, and progress of a lead pastor’s pursuit of higher

education and how these impact his use of power.

This research should also be replicated among lead pastors of churches with less

than 300 in attendance on Sunday morning. Further research into the communication and

use of power preferences of lead pastors of smaller churches will offer more data that will

either continue to support or conflict with the idea that the role of the lead pastor changes

along with the size of the church. It will also offer greater detail into how the

170

communication styles and use of power styles of lead pastors differ based on the size of

the congregation that they serve.

Finally, an adapted version of the PPP should be administered to the staff of large

churches in order to corroborate the findings of this self-reported study. It would be very

interesting to see if the staff of the lead pastors surveyed or key congregational members

would agree with how the lead pastor leverages power on a regular basis.

Conclusion

The goal of this research was to add to the discussion of communication and use

of power in church leadership today. This study sought to understand what, if any,

relationship existed between the communication style and use of power style among lead

pastors of churches within the C&MA with an average Sunday attendance of 300 or

greater. When grouped by various church sizes, both weak and moderate relationships

were detected within the research. These findings add to two different literature streams.

The correlations noted between the communication style and use of power style

support the concept that power and communication are interrelated in the context of

pastoral leadership. These correlations also support the broader literature base of

leadership in general by offering empirical evidence as to the relationship between

communication and power within leadership.

The correlations noted between the communication style and use of power style of

lead pastors also supports the notion that the role of the lead pastor changes along with

the size of the church. These correlations further substantiate the work of church growth

authors such as Thumma and Travis (2007), McIntosh (2009), Bird (2009) and others

who argue that the role of lead pastor is only as static as church growth.

171

Several significant findings were also discovered to exist when the effects of

selected demographic variables on the communication style and use of power style were

considered. Particularly noteworthy was the reality that the use of Referent power, the

most common use of power style among the sample, diminished as the age, years in

ministry, or level of education increased for the lead pastor. This data challenges

assumptions that further education is patently beneficial for a lead pastor. It also

challenges seminaries and denominations alike to create learning opportunities that are

not directly tied to formal education and more focused on leadership development than

they are on traditional pastoral ministry (Stewart, 2009).

Further insights were gained when the findings of this study were compared with

the previous research of Kelton (2005) among college presidents. When communication

styles were compared between different professions, different communication styles were

most common in each. However, when use of power styles were compared between

different professions, an identical ordering from most to least common was found

between them. Thus, comparing the two samples revealed that communication styles tend

to vary across professions while use of power styles were more stable across varying

professions. In both settings, the Direct communication style and the Coercive use of

power style were the least likely to be used as the primary style of respondents.

The role of the large church lead pastor is becoming increasingly complex. At the

same time, local churches are becoming less tolerant toward ineffective leadership. This

research offers poignant data that reveals the interrelated nature of communication and

use of power among lead pastors. The more familiar lead pastors become with the way in

172

which they communicate and use power, the more likely it is that they will increase the

effectiveness of their leadership.

173

APPENDIX A

LEAD PASTOR INITIAL CONTACT LETTER

Dear X,

Greetings. My name is Steve Grusendorf - I am on staff at Princeton Alliance Church as

the Associate Lead Pastor of Adult Ministries. I am also working on dissertation research

for a Ph.D in leadership through Capital Seminary and Graduate School.

With the consent of the National Office of the C&MA, I am researching what, if any,

relationship exists between the way large church lead pastors communicate and exert

influence. I am focusing my research among large church lead pastors of the Christian

and Missionary Alliance. I am reaching out to you as the lead pastor of one of these

churches in the hopes that you would be willing to invest 20-30 minutes of your time in

helping me complete this research.

I am asking if you would be willing to complete two simple surveys as well as one

general demographic questionnaire. This trio should only take about 20-30 minutes

of your time.

Your participation is both critical and appreciated. Would you be willing to respond to

this request by XXXX. To participate, simply respond to this email stating your

willingness to participate. I will then send you a packet in the mail to your church

containing the two surveys and the demographic survey shortly after your reply.

If you have any questions concerning this research please feel free to contact me

personally. My cell phone number is (xxx) xxx-xxxx. For more information about my

church, click here. For more information about Capital Seminary and Graduate School,

click here.

174

APPENDIX B

LEAD PASTOR FOLLOW UP CONTACT LETTER

Dear Pastor X,

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to this email.

My name is Steve Grusendorf - I am on staff at Princeton Alliance Church as the

Associate Lead Pastor of Adult Ministries.

I recently sent you an email requesting that you take part in some research I am

conducting among lead pastors of large churches within the Christian and Missionary

Alliance. This research is related to my Ph.D. dissertation through Capital Seminary and

Graduate School.

Your participation is critical to the success of my research. Would you be willing to

complete two simple surveys as well as one general demographic questionnaire? This trio

should only take about 30 minutes of your time. To participate, simply respond to this

email stating your desire to participate and I will mail a packet containing the

surveys to you at your church address.

If you have any questions concerning this research please feel free to contact me

personally. My cell phone number is (xxx) xxx-xxxx. For more information about my

church, click here. For more information about Capital Seminary and Graduate School,

click here.

175

APPENDIX C

LEAD PASTOR DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

AND INTRODUCTION LETTER

Thanks again for your willingness to participate in this research. This research is being

conducted by Pastor Stephen Grusendorf for a Ph.D. dissertation. In this research you

will complete 2 short surveys. Any information you provide will be held strictly

confidential, and at no time will your name be reported, or your name identified with

your responses. Participation in this study is totally voluntary and you are free to

withdraw from the study at any time.

By your completion of this questionnaire, you are giving informed consent for the use of

your responses in this research.

Respondents must be the current lead pastor of a church.

Please answer every question and follow all instructions carefully.

Surveys that are incomplete or not properly completed will not be used.

Birth year: ______________________

Circle the highest level of education completed:

High School Undergraduate Graduate Post Graduate

Circle your race:

African American African African Caribbean

Chinese Indian Korean

Filipino Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino

White/Caucasian Other

How many years have you served as the lead pastor at your current church?______

176

REFERENCES

Adams, R. B., Jr., Nelson, A. J., & Purring, K. (2013). Eye behavior. In M. L. Knapp, &

J. A. Hall, J.A. (Eds.), Nonverbal communication (pp. 229-262). Boston, MA: De

Gruyter Mouton.

Adler, G., & Hull, R. F. C. (Eds. and Trans.) (1971). Collected Words of C.G. Jung: Vol.

6. Psychological types. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Alessandra, A. J., & Hunsaker, P. (1993). Communicating at work. New York, NY:

Simon & Schuster.

Alessandra, A. J., & O’Connor, M. (1994). People smarts: Bending the golden rule to

give others what they want. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Andersen, P., Gannon, J., & Kalchik, J. (2013). Proxemic and haptic interaction: The

closeness continuum. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Hall (Eds.), Nonverbal

communication (pp. 295-332). Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.

Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects

of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 83(6), 1362-1377. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1362

Anderson, M. (1965). Multiple ministries: Staffing the local church. Minneapolis, MN:

Augsburg Publishing.

Anthony, M. (2005). Biblical perspectives of Christian management. In M. Anthony & J.

Estep (Eds.), Management essentials for Christian ministries (pp. 13-34).

Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman.

Anthony, M. & Estep, J. (Eds.) (2005). Management essentials for Christian ministries.

Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman.

Bakker-Pieper, A., de Vries, R. E. (2013). The incremental validity of communication

styles over personality traits for leader outcomes. Human Performance, 26(1), 1-

19. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2012.736900

Barge, J. K. (1994). Leadership: Communication skills for organizations and groups.

New York, NY: St. Martin’s.

Barna Group (2009). Report examines the state of mainline Protestant churches.

Retrieved from Barna Group website: http://www.barna.org/barna-

update/article/17-leadership/323-report-examines-the-state-of-mainline-

protestant-churches/.

177

Barna Group (2012). How pastors plan to improve their churches.

Retrieved from Barna Group website: https://www.barna.org/barna-

update/congregations/560-how-pastors-plan-to-improve-their-

churches#.VpRk1lIoQfF

Barna Group (2013). Christians on leadership, calling and career.

Retrieved from Barna Group website: https://www.barna.org/barna-

update/culture/609-christians-on-leadership-calling-and-career#.VYqqdaZGwfF

Barna Group (2013). The rise of the @pastor. Retrieved from Barna

Group website : https://www.barna.com/research/the-rise-of-the-pastor/

Barrett, J. B. (2006). Leadership communication: A communication approach for senior-

level managers. In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas & R. Whittington(Eds.), Handbook of

Business Strategy (pp. 385-390). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY:

Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research and

managerial applications (3rd ed.) New York, NY: Free Press.

Berger, G. A. (2003). Power and communication: Message interpretation and message

construction. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations &

Thesis Full Text database. (3087888)

Bird, W. (2009). Teacher first: Leadership network’s 2009 large-church senior pastor

survey. Retrieved from http://www.leadnet.org

Bird, W. (2014). Leadership network/vanderbloemen 2014 large church salary report:

An executive summary of research trends in compensation and staffing. Retrieved

from Leadership Network: http://leadnet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-

Salary-Report_082914_reduced-print1.pdf

Bird, W., & Thumma, S. (2011). A new decade of megachurches: 2011 profile of large

attendance churches in the United States. Retrieved from Hartford Institute for

Religion Research: http://hirr.hartsem.edu/megaChurch/New-Decade-of-

Megachurches-2011Profile.pdf

Blake, R. R. & McCanse, A. A. (1991). Leadership dilemmas – grid solutions. Houston,

TX: Gulf Publishing Company.

Blake, R. R. & Moulton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf

Publishing Company.

178

Blanchard, K. H. (1985). SL II: A situational approach to managing people. Escondido,

CA: Blanchard Training and Development.

Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, D., & Nelson, R. B. (1993). Situational leadership after 25

years: A retrospective. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1(1), 21-

36. doi: 10.1177/107179199300100104

Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, P., & Zigarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the one minute

manager: Increasing effectiveness through situational leadership. New York:

William Morrow.

Blomberg, C. (1992). Matthew. In D. S. Dockery (Series Ed.), The new American

commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman.

Boersma, S. A. (1988). Managerial competencies for church administration as perceived

by seminary faculties, church lay leaders, and ministries. (Doctoral Dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Thesis Full Text database. (8900140).

Bolton, R., & Bolton, D. G. (1984). Social style/management style: Developing

productive work relationships. New York: AMACOM.

Borchert, G. L. (2002). John 12-21. Nashville: Broadman & Holman.

Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14-25.

doi: 10.2307/202060

Bowden, A. O. (1926). A study of the personality of student leaders in colleges in the

United States. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21(2), 149-160.

doi: 10.1037/h0073378

Bradberry, T., & Greaves, J. (2009). Emotional intelligence 2.0. San Diego, CA:

TalentSmart.

Brauer, M., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2006). Social power. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 36(4), 601-616. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.355

Brutus, S., Aguinis, H., & Wassmer, U. (2013). Self-reported limitations and future

directions in scholarly reports: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of

Management, (39)1, 48-75. doi: 10.1177/0149206312455245

Buber, M. (1990). Kingship of God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus

Bull, P., & Doody, J. P. (2013). Gesture and body movement. In M. L. Knapp, & J. A.

Hall (Eds.), Nonverbal communication (pp. 205-228). Boston: De Gruyter

Mouton.

179

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Torchbooks.

Cartwright, D. (1959). Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, Research Center for Group

Dynamics, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1959.

Castandea, M., & Nahavandi, A. (1991). Link of manager behavior to supervisor

performance rating and subordinate satisfaction. Group Organization

Management, 16(4), 357-366. doi:10.1177/105960119101600402

Chaves, M. (2006). All creatures great and small: Megachurches in context. Review of

Religious Research, 47(4), 329-346. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/

stable/20058102.

Cheney, G., Christensen, L.T., Zorn, T.E., Jr., & Ganesh, S. (2010). Organizational

communication in an age of globalization: Issues, reflections, practices (2nd ed.).

Long Grove, IL: Waveland.

Chua, Y. R. (2008). How are choice givers perceived? Effects of choice provision on

leadership and trust perceptions. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations & Thesis Full Text database. (3305210)

Clark, H. H., & Schober, M. F. (1992). Asking questions and influencing answers. In J.

M. Tanur (Ed.), Questions about questions: Inquiries into the cognitive bases of

surveys (pp. 15-48). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

Colby, S. L., & Ortman, J. M. (2015). Projections of the size and composition of the US

population: 2014 to 2060. (Report No. P25-1143) Retrieved from US Census

Bureau website: https://www. census. gov/content/dam/Census/library

/publications/2015 /demo/p25-1143. pdf.

Cooper, A. A. (2001). Leadership in organizations. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.

Cornforth, C. (1999). Power relations between boards and senior managers in the

governance of public and non-profit organisations. In: 2nd International

Conference on Corporate Governance and Direction, 13-15 October 1999, Henley

Management College, UK.

Cowley, W. H. (1931). The traits of face-to-face leaders. The Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 26(3), 304-313. doi: 10.1037/h0074766

Coyle, M. B. (1993). Quality interpersonal communication-perception and reality.

Manage, 46, 6. Retrieved from http://bi.galegroup.com/essentials/article/

GALE|A14381329 /1094ac567467396fa366a3a170a0e9e8?u=sain44199

Crow, C. D. (1997). Enduring cultures of laity. Retrieved

fromnazarene.org/files/docs/Enduring%20Cultures%20of%20Laity.pdf

180

Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Trait versus state: A comparison of

dispositional and situational measures of interpersonal communication

competence. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 47(4), 364-379. doi:

10.1080/10570318309374131

Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201-215.

doi: 10.1002/bs.3830020303

Dansereau, Jr., F., Cashman, J., & Graen, G. (1973). Instrumentality theory and equity

theory as complementary approaches in predicting the relationship of leadership

and turnover among managers. Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance, 10(2), 184-200. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(73)90012-3

Dansereau Jr., F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach

to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role

making process. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 13(1), 46-78.

doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7

de Vries, R. E., & Bakker-Pieper, A., Siberg, R. A., van Gameren, K., & Vlug, M.

(2009). The content and dimensionality of communication styles. Communication

Research. 36(2),178-206. doi: 10.1177/0093650208330250

de Vries, R. E., Bakker-Pieper, A, Oostenveld, W. (2010). Leadership = communication?

The relations of leaders’ communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge

sharing and leadership outcomes. Journal of Business Psychology, 25(3), 367-

380. doi: 10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2.

de Vries, R.E., Bakker-Pieper, A. Konings, F., Schouten, B. (2013). The communication

styles inventory (CSI): A six-dimensional behavioral model of communication

styles and its relation with personality. Communication Research, 40(4), 506-532.

doi: 10.1177/0093650211413571.

DuBrin, A. (2015). Leadership: Research findings, practice, and skills (8th ed.). Boston:

Cengage Learning

Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA:

Brooks and Cole Publishing.

Ellingson, S. (2010). New research on megachurches. In B. S. Turner. (Ed.), The new

Blackwell companion to the sociology of religion (pp. 245-266). Malden, MA:

Wiley-Blackwell.

Fairholm, G. W. (1997). Capturing the heart of leadership: Spirituality and community in

the new American workplace. Westport, CT: Praeger.

181

Festinger, L. (1954). An analysis of compliant behavior. In M. Sherif & M.O. Wilson

(Eds.), Group relations at the crossroads (pp. 232-256). New York, NY: Harper.

Field, A. (2003). Intuitor, thinker, feeler, sensor: Which one are you talking to?. Harvard

Management Communication Letter, 6(7), 3. Retrieved from https://hbr.org

/product/intuitor-thinker-feeler-senser-which-one-are-you-talking-to/C0307A-

PDF-ENG

Field, J. (2008). Social Capital (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Flauto, F. J. (1999). Walking the talk: The relationship between leadership and

communication competence. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1), 87-97. doi:

10.1177/107179199900600106

Flemister, L. F. (1989). Relationship of power and leadership style of pastors on

satisfaction of church lay leaders (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (9007348)

Fogenay, K. (2013). A Christian mega church strives for relevance: Examining social

media and religiosity. (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations

& Theses Full Text database. (1553232)

Ford, L. (1991). Transforming leadership: Jesus’ way of creating vision, shaping values

& empowering change. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press

French Jr., J. R. P. & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright

(Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 259-269). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social

Research.

Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust

across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management. 38(4), pp. 1167-

1230. doi: 10.1177/0149206312439327

Galbraith, J.K. (1983). The anatomy of power. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Garland, D. E. (1999). 2 Corinthians. In D. S. Dockery (Series Ed.), The new American

commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman.

George, C. F. (1991). Prepare your church for the future. Grand Rapids, MI: Revell.

George, C. F. (1993). How to break growth barriers: Capturing overlooked opportunities

for church growth. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

George, C. F. (1994). The coming church revolution: Empowering leaders for the future.

Grand Rapids, MI: Revell.

182

George, T. (1994). Galatians. In D. S. Dockery (Series Ed.), The new American

commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman.

Goldhamer, H., & Shils, E. A. (1939). Types of power and status. American Journal of

Sociology, 45(2), 171-182. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2769807

Goleman, D. (2005). Emotional intelligence: 10th anniversary edition. New York, NY:

Bantam Dell.

Graen, G. B. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D.

Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1201-

1245). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.

Graen, G. B, & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role-making model of leadership in formal

organizations: A developmental approach. In: J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.),

Leadership frontiers (pp. 143-166). Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

Graen, G. B.., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:

Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25

years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Management Department

Faculty Publications. Paper 57. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/

managementfacpub/57

Gramby-Sobukwe, S., & Hoiland, T. (2009). The rise of mega-church efforts in

international development: A brief analysis and areas for further research.

Transformation: An International Journal of Holistic Mission Studies, 26(2), 104-

117. doi: 10.1177/0265378809103386

Green, C. (2012, April, 3). Why Trust is the New Core of Leadership [Web log post].

Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/trustedadvisor/2012/04/03/why-trust-

is-the-new-core-of-leadership/

Green, C. C. (2005). Pastoral leadership, congregational size, life cycle stage, and

church culture: A grounded theory analysis. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved

from ProQuest Dissertations & Thesis Full Text database. (3170687)

Green, C. C. (2007). Church size: Reframing our understanding and conversations.

Association of Nazarene Sociologists and Researchers, 23(15), 1-36. Retrieved

from http://nazarene.org/files/docs/Churchsizegreen2007.pdf

Green, C. C., & Hunter, S. (2010). An initial inquiry: Why pastors depart ministry and

how they feel about it: part 1. Retrieved from Center for Organizational Reform

website: http://corhome.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2010-Pastoral-Attrition-

Narrative-Research-Report.pdf

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant leadership. Mahway, NJ: Paulist Press.

http://corhome.org/wp-

183

Greenleaf, R.K., & Spears, L. C. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of

legitimate power and greatness. Mahway, NJ: Paulist Press.

Grouch, J.W. (Ed.) (1939/2004). Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works: Vol. 3. Creation and fall: A

theological exposition of Genesis 1-3 (D. S. Bax, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN:

Fortress Press.

Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C. E. (2013). Leadership: A communication perspective

(6th ed). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Hamilton, C. (2013). Communicating for results: A guide for business and the

professions (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Hargie, O., Saunders, C., Dickson, D. (1994). Social skills in interpersonal

communication (3rd ed.) New York, NY: Routledge.

Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1980). Theological wordbook of the Old

Testament (Vol. 1). Chicago, IL: Moody Press

Hartman, J. L., & McCambridge, J. (2011). Optimizing millennials’ communication

styles. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 74(1), 22-44.

doi:10.1177/1080569910395564.

Haugaard, M. (2002). Power: A reader. Manchester, England: Manchester University

Press.

Hawco, J. T. (2005). The senior pastor/executive pastor team: A contemporary

paradigm for the larger church staff (Doctoral dissertation, Covenant Theological

Seminary). Retrieved from http://www.xpastor.org/wp-content/uploads/2012

/12/hawco_john.pdf

Henry, C. F. (1999). God, revelation, and authority (Vol. 6). Wheaton, IL: Crossway

Books

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior:

Utilizing human resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hinkin, T.R., Schriesheim, C.A. (1989). Development and application of new scales to

measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 7(4), 561-567. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.561

Hodge, C. (1872/1997) Systematic theology (Vol. 1). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research

Systems, Inc.

Hollander, E. P. (1978). Leadership dynamics: A practical guide to effective

relationships. New York, NY: Free Press.

184

Hollander, E. P. (2012). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Hollander, E. P., & Webb, W. B. (1955). Leadership, followership, and friendship: An

analysis of peer nominations. The Journal of Abnormal And Social Psychology,

50(2), 163-167. doi:10.1037/h0044322

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 16(3), 321-339. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391905

Hunsaker, P. L., & Alessandra, A. J. (1980). The art of managing people. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, C. E. (2012). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or

shadow (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jones, G. W. (2012). A theological comparison between social science models and a

biblical perspective of servant leadership. (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from

ProQuest Dissertations & Thesis Full Text database. (3508469)

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership:

A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-

780. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.675

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Kosalka, T. (2009). The bright and dark sides of leader

traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm. The

Leadership Quarterly, 20(6), 855-874. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.004

Kaiser, W. (1991). Toward an Old Testament theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Kappas, A., Krumhuber, E., & Kuster, D. (2013). Facial behavior. In M. L. Knapp, &

J. A. Hall, (Eds.), Nonverbal communication (pp. 131-166 ). Boston: De Gruyter

Mouton.

Karnes, K., McIntosh, W., Morris, I. L., & Pearson-Merkowitz, S. (2007) Mighty

fortresses: Explaining the spatial distribution of American megachurches. Journal

for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46(2), 261-268. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-

5906.2007.00355.x

Katz, D., Maccoby, N., & Morse, N. (1950). Productivity, supervision, and morale in an

office situation. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Krause, M. (2008). A reciprocal influence

model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 151-192. doi: 10.1016/S0065-

2601(07)00003-2

185

Kelton, M. B. (2005). The relationship between communication styles of college

presidents and use of power in leadership (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (3189927)

Keller, T. (2006). Leadership and church size dynamics. The Movement Newsletter.

Retrieved from http://www.livingwatercc.org/images/VarArticles/

ChurchSize2.pdf.

Kittel, G., & Friedrich, G. (1964). 1976. Theological dictionary of the New Testament, 7.

Koehler, J. W., Anatol, K. W. E., & Applebaum, R. L. (1976). Organizational

communication behavioral perspectives. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and

Winston.

Kohn, S. E., & O’Connell, V. D. (2005). Six habits of highly effective bosses. Franklin

Lakes, NJ: Career Press.

Kohs, S. C., & Irle, K. W. (1920). Prophesying army promotion. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 4(1), 73-87.

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

York, NY: The Free Press.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make

extraordinary things happen in organizations (5th. ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Kreisberg, S. (1992). Transforming power: Domination, empowerment, and education.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Lalleman-de Winkel, H. (2005). The Old Testament contribution to evangelical models

for public theology. European Journal of Theology, 14(2), 87-97. Retrieved from

biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ejt/14-2_087.pdf

Larson, C. E., Backlund, P. M., Redmond, M. K., & Barbour, A. (1978). Assessing

communicative competence. Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication

Association and ERIC.

Lewin, K. (1938). A dynamic theory of personality. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. D.

Cartwright (Ed.) New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2011). Theories of human communication (10th ed.).

Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press

186

Lorinkova, N. M., Pearsall, M. J., & Sims Jr., H. P. (2013). Examining the differential

longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams.

Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 573-596. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0132

Luthans, F., Hodgetts, R. M., & Rosenkrantz, S. A. (1988). Real managers. Pensacola,

FL: Ballinger.

MacKinney, A. C. (1984). Planning in academic institutions. Professional Psychology:

Research and Practice, 15(5), 637-644. doi: 10/1037/0735-7028.15.5.637

Mackun, P. J., Wilson, S., Fischetti, T. R., & Goworowska, J. (2011). Population

distribution and change: 2000 to 2010 (Report No. C201 0BR-01). Retrieved

from US Census Bureau website: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010

/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf

Madlock, P. E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence,

and employee satisfaction. International Journal of Business Communication,

45(1), 61-78. doi: 10.1177/0021943607309351.

Mai, R. & Akerson, A. (2003). The leader as communicator: Strategies and tactics to

build loyalty, focus effort, and spark creativity. New York, NY: Amacom.

Malphurs, A. (2005). Leading leaders: Empowering church boards for ministry

excellence. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Mann, M. (2012). The sources of social power (Vol. 4). New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press

Marston, W. M. (1979). Emotions of normal people. Minneapolis, MN: Persona Press.

(Original work published 1928)

Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1-11:26. In E. A. Clenden (Ed.) New American

Commentary (Vol. 1A). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

McCroskey, J.C. (1982). Communication competence and performance: A research and

pedagogical perspective. Communication Education, 31(1), 1-7. doi:

10.1080/03634528209384654

McIntosh, G. L. (1999). One size doesn’t fit all: Bringing out the best in any size church.

Grand Rapids, MI: Revel.

McIntosh, G. L. (2000). Staff your church for growth: Building team ministry in the 21st

century.. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

McIntosh, G. L. (2009). Taking your church to the next level: What got you here won’t

get you there. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

187

Merrill, D. W., & Reid, R. H. (1999). Personal styles and effective performance: Make

your style work for you. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Mintzberg, H. (2009). Managing. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Moates, W.H. (1981). An analysis of ministers as managers of their churches (Doctoral

Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Thesis Full Text database.

(8126851).

Montgomery, S. (2002). People patterns: A modern guide to the four temperaments. New

York, NY: Archer Publications.

Morand, D. A. (2000). Language and power: An empirical analysis of linguistic strategies

used in superior-subordinate communication. Journal of Organizational

Behavior. 21(3), 235-248. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200005)

21:3<235::AID-JOB9>3.0.CO;2-N

Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Neufeld, D. J., Wan, Z., & Fang, Y. (2010). Remote leadership, communication

effectiveness and leader performance. Group Decision and Negotiation. 19(3),

227-246. doi: 10.1007/s10726-008-9142-x.

Niewold, J. W. (2006). Incarnational leadership: Towards a distinctly Christian theory

of leadership (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations &

Thesis Full Text database. (3243512)

Niewold, J.W. (2007). Beyond servant leadership. Journal of Biblical

Perspectives in Leadership, 1(2), 118-134. Retrieved from

https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/jbpl/vol1no2/JBPLVol1No2_Nie

wold.pdf

Northouse, P. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Norton, R. W. (1978). Foundation of a communicator style construct. Human

Communication Research, (4)2, 99-112. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-

2958.1978.tb00600.x

Norton, R. W. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measures. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.

Norton, R. W., & Brenders, D. A. (1996). Communication & consequences: Laws of

interaction. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

188

Olsen, C. G. (2009). The use of social power bases by Southern Baptist leaders: A mixed

methods study (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations &

Theses Full Text database. (3411376)

Orta, S. I. (2015). Dynamics of power in the workplace. Journal of Alternative

Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 6(3), 333-342. Retrieved from

http://m.journal.vpweb.com/upload/4.%20Orta.pdf

Packer, J. I. (1993). Concise theology: A guide to historic Christian beliefs. Wheaton, IL:

Tyndale House

Pacleb, T. G. (2013). The relationship between leadership styles, leader communication

style, and impact on leader-member exchange relationship within the banking

sector in the United State and the Philippines (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved

from ProQuest Dissertations & Thesis Full Text database. (3583465)

Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2009). Integrity and leadership: A multi-level

conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly. 20(3), 405-420.

doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.008

Pape, P. B. (2011). Building momentum: Leadership style and team effectiveness for new

leaders in transition (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (3481363)

Parrish-Sprowl, J., Carveth, R., & Senk, M. (1994). The effect of compliance-gaining

strategy choice and communicator style on sales success. International Journal of

Business Communication, 31(4), 291-310. doi:10.1177/002194369403100404.

Patel, S. & Scherer, K. (2013). Vocal Behavior. In M. L. Knapp & Hall (Eds.),

Nonverbal communication (pp. 167-204). Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Pearman, R. R., & Albritton, S. C. (2013). I’m not crazy, I’m just not you: The real

meaning of the 16 personality types. (Rev. ed). Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey

Publishing.

Penley, L. E., Alexander, E. R., Jernigan, I. E., & Henwood, C. I. (1991). Communication

abilities of managers: The relationship to performance. Journal of Management,

17(1), 57-76. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700105

Pfeffer, J. (2013). You’re still the same: Why theories of power hold over time and across

contexts. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 269-280.

doi:10.5465/amp.2013.0040

Preparation for childbirth *hospital Crosstabulation. (2016, May 15) Retrieved from

http://learntech.uwe.ac.uk/Data/Sites/11/images/chidiffcompout.gif

189

Price, M. J. (2002). After the revolution: A review of mainline Protestant clergy

leadership literature since the 1960s. Theology Today, 59(3), 428-450. doi:

10.1177/004057360205900308

Purcell, L. (2005). Recruiting and screening volunteers. In M. Anthony, M &

J. Estep (Eds.), Management essentials for Christian ministries (pp. 244-257).

Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman.

Quenk, N. L. (2002). Was that really me?: How everyday stress brings out our hidden

personality. Mountain View, CA: Davies-Black Publishing

Rananaware, V. S. (2015). Leadership roles: Application of Mintzberg’s leadership roles

to the church leadership. Intercontinental Journal of Human Resource Research

Review, 3(11), 23-37. Retrieved from http://icmrr.org/nov_2015/IJHRRR

/200511104.pdf

Raven, B. H. (1965). Social influence and power. In I. D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds.),

Current studies in social psychology (pp. 371-382). New York, NY: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston.

Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of

Social Issues, 49(4), 227-251. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb01191

Raven, B. H. (2008). The bases of power and the power/interaction model of

interpersonal influence. Analyses of Social Issues of Public Policy, 8(1), 1-22. doi:

10.1111/j.1530-2415.2008.00159

Reddin, W. J. (1967). 3-D Management style theory-typology based on task and

relationships orientations. Training and Development Journal, 21(4), 8-17.

Remland, M. (1981). Developing leadership skills in nonverbal communication: A

situational perspective. International Journal of Business Communication, 18(3),

17-29. doi: 10.1177/002194368101800303

Riggio, R. E. (1989). Manual for the social skills inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Riggio, R. E., & Carney, D. (2003). Manual for the social skills inventory (2nd ed.)

Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.

Riggio, R. E., Riggio, H. R., Salinas, C., Cole, E. J. (2003) The role of social and

emotional communication skills in leader emergence and effectiveness. Group

Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice. 17(2), 83-103. doi: 10.1037/1089-

2699.7.2.83

190

Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Greenwood

Publishers.

Rothauge, A. J. (1984). Sizing up a congregation for new member ministry. Produced for

the Education for Mission and Ministry Office by Seabury Professional Services.

Retrieved from http://www.episcopalchurch.org/files/CDR_series1%281%29

.pdf.

Rouhiainen, M. (2006). Rethinking the Communication Competence of Leaders.

–Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association,

Dresden, Germany.

Russell, B. (1938). Power: A new social analysis. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and

Company.

Russo, E. M., McBrier Hannett, S., Topka D. (2008). What’s my communication style?

King of Prussia, PA: Organization Design and Development Inc.

Sashkin, M., & Burke, W. W. (1990). Understanding and assessing organizational

leadership. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 297-

325). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library.

Sauer, S. J. (2011). Taking the reins: The effects of new leader status and leadership style

on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 574-587.

doi:10.1037/a0022741

Schaller, L. E. (1975). Hey, that’s our church!. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Schaller, L. E. (1980). The multiple staff and the larger church. Nashville, TN:

Abingdon.

Schaller, L. E. (1983). Growing plans. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.

Schaller, L. E. (2000). The very large church: New rules for leaders. Nashville, TN:

Abingdon.

Segumpan, R. G., Christopher, A. A., & Rao, R. (2007). Cross-cultural communication

styles in multinational companies in Malaysia. Human Communication, 10(1), 1-

19. Retrieved from http://www.uab.edu/Communicationstudies/

humancommunication/segumpan.pdf

Shah, A. J., David, F. R., Surawski, Z. J. III (2004). Does strategic planning help

churches?: An exploratory study. Coastal Business Journal, 2(1), 28-35.

191

Shumate, C. R. (1999). View from the pews: Distinguishing factors present in twenty

churches that experienced attendance growth during the years 1996-1998.

(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Thesis Full

Text database. (9950359)

Snavely, W. B. (1981). The impact of social style upon person perception in primary

relationships. Communication Quarterly, 29(2), 132-143.

doi:10.1080/01463378109369398

Spangler, W. D., & House, R. J. (1991). Presidential effectiveness and the leadership

motive profile. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 439-455.

doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.439

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1989). Handbook of interpersonal competence

research. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-3572-9

Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam, N., & Jablin, F. M. (1999). An exploratory study of

communication competence in Thai organizations. International Journal of

Business Communication, 36(4), 382-418. doi: 10.1177/002194369903600404

Stech, E. L. (1983). Leadership Communication. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Stein, R. H. (1992). Luke. In D. S. Dockery (Series Ed.), The new American commentary.

Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman.

Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Leadership for self-managing work teams: A

typology and integrative model. Human Relations, 48(7), 747-770.

doi:10.1177/001872679504800702

Stewart, K. (2009). Keeping your pastor: An emerging challenge. Journal for the Liberal

Arts and Sciences, 13(3), 112-127. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.

ist.psu.edu

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the

literature. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 25(1), 35-

71. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1948.9917362

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Stogdill, R. M., Coons, A. E. (Eds.). (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and

measurement. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State

University.

Sweet, H. J. (1963). The multiple staff in the local church. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster

Press.

192

Sypher, B. D., & Zorn, T. E. (1986). Communication-related abilities and upward

mobility: A longitudinal investigation. Human Communication Research, 12(3),

420-431. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00085.x

Thielman, F. (2010). Ephesians. In M. Stein & R. Yarbrough (Series Eds.), Baker

exegetical commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker

Academic.

Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The central role of communication in

developing trust and its effect on employee involvement. International Journal of

Business Communication, 46(3), 287-310. doi: 10.1177/0021943609333522

Thumma, S. L. (1996). The kingdom, the power, and the glory: The megachurch in

modern American society. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest

Dissertations & Thesis Full Text database. (9700310)

Thumma, S. L. (2001). Megachurches today 2000: Summary of data from the Faith

Communities Today 2000 project. Retrieved from Hartford Institute for Religion

Research website: http://hirr.hartsem.edu/org/faith_megachurches_FACT

summary. html

Thumma, S. L., & Bird, W. (2009). Not who you think they are: A profile of the people

who attend America’s megachurches. Retrieved from Hartford Institute for

Religion Research website:

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/megachurch/megachurch_attender_report.htm

Thumma, S. L., & Bird, W. (2015). Recent shifts in America’s largest Protestant

churches: Megachurhces 2015 report. Retrieved from Hartford Institute for

Religion Research website http://hirr.hartsem.edu/megachurch/2015_

Megachurches_Report.pdf

Thumma, S. L., & Travis, D. (2007). Beyond megachurch myths: What we can learn

from America's largest churches. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons..

Thumma, S. L., Travis, D., & Bird, W. (2005). Megachurches today 2005: Summary of

research findings. Retrieved from Hartford Institute for Religion Research:

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/megachurch/megastoday2005summaryreport.pdf

Tost, L. P., Gino, F., & Larrick, R. P. (2013). When power makes others speechless: The

negative impact of leader power on team performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 56(5), 1465-1486. doi: 10.5465.amj.2011.0180

Triller, C. (2011). Transformational speaking: An examination of leadership

communication style impact on employee engagement during corporate

transformation (Master’s Thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations &

Thesis Full Text database. (1499821)

193

Uleman, J. S. (1991). Leadership ratings: Toward focusing more on specific behaviors.

Leadership Quarterly, 2(3), 175-187. doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(91)90009-Q

Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of

Management, 37(4), 1228-1261. doi:0.1177/0149206310380462

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, PA:

University of Pittsburgh Press

Wheeless, V. E., & Lashbrook, W. B. (1987). Style. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly

(Eds.), Personality and Interpersonal Communication (Vol. 6, pp. 243-272). New

York, NY: Sage.

Wiemann, J. M., & Backlund, P. (1980). Current theory and research in communicative

competence. Review of Educational Research, 50(1), 185-199.

doi:10.3102/00346543050001185

Wiemann, J., Takai, J., Ota, H., & Wiemann, M. O. (1997). A relational model of

communication competence. In B. Kovačić (Ed.), Emerging Theories of Human

Communication (pp. 25-44). Albany, NY: SUNY Press

Womack, D. A. (1977). The pyramid principle of church growth. Minneapolis, MN:

Bethany Fellowship.

Woodruff, T. R. (2004). Executive pastors’ perception of leadership and management

competencies needed for local church administration. (Doctoral Dissertation).

Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Thesis Full Text database. (3128851).

Wright, C. J. (1983). Living as the people of God: The relevance of Old Testament ethics.

Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.

Wright, C. J. (2013). Old Testament ethics for the people of God. Downers Grove, IL:

Intervarsity Press.

Wrong, D. H. (1968). Some problems in defining social power. American Journal of

Sociology, 73(6), 673-681. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2775773

Wrong, D. H. (1999). The oversocialized conception of man. New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction Publishers.

Yaffe, M. J. (1998). Relationship between perceived team leadership style and

effectiveness ratings (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations &

Theses Full Text database. (1390757)

Blank Page