week 4 db

Livermore chaspter6-7

CQ STRATEGY: How should I plan? Strategizing and making sense of culturally diverse experiences
Profile of a leader with high CQ Strategy	Leaders with high CQ Strategy develop ways to use their cultural understanding to develop plans for new intercultural situations. These leaders are better able to monitor, analyze, and adjust their assumptions and behaviors in different cultural settings. They are conscious of what they need to know about an unfamiliar culture.

My attempt to find out whether Dr. Jones in Liberia was a crook (as described in Chapter 1 ) was rooted in my North American orientation toward direct and explicit communication. I have little tolerance for dodging the elephant in the room, a

Q ACTION: What behaviors do I need to adjust? Changing verbal and nonverbal actions appropriately when interacting cross-culturally
Profile of a leader with high CQ Action	Leaders with high CQ Action can draw on the other three capabilities of CQ to translate their enhanced motivation, understanding, and planning into action. They possess a broad repertoire of behaviors, which they can use depending on the context.

Two years ago, Simon left his role as a CEO of a growing company in Chicago and became president of a small, private liberal arts college in New England. The college has enjoyed a long reputation for offering an excellent liberal arts education but has been at a plateau for the last decade. The organizational structure is inflexible, enrollment is in decline, and the college has very little ethnic diversity among its faculty, staff, and students. Simon and the college seemed like a perfect match. Education is something Simon has always valued, not the least of which is evident from his PhD in business from the University of Chicago. He thrives on coming in and reinventing an organization. He’s an innovator, a charismatic leader, and naturally curious about different cultures given his own Chinese American heritage. I met Simon when he agreed to be part of my research on cultural intelligence among academic leaders. Simon describes himself as a Type A, obsessive-compulsive leader. He’s a fitness buff, his clothes are always neatly pressed, and his office is meticulously tidy. His magnetic smile matches his contagious personality.

Simon described his first two years at the college as the hardest assignment he had ever been given. This was no small statement coming from him. The last company he led filed for bankruptcy just before he arrived. In less than three years, he led a turnaround resulting in the company’s most profitable year over its twenty-five-year history. And the business he led prior to that was also in crisis before he came in and quickly gave it a bright, new future. But Simon had met his match. There were way too few results from his first twenty-four months leading the college. Although the financial picture was more sound and enrollment had at least held steady, that was far from the kind of performance Simon was used to.

Simon had a decent understanding of the academic subculture. He knew he couldn’t just apply the same kinds of leadership approaches at the college that he used in the corporate world. And although the New England community where he was now living had less ethnic diversity than he had ever experienced in his life, he had always been able to adapt to new cultural surroundings. Simon was highly motivated to see the college thrive, and he drew on his understanding of business and education to develop a plan for turning around the college’s flat numbers. But there was something that kept him from feeling like he was really leading effectively, which was unlike anything he had ever experienced as a leader.

While I was visiting Simon at his college, he invited me to sit in on a personnel meeting in which he was giving an update and casting vision for the future. Just a few minutes into Simon’s presentation, I was captivated. His content was substantive, he offered some humor, and he communicated an inspiring vision for the college. I was almost ready to ask him for a job! I looked around and began to wonder why there were so many blank stares. The faculty and staff couldn’t have looked more bored and disengaged. If I had been speaking, their glassy eyes would have sucked the life out of me. But Simon kept at it. If anything, his charisma and delivery seemed to become more ramped up the longer he spoke.

Possessing the motivation to run at a challenge like the one facing Simon is extremely important (CQ Drive). Furthermore, having knowledge about the various cultures where you lead is essential—including the organizational culture and the various national and ethnic cultures represented (CQ Knowledge). And it is a must to have the ability to draw on that understanding to plan and accurately interpret what is going on (CQ Strategy). But, ultimately, you need to ask yourself, Can I effectively lead in this context? Can I motivate this group toward a shared outcome and can I do so effectively and authentically? Our individual leadership is ultimately judged based on whether or not we bring about results.

The final step toward cultural intelligence, CQ Action, is where the rubber meets the road. Do we know what someone is talking about? Are we able to communicate effectively? Can we lead people respectfully and adjust our behavior as needed while still remaining true to who we are? CQ Action is the extent to which we appropriately change our verbal and nonverbal actions when we interact across cultures. The goal is to be yourself while figuring out which behaviors need to change in order to accomplish your objectives. As noted at the beginning of the book, one of the revolutionary aspects of the cultural intelligence model is the emphasis on inward transformation in our perspective and outlook rather than just trying to master the “dos” and avoid the taboos. Artificial attempts to modify behavior invite inflexibility and fall short of giving us a sustainable approach to leading cross-culturally. 1 The degree to which we continue to change internally will be seen in the impressions we leave on others through our actions.

Ironically, the most effective way to adapt our behavior is through the other three capabilities of CQ. CQ Action is primarily the outcome of our CQ Drive, Knowledge, and Strategy. In one sense, this whole book is about CQ Action because our behavior is really the only way someone will know whether we’re culturally intelligent. But there are a few specific leadership behaviors we need to be able to adapt when necessary. CQ Action includes three subdimensions: speech acts, verbal behavior, and nonverbal behavior. 2 These subdimensions inform the ways we can develop our CQ Action as leaders. CQ Action can be enhanced by adapting our communication, adjusting our leadership performance, and knowing when to adapt and when not to adapt.

Adapt Your Communication

In Chapter 4 (CQ Knowledge), we noted the importance of language for effective leadership. Whether casting vision, building trust, giving directions, or addressing conflict, a great deal centers around whether we can get the message across effectively, clearly, and respectfully. Communication is not only about saying the right thing. It’s about the right thing being understood. Nearly every book on leadership includes a section on the importance of communication. For me, Simon’s communication was lucid and compelling. But it appeared that the faculty and staff he was leading didn’t receive his message the same way I did. As I interviewed some of them, I found they weren’t nearly as inspired by Simon’s vision casting as I was. The recurring response from faculty when asked to describe Simon’s leadership was that he was an outsider who was trying to turn the college into a business. Several professors were unnerved by the way Simon continually used words such as bottom line, enterprise, and capitalize. This was proof to them that Simon didn’t understand the academic world. And given that he often referenced stories from his corporate background and frequently cited University of Phoenix as a success story, his impassioned, articulate presentations made little impact on them. 3 Some of the staff had responses similar to those of the faculty, but a more common theme in their feedback was their perception that Simon’s constant enthusiasm was inauthentic. Most of the staff members at the college were native to New England, and listening to a public speaker with so much energy and charisma caused them to feel like Simon was trying to sell them something. They couldn’t get beyond the sense that his delivery was a contrived performance rather than just a talk with them as colleagues. One woman even characterized him as a “used car salesman,” a derogatory slur to suggest Simon was trying to swindle and manipulate the collegiate community. The cultural realities of this New England college were in conflict with the ways Simon had always communicated as a leader. We often miss the cultural differences that exist right within our own borders. No one at Simon’s college referenced his Asian background as a roadblock. But his corporate, Midwest background seemed to be a huge roadblock for them.

HOW TO DEVELOP CQ ACTION

1. 1. Adapt your communication.

2. 2. Lead differently.

3. 3. Know when to adapt and when not to adapt.

Key question: What behaviors should I adapt for this cross-cultural project?

The ability to communicate effectively in a new cultural context demonstrates how CQ Action becomes the natural outgrowth of the other three CQ capabilities. A level of motivation and energy (CQ Drive) is needed to relearn how to communicate in ways that build trust and motivate people in a new context. A great deal of understanding (CQ Knowledge) is also needed to know what cultural systems and values are utilized and the words to use and avoid. And a heightened level of planning, awareness, and checking (CQ Strategy) is necessary to actually communicate relevant ideas. There are three communication behaviors that most need our attention when communicating in a different cultural context: word usage, delivery, and nonverbal actions. 4

Word Usage

The very words that create vision and expectation in one cultural context can elicit distrust and suspicion in another. I can think of several people from many contexts who would have listened to Simon’s presentation and found it inspiring and right on the mark. But that’s not how it was received by his college personnel. It doesn’t really matter if I was inspired by Simon. His team wasn’t!

There are a few different ways to think about how we use words when we lead cross-culturally: topics, requests, apologies, and compliments.

TOPICS

Appropriately adapting our behavior involves learning what topics of discussion are appropriate in various settings. Although this applies to work-related conversations, it’s most apparent in more informal, social interactions. Earlier, I noted that the after-hours drink with someone from a different cultural background is often far more challenging than interactions revolving around work. Yet these informal interactions are often the more important ones.

Sometimes people from other cultures have asked me during an informal conversation how much money I make or how much my home costs, questions that would be considered off limits even among close friends in my cultural context. And I’ve been with colleagues who have been told they’re looking very “fat,” a description I’ve taught my kids to never use in reference to anyone. But these topics might not be considered disrespectful at all in other cultures. In fact, being told you’re fat in many African cultures is a real compliment. It’s evidence you’re wealthy and successful. Other times I’ve been the one who has come across as rude. I’ve asked single friends from other cultures about their love lives only to learn I was being too forward according to their cultural norms. Or I’ve neglected to ask about their families or share more about mine.

There are many other examples. Religion and politics are typically seen as off limits among North American colleagues unless there’s a clear invitation to discuss these subjects. But many Germans value overt expressions of opinion on these kinds of topics in order to have a good argumentative exchange. For Germans, getting to know someone means finding out what the other person’s positions are on different issues and debating them as a means of interaction. In contrast, when Chinese individuals meet for the first time, their approach for getting to know each other is usually quite different. Instead of heated dialogue and debating each other, you usually start by talking about your family background and asking others about theirs. Only after that kind of rapport is developed is it appropriate to discuss social and political issues. North Americans and Japanese often talk about business long into the dinner hour but British individuals tend to think shop talk needs to stop once the workday is over. Different conventions for selecting conversational strategies and topics are an area of behavior we may need to adapt. 5

Few things demonstrate the cultural variance of conversational protocol more than humor. Jokes and things we find funny often depend on an assumed understanding and history. I was recently on a flight sitting next to a Chinese American businesswoman. She travels regularly to China to translate for English-speaking corporate trainers who conduct seminars there. She commented on how most of the U.S. and British trainers with whom she works start their presentations with a joke or humorous anecdote. This is an approach that seems to work well for them in their own context. But my seatmate told me that when they do that in China, instead of translating what they’re saying, she says to the Mandarin-speaking audience, “Our presenter is telling a joke right now. The polite thing to do will be to laugh when he’s done.” Humor is deeply rooted in cultural assumptions, whether used in public speaking or interpersonal conversation.

Culturally intelligent leaders understand that topics discussed, particularly in social, informal settings, are embedded with cultural values and assumptions. Discernment in how to use words begins with considering appropriate conversation topics and effective use of small talk.

REQUESTS

Helen Spencer-Oatey, a renowned linguistic researcher, describes the cultural variances in how we make a request of someone. Individuals coming from cultures where indirect communication is valued, such as China, will often use the power of suggestion to make a request. However, people from the United States or Israel will usually be more direct with orders and requests. Think about the progression from a very direct to a very indirect approach to asking an employee to run a budget report:

· • “Run the budget report!”

· • “I want you to run the budget report.”

· • “How about running the budget report?”

· • “Can you run the budget report?”

· • “Wouldn’t it help to have a budget report?” 6

Leaders have to learn the level of comfort individuals and cultures have with direct versus indirect orders and requests and adjust accordingly. There’s further variance in how this communication practice relates to a culture’s value of power distance. A culture that values indirect communication may also be a place where senior leaders give explicit and direct orders to subordinates if there’s a high level of power distance (e.g., a Chinese boss is likely to be very direct with an assistant about running a budget report). But a subordinate would be expected to use extremely indirect communication to make a request of a superior. Peers are expected to use indirect communication with one another lest it seem one is taking on an authoritative role over the other. You need to learn where you’re perceived in the hierarchical structure to gauge the appropriate level of directness to employ.

Suzanne, a North American expatriate working in France, discovered the importance of how she made a request when she went shopping in Paris. Suzanne is fluent in French but that didn’t mitigate the challenges she felt in communicating. Early on during her sojourn in France, she couldn’t seem to get beyond her perception that French people disliked Americans in general. Whenever she asked for something specific of a shopkeeper, such as “Where can I find the lipstick?” she received a curt, abrupt response. One day, a French friend suggested, “Try starting with something like this when you walk into the store: ‘Could you help me with a problem?’ And if they say ‘Yes’—which they more than likely will—then ask for help finding the lipstick.” Suzanne tried it and she couldn’t believe how well it worked. It changed the whole disposition of the shopkeepers because now she was posturing herself as someone in need rather than someone making demands. She began to apply the same kind of strategy with her colleagues and subordinates at work. She was amazed at how this simple adjustment altered the way her requests were received. Simply understanding some basic shifts in language can make all the difference in achieving our objectives, whether it’s to purchase lipstick or to launch a full-orbed initiative. 7

The most important phrase I try to learn in the language spoken any place I visit is “I’m sorry, I don’t speak ______. Do you speak English?” It postures me as being in need rather than presuming everyone would be happy to help in English. Even if I can’t say it in the local language, asking first whether someone speaks English demonstrates that I don’t simply assume they should and instead, postures me as a foreign guest who needs help.

APOLOGIES

Another communication challenge is knowing when and how to apologize. People in most cultures would agree that an apology of some sort is needed when an offense occurs. The question is, What’s considered offensive and what’s the most appropriate way to express regret for an offense?

Growing up in a Canadian home, “Sorry” was something we said all the time, given a predominant thrust across Canadian culture to never impose upon others. I’ve often said “Sorry!” for bumping into people in places like Brazil only to have them look at me as if to say, Sorry for what?! To invade one’s personal space is a violation in my culture but close proximity and sharing personal space is a part of life for many Brazilians. It’s important to learn when and how you should apologize to a colleague given his or her culture. An individual coming from a polychronic culture might see little offense in being an hour late to a meeting, but a culturally intelligent individual will understand that keeping someone from a monochronic culture waiting for an hour requires an apology. In the mind of most people from monochronic cultures, to keep others waiting for an hour is to have wasted their time and disrespects them. On the other hand, abruptly ending a conversation with someone from a polychronic culture in order to get to an appointment may be something that requires an apology. And in cultures where hierarchy is important, a lower-status individual is expected to offer deference and an apologetic posture to someone with higher status, even if no great offense has occurred. An outsider need not mimic all these behaviors, something we’ll address later in the chapter, but we’d be wise to understand the importance of these kinds of communication practices.

Linn Van Dyne et al., “Sub-dimensions of the Four Factor Model of Cultural Intelligence: Expanding the Conceptualization and Measurement of Cultural Intelligence,” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6 (2012): 295–313.

2. P. Christopher Earley and Soon Ang, Cultural Intelligence: Individual Interactions Across Cultures (Stanford: Stanford Business Books, 2003), 115.

3. Tom Rath, StrengthsFinder 2.0: A New and Upgraded Edition of the Online Test from Gallup’s Now, Discover Your Strengths (Washington, DC: Gallup Press, 2007).

4. P. Christopher Earley, Soon Ang, and Joo-Seng Tan, CQ: Developing Cultural Intelligence at Work (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006), 11.

5. Soon Ang and Linn Van Dyne, “Conceptualization of Cultural Intelligence,” in Handbook of Cultural Intelligence: Theory, Measurement, and Applications, ed. Soon Ang and Linn Van Dyne (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2008), 5.

6. R. Brislin, R. Worthley, and B. Macnab, “Cultural Intelligence: Understanding Behaviors That Serve People’s Goals,” Group and Organization Management 31, no. 1 (February 2006): 49.

7. Six Sigma Financial Services, “Determine the Root Cause: 5 Whys,” http://finance.isixsigma.com/library/content/c020610a.asp.

8. Kok Yee Ng, Linn Van Dyne, and Soon Ang, “From Experience to Experiential Learning: Cultural Intelligence as a Learning Capability for Global Leader Development,” Academy of Management Learning & Education 8 (2009): 29.

Chapter 7: CQ Action: Be Yourself, Sort Of

1. Edward Stewart and Milton Bennett, American Cultural Patterns: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (Boston: Intercultural Press, 1991), 15.

2. Linn Van Dyne et al., “Sub-dimensions of the Four Factor Model of Cultural Intelligence: Expanding the Conceptualization and Measurement of Cultural Intelligence,” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6 (2012): 295–313.

3. University of Phoenix is a for-profit institution that specializes in adult education with more than 100,000 students across numerous campuses.

4. Van Dyne et al., “Sub-dimensions of the Four Factor Model of Cultural Intelligence.”

5. Helen Spencer-Oatey, “Rapport Management,” in Culturally Speaking, ed. Helen Spencer-Oatey (London: Continuum Press, 2000), 236–37.

6. Adapted from Helen Spencer-Oatey’s example of asking someone to wash the dishes in Spencer-Oatey, “Rapport Management,” 22.

7. Originally reported in my book Cultural Intelligence: Improving Your CQ to Engage Our Multicultural World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2008), 115.

8. Peter Hays Gries and Kaiping Peng, “Culture Clash? Apologies East and West,” Journal of Contemporary China 11 (2002): 173–78.

9. Gary Ferraro, The Cultural Dimension of International Business (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2006), 90–92.

10. David Thomas and Kerr Inkson, Cultural Intelligence: People Skills for Global Business (San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2004), 113.

11. Ibid., 116.

12. Research findings on CQ and negotiation presented in Lynn Imai and Michele J. Gelfand, “The Culturally Intelligent Negotiator: The Impact of Cultural Intelligence (CQ) on Negotiation Sequences and Outcomes,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 112 (2010): 83–98; L. Imai and M. J. Gelfand, “Culturally Intelligent Negotiators: The Impact of CQ on Intercultural Negotiation Effectiveness,” Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings (2007).

13. Jeswald W. Salacuse, The Global Negotiator: Making, Managing, and Mending Deals Around the World in the Twenty-First Century (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).

14. Ibid., 172.

15. H. Giles and P. Smith, “Accommodation Theory: Optimal Levels of Convergence,” in Language and Social Psychology, ed. H. Giles and R. N. St. Clair (Baltimore: University Park Press, 1979), 45–63.

16. Michele J. Gelfand et al., “Differences Between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-Nation Study,” Science 27 (May 2011): 1100–1104.

Don’t forget that I need 3 reference

LEADING Cross- Culturally

Covenant Relationships for Effective Christian Leadership

Sherwood G. LINGENFELTER

8 Power-Giving Leadership

To Control or to Concede? A Case Study

In the first three years of his ministry, Pastor David sought to implement a program of radical change in his church, launching new programs and bringing in new associates to lead them. He did not seek advice from anyone in his congregation but relied on his own insights as to how this congregation might experience revival and growth. His personal ambition, fueled by his perception of the expectations of the search committee who appointed him, became the driving force of his ministry.

At first the elders of the congregation supported his leadership, but gradually David’s forceful leadership style began to alienate them. David believed that a good leader exercised strong control over the direction and implementation of ministry in his church. And during his first year of ministry, his predecessor told him, “If you want to be effective, and accomplish the vision God has given you, you must lead with an iron hand. The elders will oppose you, but you must challenge them forcefully.”

Pastor David viewed his elders as enemies, people who would block his ministry and renewal in the church. As a consequence, even though at heart he was a gentle person, he created conflict and opposition in his relationships with his lay leaders. The tension in his ministry ultimately exhausted him emotionally and spiritually. And this congregation proved much more difficult than his first pastorate. His wife and children also suffered from the constant pressure.

David also struggled to build a new pastoral team. One of his earliest decisions was to release the three men who had served the previous pastor as associates. He met with them shortly after he took office and informed them that they needed to begin immediately seeking other appointments. However, he would not fire them but would give them time to find a new position. Although one found a position in the first year, the other two hung on for three years until they were able to move. During this time they found it very hard to work enthusiastically for David. And building teamwork in the congregation was nearly impossible.

In the fourth year of his ministry, with his new associates now in place, David planned a fall retreat for prayer and renewal of vision for the ministries of the church. The day before the participants’ planned departure, a severe storm poured heavy rains and snow that made travel to the mountain retreat center extremely precarious. A group of women elders came to David and asked him if they could hold the retreat at the church instead of at the mountain setting. Indignant that these women would be bold enough to question his plan, David’s initial reaction was to reject it. Yet, in listening to his people over the past year, he had sensed that his leadership created more pain than progress, and he personally longed for more peaceful relationships with his elders.

As he debated internally the dilemma of appearing weak versus making a foolish decision to force his people out on a potentially treacherous journey, he could not reach a decision. He saw clearly the danger of forcing his plan, yet he dreaded the thought of weakening his leadership authority. Further, giving in to the women elders seemed a greater weakness than conceding to the men. Wracked by his fears and indecision, he turned to seek direction from the Lord. As he prayed, the Holy Spirit urged him to trust God and to trust his people. He was reminded of the Scripture—he who seeks to save his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it. He decided to concede to the request of these women.

The impact of his decision to accept the counsel of his women elders was profound. First, the men and women expressed their gratitude and renewed excitement about the retreat. Then, through prayer, worship, and seeking direction from God, pastors and elders for the first time began to listen carefully to one another. At the end of the retreat, pastors and elders felt a new sense of trust for one another and a readiness to move forward together in ministry.

To his amazement, David found that his concession to the women elders had actually strengthened his leadership. After the retreat, all the elders seemed more committed to him and to his vision. These reactions forced him to struggle inwardly with his philosophy of leadership. How much should he listen? When is compromise more important than clarity of direction? How is God leading, and why and how will people follow? Out of this experience he resolved to alter his leadership so that he listened more to his elders and associates and worked with them to construct a unified vision and direction of ministry.

Power as Control

Control is the basis of power. People who seek to control their circumstances, their jobs, their relationships with others, and their effectiveness in their work are all seeking power. Pastor David, like most people, did not like to think of himself as engaged in power relationships with others. We, like him, prefer to reflect on and describe our activities as motivated by an interest in quality, the desire to assure that things will be done well, to protect those who are unable to protect themselves, or to fulfill our responsibilities. Such activities are not understood as being power-seeking or power-exercising activities. Yet, as Pastor David illustrated well, such actions at their core are intended to control the outcomes of an event in accord with the interests of the person retaining control.

Marguerite Shuster, focusing on the human psyche and power as a dimension of personal identity and action, defines power as “the ability to produce intended effects in the world” (1987, 156–57). As soon as a child is old enough to understand that communication produces intended effects, the child will seek power in his or her relationships. Shuster suggests that a person’s existence becomes linked to the kinds of things that one produces. Some find significance in work, others in the multiplicity of relationships, and still others in wealth. A person who does not find his or her life leading to at least one significant end feels impotent and even hopeless. Shuster also suggests that Pastor David and all the rest of us find our meaning and existence linked in a large degree to our sense of power to exert our wills in our world.

Richard Adams takes a social and economic approach to power (1975, 9–20). He contends that people have power to the extent that they control elements of the environment, material or immaterial, sought by others. Adams argues that power differences are an inherent characteristic of all social relationships. For example, in the opening case study, Pastor David controlled the jobs of his three associates; he controlled the location, the content, and the schedule of the retreat that he required his men and women elders to attend; and he controlled the decision process and outcomes for his elders and staff.

Control of the environment occurs in all ministry activities. A church or mission employer controls the amount and kind of work and the compensation that an employee is given for his or her labor; the Bible “translator” controls the choice of text, the exegesis of meaning, and the compensation for a national-language “helper” working on a Bible translation. In each of these relationships, one person controls concrete aspects of the environment that are valued by others. Adams suggests that “power transactions” are those reciprocal exchanges between persons of unequal power that result in each obtaining some measure of self-interest.

Both Adams and Shuster help us to understand that power has significant implications for one’s identity as a person and for one’s interest as one engages in social relationships. Pastor David was terribly anxious that a concession to the women in his church would ruin his reputation as a leader and destroy his ministry. Our natural inclination is to seek power to assure that we have meaning and significance in our lives. Further, our personal interests motivate us to engage in reciprocal exchanges with others that satisfy our mutual interests and our need to control events to achieve desired ends.

Power Exchanges and Will

If Adams is right and all social relationships have embedded within them power distinctions, then the normal course of social life results in numerous power exchanges. A power exchange occurs when someone who controls something of importance to another uses that control to obtain compliance or conformity of the other to his or her will. For example, Pastor David used his power to fire the three associates of the former pastor, while giving them time to find other positions. Often these exchanges are so routine that people do not recognize the implicit issues of control. For example, a pastor tells the music leader the topic of his sermon and assumes that the music leader will select songs that support the topic. The music leader tells the worship team and the organist/pianist what music will be sung and played in the service on the next Sunday and expects them to be prepared to perform as instructed. In each of these relationships, one person controls some aspect of the environment that is of significance to the others. Although the musicians control their skills and performance, the pastor decides what content and even perhaps which selections will be performed. If the music leader rejects the pastor’s guidance, the pastor may withdraw support for the music leader and act to remove that person from the worship team. And so it is with each of the other relationships. The structuring of power relationships as Adams describes them is a normal part of the social structure of society. We can hardly avoid these power differentials, nor should we try to do so. They are an essential part of how we work together in society.

While Adams is correct in his assessment of the inherent material basis of power relationships, Shuster helps us to understand that our exercise of power in these relationships ultimately focuses on an aspect of our inner person, our will (1987, 94–95). All people bring will to bear on their relationships with one another. Our will emerges from inner motives, often from our personal need to seek power or to avoid impotence. The case study of Pastor David reveals a man fearful that he will lose his power to lead.

Shuster suggests that evil is a result of “ disruptions of structure and/ or will—the Devil spoiling what God has made” (1987, 140). These disruptions lead people to distort the structures of human relationship and exercise their personal will in the pursuit of power. Perversion of the structures of relationship most often comes from our obsession to achieve a particular good, such as a biblically sound church. In view of that good, we may construct false paths (keeping control in our hands) to achieve the desired end and make our way the absolute and only way to that end. As we saw clearly in the case study of Pastor David, when we accept the deception of sin and pursue a good in the wrong way, the end is misery both for us and for the people we seek to serve. The disruptions of will flow from our choices of lesser goods (e.g., my vision for ministry instead of obedience to God), rigid adherence to our worldview, and blindness to and rejection of others.

Each of these distortions—perversion of structure, false paths, lesser goods, rigidity—leads us into destructive patterns of behavior and relationship. When our will is thwarted, as in the case of Pastor David, we seek to punish others and reassert our control. In our arrogance, we limit options to those we know and opt for choices we believe are secure, rather than take the risks that obedience to God demands.

What Is Power-Giving Leadership?

Following Shuster’s understanding, I will first argue that we must put Jesus “in the place of power as a proper source of healing and will” (1987, 209, emphasis mine). We must understand that power cannot be the source of our meaning and significance if we are to be the people of God and leaders who follow Christ. Shuster suggests that “giving fallen humanity power only magnifies their potential for wickedness” (1987, 201). Human structures become tyrannical, human will becomes self-serving, and the quest for power leads people to all kinds of temptation and evil.

To restore our human psyche and relationships to the will and purpose of God, Jesus must become the center of who we are and replace our quest for power. Only as we are motivated by the Holy Spirit and through the living Word of God can we relate to one another within the structures of human society to accomplish the purpose of God. Yet Shuster notes that it is impossible for us alone to make the radical changes that would have the Word replace the quest for power in our lives (1987, 202). The only possible way that this can occur is through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Pastor David found this grace as he prayed for direction from the Holy Spirit in his difficult decision to yield. It is precisely this grace and focus on the life-changing power of the Holy Spirit and the transforming power of Jesus, the Living Word, that enables us to shift from power-seeking to power-giving leadership.

Walter Wright identifies the second essential principle: power-giving leadership is in its essence relational, rather than positional (2000, 2, emphasis mine). Instead of focusing on authority and responsibility, the Christian leader works to build relationships that influence others to follow Christ. Jesus demonstrated such leadership, investing his life in a few unlikely disciples, challenging them with his vision of the kingdom of God, and thereby transforming their Jewish world and culture. Jesus became their friend and mentor; he visited their workplaces and families; he invited them to join him in proclaiming good news and healing to the broken. The fruit of the Spirit in his life modeled service to others and values that challenged the cultural establishment with its power-seeking leadership.

The centrality of relationship means that people are more important than authority and control. This then affects the kind of exchanges that take place between leaders and followers. In the typical power exchange, the leader exercises control in such a way that the will of the leader is done, often at significant cost to the follower. One of my colleagues tells the story of how his mission leader demanded that he do exactly what the leader instructed and that he do it without question, even at the cost of his personal integrity. In this pattern, the follower is servant, and the leader is served. Wright suggests that relational leadership reverses this exchange, and the leader is servant, seeking the “growth and nurture of the followers” (2000, 13). Instead of powering outcomes, the relational leader builds trust and influences followers through integrity of character and depth of relationship. Pastor David discovered, to his astonishment, that his decision to yield to the women elders transformed his relationships with the men and women elders of his church and greatly enhanced his leadership among them.

In the pages that follow I present several essential practices for mission and church leaders that place Jesus in the position of power and give relationship priority over authority and control. Contextual leadership is premised on the acceptance and empowerment of others. To achieve contextual leadership, the missionary, who so often controls resources and knowledge, must intentionally surrender control and trust Jesus to accomplish his purpose in those he has called to ministry. When we obey his command to love first, relationship takes priority over control, and contextual leadership becomes possible.

Paul, Philemon, and Power-Giving Leadership

The letter of Paul to Philemon in the New Testament provides one of the few fully developed case studies of a relationship between a leader and one of his followers in the New Testament. This relationship is also a cross-cultural relationship. Paul, as we know, was a very devout Jew, and early in his career he rejected anything associated with the Gentiles. After his dramatic conversion documented in the book of Acts, Paul became an advocate for Gentiles and a zealous missionary proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ to urban Greeks.

From the text in Philemon, we know that Philemon was a wealthy Greek slaveowner from the city of Colossae in Asia Minor (Col. 4:7–9) and the leader of a church that met in his home. Paul has many good things to say about Philemon. He calls him a “friend and fellow worker” (Philem. 1). He commends him for his faith and “love for all of God’s people” (v. 5). Philemon was apparently also a significant leader in his own right in the church community. Paul comments that in his service Philemon “refreshed the hearts of God’s people” (v. 7).

To understand Paul’s leadership, it is important to recognize his current situation and status in life. Paul is a prisoner in Rome, so when he introduces himself as “a prisoner of Christ Jesus” (v. 1) he is speaking both figuratively of his relationship with Christ and literally of his current condition under house arrest in Rome. Paul also calls himself “an old man” (v. 9), and in the story he appeals to Philemon as a younger “partner” (v. 17) in ministry.

The crux and dilemma of this story is that Onesimus is a runaway slave belonging to Philemon. Although it is uncertain how Onesimus and Paul established a relationship, the letter makes clear that this runaway slave has become a deep, personal friend of the apostle. As Paul writes to Philemon, he says that Onesimus “became my son . . . in chains” (v. 10). Paul has deep affection for this man, and from the letter it seems evident that Onesimus has cared compassionately for Paul in his imprisonment and perhaps failing health. However, by the legal standards of Roman society, Paul should return Onesimus to his master, who owns him and has the freedom to punish him in whatever way he deems appropriate. For Paul this creates both social and spiritual dilemmas.

The spiritual dilemma seems more critical to Paul. He can deal with the social problem by reminding Philemon of his significant debt to Paul, but the spiritual issue cannot be resolved so easily. The fact is that two brothers in the Lord, Philemon the master and Onesimus the slave, both apparently converts of the apostle, are not reconciled with each other. Further, Paul has deep friendships with both men. In his grief at this discovery, Paul realizes that he cannot rest until he has taken steps to bring about their reconciliation.

The power of this letter lies in Paul’s candid description of his emotions and his struggle with his own selfish desires. He openly declares, “I appeal to you for my son Onesimus,” who was formerly “useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me” (vv. 10–11). Table 8.1 summarizes Paul’s words as he reflects on the choices that are open to him. In one set of options, he talks about how he could use the power available to him to get what he wants. For example, Paul says, “I could be bold and order” (v. 8). He goes on to say, “I would have liked to keep him . . . so that he could take your place in helping me” (v. 13), and concludes, “He is very dear to me” (v. 16). In all of these expressions, Paul is identifying his own emotional attachment to Onesimus and the sense of obligation that he feels Philemon has toward him. He recognizes that he has the power just to tell Philemon to forget it and forgive Onesimus and leave him with Paul.

Table 8.1 Paul’s Power-Seeking or Power-Giving Options

Power-Seeking Option	Power-Giving Option
• I could order, v. 8	• Your consent, v. 14
• I want to keep him . . . so he can help in your place, v. 13	• Separated that you might have him back for good, v. 15
• He is very dear to me, v. 16	• Dearer as a fellowman and brother, v. 16

But Paul does not follow through with his own selfish motivations. Instead he takes the power-giving as opposed to the power-seeking option. He states, “I did not want to do anything without your consent” (v. 14), and he notes that he would prefer Philemon to act spontaneously and not out of coercion. As Paul reflects on the relationship between Philemon and Onesimus, he surely must consider the possibility that Philemon will not return Onesimus to him. Onesimus is still a slave, the property of his friend Philemon. In his former service he was apparently a useless slave, behaving badly, and then running away. As Paul reflects on this, he concludes that possibly Onesimus should return to Philemon and make good all those bad years in which Philemon has endured the useless servant. At the same time Paul emphasizes that Onesimus is, at this point, better than a slave; he is a dear brother in Christ. And so he encourages Philemon to receive this transformed slave as someone who has become dearer, “both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord” (v. 16).

A dramatic moment in this text occurs in verse 8, when Paul engages in what Dallas Willard (1998) calls the “ask, seek, and knock.” Although Paul could make some assumptions about how Philemon might respond, and he could try to argue with Philemon about those possible responses, he instead asks Philemon to extend grace. Paul begins by pleading, “I appeal to you on the basis of love” (v. 8 NIV), love for “an old man” and “also a prisoner of Christ Jesus” (v. 9). He then moves directly to the main question of his letter: “I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains” (v. 10).

I confess that the language that Paul uses here has often irritated me, even to the point of thinking Paul was being petty and almost coercive in his relationship with Philemon. Even though he states that he does not want to do anything without Philemon’s consent, he uses language that places tremendous emotional pressure on Phi-lemon to return Onesimus—“you owe me your very self” (v. 18), or “confident of your obedience,” or “knowing that you will do even more than I ask” (v. 21). Paul is reminding Philemon of some deep obligations to Paul, and I have interpreted Paul’s words as leverage to get Onesimus back.

But after reflecting on this text again, I am inclined to be a bit more gracious in my judgment of Paul’s action. In spite of Paul’s words, one key fact cannot be denied. Paul sent Onesimus back. This was a very painful act for him, and yet he did it. His pain is evident in his words, such as “you owe me” (v. 19) or “I do wish . . . some benefit” (v. 20). The critical fact of this letter is that Paul released his control over Onesimus. He had control, he could have kept control, but he gave it up.

In those days of travel on foot and by ship, the separation that Paul endured because of this decision was not a trivial matter. The journey for Onesimus from Rome to Colossae in Asia Minor involved no less than two or more months’ journey on land and sea. Under these circumstances, Paul might never see Onesimus again. To release Onesimus to go to Philemon was, in fact, to say, “I might never see him again.”

Power-Seeking versus Power-Giving Leadership

Paul’s actions in this letter illustrate, in a profound way, the difference between power-seeking and power-giving leadership. Christopher Flanders (personal communication, 2006) notes:

1. The very existence of the letter tells us that (a) it was a serious matter for Paul, and (b) there was a good chance that Paul’s requests might go unheeded. Otherwise, the letter makes no sense if it was simply a “slam dunk” kind of request. This highlights the difficult and challenging nature of power-giving leadership, even for an apostle of Christ such as Paul.

2. Leadership always occurs within a context of pressures and expectations, which in this case included a letter read in public; Paul’s intended visit; the theological rationale for Onesimus’s return; the precedence of Philemon’s character.

3.We must consider other possible outcomes. Wasn’t Paul within his “rights” to keep Onesimus? How could Paul have rationalized such a move? What would be the implications of doing such?

The power-seeking leader is preoccupied with control. The power-seeking leader uses control to assure the “best” outcome and releases control over resources only when he or she is certain of the intended outcome. If Paul had exercised power-seeking leadership, he would have kept his control over Onesimus, a significant resource person to both Paul and Philemon. For Paul that benefit included service and companionship. For Philemon that benefit included the return of a lost investment, the resumption of service as a slave, and/or punishment of a runaway to protect his reputation as a man of wealth and standing in the community. Each man certainly struggled with internal desires to secure his investments in this young man.

The power-seeking leader uses position and authority to exert mastery over others. In this situation, Paul used a letter to engage in a power exchange with Philemon. He had Onesimus in his custody, and he could have easily written a different letter that would have asserted Philemon’s obligations to him and induced Philemon to release Onesimus to Paul without ever letting Onesimus out of his sight. Paul understood that if he took that tactic, it would be a false path to acquire something that he desired. He would pervert the relationship that God had given him with Philemon, using his position as the senior brother in Christ to advance his own selfish interest. In doing this, Paul would have, in fact, undermined Philemon’s faith and the work of the grace of God in their relationship together.

By returning Onesimus to Philemon, Paul refused to retain the immediate benefit of Onesimus’s company and service in hopes of the greater benefit of reconciliation between a master and a slave. Paul understood that reconciliation could not happen until Philemon and Onesimus met face-to-face. Philemon and Onesimus must confront each other, and Onesimus must ask for forgiveness for his sins against his master, Philemon. Without this personal encounter, any form of reconciliation would be incomplete.

Empowering for the Mission of God

How does this case study contribute to the focus of this book, leading cross-culturally? To reflect again on the definition, leading cross-culturally is inspiring people who come from two or more cultural traditions to participate with you in building a community of trust, and then to follow you and be empowered by you to achieve a compelling vision of faith. The case study of Paul and Philemon focuses on two fundamental issues of our definition: building a community of trust and empowering others to achieve a compelling vision of faith.

Paul chose to follow God’s will in this matter and place reconciliation and restoration of trust between Philemon and Onesimus as the very first priority. By sending Onesimus back, Paul surrendered control over their relationship to the power of God and to the will of each man to be reconciled to each other. Through this significant act, Paul granted both Philemon and Onesimus true freedom.

Flanders suggests that power-giving leadership can occur only with the willing participation of others in the relational equation (personal communication, 2006). The story makes it clear that Onesimus sought freedom and risked running away to achieve it. His return to Philemon placed everything he had sought in jeopardy. If Paul had forced Onesimus to return, that would have been another form of power seeking. The text infers that Onesimus willingly returned, reflecting his new identity in Christ and a desire for reconciliation. Paul sought to persuade Philemon to also become a willing partner in this reconciliation. Flanders notes, “Giving Philemon the freedom to choose is also a vision to grow (‘I know you’ll do even more than I ask’). Part of empowering leadership is to remind people of who they are and the way their (potential) actions are consistent with their identity in the Lord” (personal communication, 2006). Paul’s words to Philemon emphasize his duty in the Lord to both Onesimus and to Paul, and by fulfilling this duty freely, Philemon will grow in his own power-giving leadership.

But perhaps even more important, Paul is always focused on the mission of God. His desire is that the gospel of Jesus Christ be proclaimed, and that believers be faithful in their witness to Christ by word and deed. He reminds Philemon at the beginning of the letter, “I pray that you may be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a full understanding of every good thing we have in Christ” (Philem. 6 NIV). Tom Wright highlights Paul’s focus on partnership, correctly noting that fellowship has less to do with warm feelings and personal affection and more to do with coordinated activity in shared life together (2004, 198). Wright explains that he is “praying the partnership which he and Philemon share in the gospel will be productive, will have the effect it’s meant to” (2004, 200). Paul’s passion is larger than his relationship with both men; he desires the personal reconciliation in Christ that embodies the very nature of the gospel.

Flanders suggests that the story is about “meaning making,” Paul framing these events into divinely inspired, redemptive relationships and identities (personal communication, 2006). To pick up the themes of chapters 5 and 6, Paul is teaching Philemon and Onesimus what it means to live out covenant community in Christ. Flanders cites Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, who argue that “the name ‘Onesimus’” is equivalent to the Greek term for “‘bad,’ ‘wicked,’ ‘shameful,’ ‘painful,’” and that this letter creates a new identity for him, a slave who has been redeemed, set free, and empowered to willingly return to his former master and submit to his authority and wishes (Barth and Blanke 2000, 339). Further, Flanders notes, the metaphors that Paul uses for himself—“mother, friend, partner, prisoner, old man—all explicitly de-emphasize structural authority and power.” Flanders concludes, “This is not necessary when leaders rely on structural power. Those given to raw use of power do not have to justify or explain their power moves. To give power assumes that leaders provide other rationale, explanation, and motivation that frame the issues and requests. This Paul does masterfully throughout the letter” (personal communication, 2006).

Through this story Paul illustrates the attitudes essential for power-giving leaders. When leaders follow the command of the Lord to love one another and to esteem others better than themselves, that obedience changes the nature of all human social interactions, including those of leadership. We have no assurance in this or any other text that Onesimus was, in fact, able to return to Paul. The story is incomplete. We don’t know if Philemon and Onesimus were reconciled to each other. All of that is left in the hands of God. We do know that Paul chose to relinquish the power he had in order to seek the reconciliation of these two men and offer a more compelling witness of the transforming power of the gospel to everyone who knew them. This is power-giving leadership.

In the chapters that follow we will explore pathways to empower others to take up the burden and responsibilities of leadership. Chapter 9 focuses on how to mentor broken young people like Onesimus and take the essential steps to empower and release them for ministry. Chapter 10 examines the question of how one can give away power and still produce the necessary and intended results of ministry. Chapter 11 asks how leaders can effectively exercise power, which they must do, and yet avoid the traps of power-seeking leadership.

Responsible-To Leadership

What Are Marta’s Responsibilities? A Case Study

Marta was a European missionary working in Indonesia with her international mission organization (IMO) and a local mission affiliate (LMA). Her director assigned her to provide oversight for the literacy and leadership training staff of the local mission, to pay these local workers from IMO funds, and to keep the accounting records for her mission. Marta had three local literacy teachers on her team: Bizu, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

Marta was always frustrated with the way the local mission director supervised his local workers. As the accountant for the IMO, she saw that the local mission director kept no records and provided no accountability to the local workers. She often complained to her IMO director about the sloppiness of local leadership and responsibility. In the local mission culture, monthly support was not related to work; money involved having a position and income to supplement gardens and other jobs. The local mission did not expect its staff to work full time. Work reports were not required, but Marta’s best teacher, Ezra, gave them over the radio regularly. Marta also sent the local director reports of plans and progress, something she started when she took this assignment. Before that nobody had asked or commented about the work or the productivity of the local team.

Bizu gave Marta the most difficulty. She noticed that when Bizu worked with her in the office, minor things just disappeared. After two years of work, he became critical, and the quality of his work deteriorated. One day he said that he was tired of correcting Marta’s mistakes on the literacy lessons she printed for him. When she asked what was wrong, he said there was no problem. However, Bizu lied about his work; he drew his food and travel allowance for a week, but worked only one morning and then went to another island to sell his cash crop. While there, he was caught stealing money by the police.

When the news reached the local church, they suspended him from his teaching position for one year. When the suspension was over and the local mission director did not approach him to resume his work, Bizu announced in a district church meeting that if the mission did not rehire him the entire literacy program would stop. This threat was directed toward his national colleagues. At first the local area director did not want Bizu back, but because Bizu insisted on having regular monthly pay, he was granted a new position as adult literacy and Bible teacher. Marta, in her pain about this man and his lack of responsibility, took the opportunity in another church meeting to recite all of Bizu’s failings to the whole congregation. To her surprise Bizu apologized in a roundabout way, saying he was sorry about the good and bad things he had done. When she asked other people to clarify what he meant, Nehemiah said that Bizu had not acknowledged any of his wrongs.

Marta was deeply frustrated and discouraged about this situation. She felt that she had no authority to do the work assigned her, and she was deeply discouraged about her relationship with the local mission. She did not feel that her director in the IMO supported her when she reported to him the mismanagement of the local leader and staff. Although Ezra and Nehemiah were good workers and a source of encouragement to her, she could not understand why the local director and the church did not fire Bizu. Further, she was deeply hurt when the LMA director told her that she had no authority regarding Bizu’s accountability or work performance. After six years of work in this area, she felt responsible for all these problems; although she faithfully reported to her director and the local director, she could not understand why they failed to act on her reports.

Responsible- For or Responsible- To ?

Many years ago I sat with my family in a group counseling session with a psychologist at Liebenzell Mission USA, where we were contributing to candidate orientation for ministry. As the psychologist explored with me and other members of my family our relationships of power with one another, he discerned quickly that my daughter and I were emotionally wrestling over power issues. After engaging both of us with some pointed questions, he turned to me. “Sherwood, do you feel responsible for your daughter?” I had to confess that, indeed, I did feel responsible for her. He then made this statement, which I have never forgotten: “Sherwood, you must be responsible to your daughter, but you cannot be responsible for her. She is responsible for her own actions.”

The core issue here was my emotional attachment and my felt need to assure that my daughter did not do things that would be harmful to her or to the family. Responsible- for thinking and emotions led me to use power and control to assure my teenage daughter’s security and appropriate behavior. This kind of thinking assumes that the other person is unready and inadequate to act responsibly without my intervention. It also assumes that I know best, and that if I keep control, the results that I seek will be secured.

Responsible- to thinking and emotions begin with emotional detachment. I no longer see myself as the agent responsible for the behaviors of my daughter, but rather I see my daughter as the agent, and I, her father, must act responsibly to her as a person who will determine her own thinking, actions, and outcomes. This kind of thinking assumes that the other person is responsible, adequate, and will decide what the best course of action will be to achieve the results desired. It also assumes that I, her father, still have a role to play, granting authority and providing counsel, freedom, and accountability.

I recall an incident from my teenage years that illustrates how my father used emotional detachment and responsible- to leadership in mentoring me. Working alongside my father, I learned as a young teen how to wash and wax automobiles. When I was about fifteen years old, our next-door neighbor invited me to wash and wax her car. I accepted with enthusiasm and worked more than five hours to complete the task. When I was finished, I went to my father and asked him to come and inspect the job. He asked, “Did you do a good job?” I replied, “Yes!” He then said, “Are you satisfied with how it looks?” Again I said, “Yes!” He then said, “That’s all I need to know,” and he refused to accompany me to look at the car. I was angry and disappointed. I wanted him to look and to tell me my work was good. Instead, he taught me that I was the best judge of the quality of my work, and that if I was satisfied with the results, he had nothing more to add. This action shifted the focus of our relationship, so that from this point on he mentored me from a responsible- to, rather than a responsible- for, relationship. Less than a year later, he invited me to preach my first sermon during our Wednesday evening prayer meeting, granting me the authority, providing counsel when I asked, and giving me freedom to prepare and speak as I felt led by the Holy Spirit. After I had presented that message, he affirmed the positive result of my preparation and delivery and invited me to further disciplined study and preaching, which has become a lifelong work of ministry.

Responsible- For and Responsible- To Leadership

Responsible- for leaders demonstrate emotional attachment to their role and results, and they exercise power and control to achieve results and assure quality. In contrast, responsible- to leaders demonstrate emotional detachment from their role and results, and they grant authority, responsibility, and freedom to other people, whom they then counsel and hold accountable to achieve results and quality. Responsible- for leadership cannot relinquish control, since the leader is emotionally attached to both his or her role and to the achievement of results. A responsible- to leader places responsibility for results on the members of the team (which ideally is committed to covenant community) and trusts God for the wisdom to provide the counsel and accountability essential for each member.

In the case study above, Marta has a clear sense of responsibility for the operations and the results of the ministry that she is doing in partnership with a local church and the indigenous mission organization (LMA). That sense of responsibility comes first from her default culture, learned as a child in her family in Europe, and then from the socialization and attachment to the roles assigned to her by the IMO, the LMA, and the members of her team. How she approaches that responsibility is part of her personality and what she has learned about how to play her roles. Her emotions at the time of the story are of deep frustration with her directors and her team and disappointment in herself and her team members. She feels that she is not managing effectively either the operations or the results of her team, and that her directors are not supporting her. Having lapsed into criticism and condemnation of her local colleague Bizu, she also feels that she has failed spiritually.

Marta does not have a leadership role. She is clearly a middle manager, assigned by her mission to manage a project and to provide financial and progress reports in partnership with the local mission and the ministry team selected by the local church. Many Christian workers find themselves in middle-management roles and experience similar frustrations. As managers they must define goals for the project, plan and budget project activities, organize the work to get it done, control spending, and focus on achieving the anticipated results. They have not been given responsibility for defining vision or for motivating and inspiring people to work to fulfill the vision. Like Marta, they often feel unsupported by their leaders, responsible for things they cannot control, and frustrated by the poor performance of others with whom they work.

Marta finds herself in the same emotional situation I experienced years ago in my relationship with my daughter. Marta feels responsible for the funds allocated to the project, for the implementation of a work plan that the IMO asked her to create, and for proper management of funding distributed through the local mission director and the local church. She has found that all these responsibilities are out of her control and has deep anxiety and discouragement about them.

Responsible- For Behaviors

To illustrate the dilemma of middle managers on this topic, I will examine in depth the issue of accountability for funds in the case study of Marta and her ministry partners. Marta disclosed to her IMO supervisor that she felt responsible for what local mission and church leaders did with project funds, and that she had little control over LMA expenses and team performance (table 10.1). Lacking other power, she complained to her IMO supervisor and to the local director about the fact that Bizu and other workers saw the money as pay for the position and not the work, and as a consequence, the work was not done. Angry that Bizu, after he had received project funds, did not do any evident work, she confronted the local director about Bizu’s behavior. Her suspicions about Bizu were confirmed when he was caught stealing in the port town.

Table 10.1 Responsible- For and Responsible- To Behaviors

Marta's Job	Responsible-For	Responsible-To
1. goals	1. define goals	1. shared vision, goals
2. work plan	2. organize work	2. discern gifts, match work
3. supervision	3. manage employees	3. mentor teammates
4. budget	4. set budget	4. facilitate budget
5. expense report	5. control expenses	5. facilitate reporting
6. results report	6. assure results	6. affirm results
7. liaison IMO/LMA	7. assure LMA quality	7. interpret LMA values
	8. meet IMO goals	8. interpret IMO goals
		9. report team results

She was also deeply frustrated by the local director. When she complained to him about Bizu, he rebuked her and told her that the local church, not Marta, was responsible for disciplining her coworkers. She noticed how her coworkers took project materials without asking, how they used project time for personal activities, and she reported these things to the local director. Again, he reminded her that project work was part-time and that these men had to provide for their families. This did not relieve Marta of her internal sense of failure.

Marta was very pleased with Ezra, who actively prepared the reports she had requested in the project plan. She reminded the local director that Ezra and Nehemiah were faithful in their work, and Bizu was not. At the same time, she obliquely complained that she and they never received feedback on their reports and did not know if the local mission was satisfied with the progress they had made in their literacy and Bible-teaching work.

Finally, Marta expressed her displeasure that the local director had invited Bizu to rejoin the team after his suspension by the church. In her eyes Bizu was irresponsible and used his relationships in the church to demand a job for which he did little work. She felt that Bizu undermined her ability to manage the project and achieve the outcomes for which she felt responsible to the IMO.

Responsible- To Behaviors

As we reflect on Marta’s feelings and actions, we need to ask Marta the same question the psychologist asked me: “Marta, do you feel responsible for the team and the project?” As we reflect on the data, we realize that Marta could benefit from the same advice I received. “Marta, you must be responsible to your team and directors, but you cannot be responsible for them. They are responsible for their own actions.” How would this change Marta’s thinking and behavior? And would these changes have any impact on the operations and results of her project?

First, Marta must cope with her internal emotional attachment to her role and results and agree that the local mission leader and her team members are responsible for their own choices and actions. Marta is responsible to the local leader and to her team to tell them what IMO leaders expect and desire with regard to budgeting and expense reporting, and she must work with them to create a budget and a process for reporting that they can actually use (table 10.1). Marta is also responsible to her IMO leaders to explain to them what she thinks has actually happened. Given their conflicting cultural values about work and compensation, Marta is not responsible for deciding if they did right or wrong. God is the only one who can judge “right or wrong” as a matter of heart. She may believe that they (the local leaders) did not do what the IMO leaders wanted or expected. If this is the case, she should ask the local director or her team members if her interpretation is true, or if they see it differently. It is very important that Marta understand, inasmuch as they are willing to tell her, how the local director and project workers see and understand their actions.

Marta should employ the “ask, seek, and knock” strategy (Willard 1998) in her relationships with these men. “Here is how I understand what has happened. Please correct me, or help me explain to my IMO supervisors how these funds have been used, and why. I want to support you and will do so if you help me to understand this more clearly.”

If for some reason Marta thinks that this explanation is not satisfactory, she may say: “I will report exactly what you have told me; but you should know that they expect . . . , and what you have done does not meet their expectations. You (local leaders) are responsible for the use of these funds. I will report what you have done and your explanation of that. The IMO leaders will decide if they are satisfied.”

Responsible- to behavior assumes that others are responsible for their own actions. The leader or manager must then act with integrity and love toward others on a team. The first requirement is that one is faithful in one’s actions and responsibilities. The second is that one is faithful to our brothers and sisters in Christ, as participants together in covenant community.

Transforming a Dysfunctional Team

Marta’s situation is unfortunately all too common in cross-cultural ministries. As we reflect on this case study, we realize that nearly everything that could go wrong has. Perhaps the most critical aspect is the absence of a community of trust that shares a common vision and commitment to mission. As Marta describes the situation, the vision that led to the establishment of the team has either been forgotten or was never shared by her local director and village associates. The villagers see the work of the team as a salaried position, gained through the church, that gives them financial benefits. Bizu seems to have no commitment to a vision or the work of the team, and Ezra and Nehemiah do the work, but we see no evidence of mission and purpose.

As a middle manager, Marta can and should be a leader. She is one of the faces of the original vision to this local community, and if she does not do her part to share and carry that vision, it will be lost. We do not know the history of the vision for this team, so we can only conjecture about its loss and recovery. Surely someone in the local church was partner to the original vision that led to the founding of the team. Likewise, the IMO director and the local director have some knowledge of the vision. When vision is lost, teams and projects become dysfunctional management nightmares of the kind that Marta has experienced. Marta is responsible to share the vision that brought her to this place. She is responsible to engage her team members around this vision and invite them into relationships of prayer and discussion that renew the vision for the whole team.

The second area of grave dysfunction on this team is the absence of attention to covenant community. Marta does not trust her directors and the members of her team. Likewise, they do not trust Marta. Although Marta does not have a position of leadership authority that empowers her to convene and engage people in building trust, she does have the responsibility to build trust with her coworkers. However, Marta has defaulted to responsible- for behaviors, focusing her energies on constructing project plans, defining work schedules, protecting the project materials, and producing project reports. Ezra has pleased her, because he has produced the kind of work that helps Marta feel successful as project manager. Nehemiah failed to please Marta in the early months of his work, but she now defines him as a “good worker.” Marta has missed the Lord’s priority for “loving our neighbors” and for “making disciples,” an opportunity open to her in her relationships with Ezra, Nehemiah, and even perhaps with Bizu. Bizu’s negative response to Marta has focused primarily on her concern about things and schedule, which grate against his default culture and personality.

Marta is handicapped in her role as a middle manager, feeling responsible for the good and the bad of the team, yet without authority and empowerment to lead or manage. In this her directors from both the IMO and the local mission have also failed as cross-cultural leaders. Neither has supported Marta in the work of sustaining vision and missional focus in the work of these local teams. Neither has encouraged or supported her in the work of creating a community of trust within their organizations. The agenda of each mission agency seems to lack focus on the essential elements of the mission of God and covenant community. Marta does not have the authority to inspire and empower her team to achieve a compelling vision of faith. As a manager caught between two organizations, she has only her influence as a committed follower of Jesus Christ to move people in this way. Her organizational leaders have failed her in a very significant way.

But Marta also has responsibility here. She is responsible to her directors to tell them that the vision has been lost in the local community, and that she needs their leadership to renew the vision and mobilize the local church and local mission staff to build the trust essential to be a missional community. Marta can play a key spiritual role in this very difficult and challenging situation; she can pray diligently for her leaders, asking God to renew their vision, and she can invite her team members to pray with her about the issues of vision and community. She can also quietly work with those in her sphere of relationships to share the vision God gave her to come to this place, and to invest her time, resources, and energy to build trust among her team members, their families, and the local church community. If Marta and these mission leaders would commit to building covenant community teamwork, they together would see profoundly improved results from this ministry.

Resisting the Urge to Give “Expert” Help

Because we are by nature power seekers, it is almost impossible for us to resist giving good advice to people whom we have empowered for ministry, especially when we believe it will make the work more effective and improve results. I frequently fall into this trap, and so did Marta. She saw her team and the local director making mistakes, she felt responsible for them, and she intervened by correcting their mistakes and offering unsolicited advice and direction, which she knew would make things work better. As we might expect, her local director and team members felt that Marta’s advice was condemnation. When we intervene in this way, more often than not we alienate the very person we are trying to help. We push our good things on those we think need them, in hope of producing our intended effect in the world, using our power to bring about the things that will give us significance. Power-giving leadership resists the urge to do what Dallas Willard calls “condemnation engineering” (1998, 228).

How can we, the educated, the experienced, avoid this unfortunate liability of imposing our expertise to improve the work of others? First, we must learn the importance of waiting until we are asked, or, seeing a teammate in difficulty, we ask permission to offer help. Second, in giving advice we must learn to suggest options—two or three ways of solving a problem—so that those we wish to help can choose a solution rather than rely on our “correct” answer. And when we are asked, we must resist the temptation of doing the work for them or of showing them how by our expert performance. Our expert performance will only discourage the weak and dismay the novice. Our virtuosity must inspire but never demoralize. Thus if you are a great teacher, you should teach only in contexts where you are not displacing some lesser teacher. If I am a great organizer, I should limit my organizing to those circumstances where it is my responsibility alone to organize; and I should empower others in their sphere of responsibility. Is this absurd? Should we not use our gifts for the kingdom of God? Of course. But our primary role should be to encourage, not to dominate. Encouragement is a spiritual gift. Domination is not.

The key lies in building relationships that lead to trust, influence, and encouragement for the work and purpose of God. If our desire is to truly foster followers of Christ, then we must submit our concern for results to the Lord and surrender our powers of teaching, organizing, and leading to those we are mentoring. When we place Jesus, rather than the quest for power and results, at the center of our being, we will look to the Spirit and Word of God to guide us. By setting an example as followers of Christ, we enwe encourage those we mentor to develop their obedience to the Spirit and grow in skills of service as they also follow the Lord Jesus Christ.

Responsible- To : Leading in Covenant Community

Leadership is always about results. The question is, who is responsible for the results? If we commence with the assumption that ministry teams must begin with God’s priorities, that assumption changes how we answer the question. In chapter 5 I argued that God’s highest priority is that we be and live as the people of God. The second priority is “striving together with one accord for the faith of the gospel” of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:27). God then is the one who is responsible for results, and we are responsible to “strive together with one accord” as members of the body of Christ. It is my argument here that responsible- to leadership enables the body to serve and God to work in that body to accomplish God’s results.

In his letter to Philippian believers, the apostle Paul highlights several principles that I deem essential for responsible- to leadership. First, God does the work, “being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6). Second, the responsibility rests on the members of the body, “whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in the one Spirit, striving together” (Phil. 1:27). Third, the body must work together, “being one in spirit and of one mind. . . . In humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others” (Phil. 2:2–4).

In this context Timothy is Paul’s middle manager, delegated to visit these people, get a report of their ministry, and encourage them. Paul affirms Timothy’s authority, responsibility, and readiness to serve: “I have no one else like him, who will show genuine concern for your welfare. For everyone looks out for their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ. But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel” (Phil. 2:20–22). If I may reflect on the story about my father and me and waxing the car, my father concluded that I had proved myself, and he no longer needed to check my work and refused to do so. Here Paul is affirming an even greater trust in Timothy and his utmost confidence in Timothy’s leadership and service, forged in their partnership as father and son together for the gospel.

Finally, Paul speaks the truth in love and calls upon a local leader and the community to help together to resolve an internal conflict. “I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers” (Phil. 4:2–3). Paul’s plea here is for responsible- to intervention in a situation of conflict. We are given no other details, except that Paul encourages them to stand firm in the Lord and then gives thanks for their generosity and sharing in Paul’s time of trouble.

When we act as if we are responsible for, we take power into our hands, and we use it to try to accomplish our outcomes, the results that we desire, in effect becoming power seekers. By being responsible to, however, we focus on the covenant community and empowering all the members of the body of Christ to produce the results that God intends for his church. The act of being responsible to involves asking appropriate questions, investing time in the building of relationships, and speaking truth in love at times when God directs us to do so. All members of the body have gifts and roles for service, and leaders encourage all to act responsibly and in obedience to Christ. The results belong to the Lord.

Exercising Power, Asking for Correction

Exercising Power in Thailand: A Case Study

Sam, an official from a Swiss foundation, came to Thailand to investigate and fund projects to assist economically disadvantaged people. Learning of a multicultural team working with urban homeless people, he contacted Sarah, one of the team members, and invited her to submit a proposal. In consultation with Marcus, the team leader, Sarah submitted a proposal for $55,000 to build six small houses that homeless people could use for temporary accommodation. During an interview, Sarah described the conflict that arose between the team and the team leader over these houses:

We were all so thrilled when the application was successful, and the foundation transferred the full amount of $55,000 into our team account. We found a good team of builders, who built six lovely houses. The whole team got involved in painting and wallpapering, and the houses looked great! But then Marcus, our team leader and chief fundraiser, returned from an overseas trip. He said the houses were way too luxurious for temporary housing for the poor. He didn’t like the wallpaper we had put up and gave orders to roughly paint over it. After agreeing that trees could be planted around the houses at a cost of $1,000, Marcus then changed his mind and insisted the trees be removed. The whole team was so frustrated and upset that resources were being wasted. Personally, I was really embarrassed. I’ve been avoiding writing to Sam, because it’s my credibility and integrity that’s questioned if we misuse the funds donated by his foundation.

Marcus had formed this homeless ministry by gathering several wealthy Thai Christian believers together and sharing a vision to assist economically deprived people in Thailand. He had a particular concern for women and children, who, because of financial pressure, often drifted into prostitution. Motivated by Marcus’s passion to make a difference in the lives of these people, the Thai Christians promised to help him financially when he put together a team to do the work. Building on their commitment, Marcus gathered several Thais, Sarah, and another Asian expatriate to organize and carry out diverse ministry projects.

From the beginning Marcus led this team by employing a Thai patron-client power model in which the leader often makes unilateral decisions and even reverses the decisions of those with less power. The team had the same vision but very different values underlying their decisions. As reported by Sarah, Marcus delegated decision making to them but then countermanded their decisions and forced them to destroy some of their work. Sarah and her Singaporean colleague expressed deep frustration, and the Thai team members, who accepted the patron-client model of leadership, felt a loss of face in the way Marcus countermanded their work. During Lorraine Dierck’s visits to this team, several team members expressed frustration, stating that the team had become totally ineffective in meeting their ministry goals (adapted with permission from Dierck 2007, 167–69).

Exercising Power to Achieve Results

One may have presumed from the earlier chapters that leading should not employ the exercise of power. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I stated in chapter 9, power exchanges pervade nearly all relationships, and the exercise of power is an essential part of leading and following. Leaders and followers have power, and they must learn how to use their power constructively in covenant community and to accomplish kingdom work. Marcus failed this test on two measures: he did not exercise his power constructively, and he did not invest in building covenant relationships, perhaps lacking understanding of how to lead in covenant community. As a consequence he impaired his team, and the results of their work fell far short of their potential. A leader must use power in such a way that the team is motivated to higher levels of achievement.

Richard Wood suggests that one of the most important functions of a leader is to keep the team or organization focused on its mission (2006, 218). In the case study above, we see that Marcus has been partially effective on that count. Thais and expatriates alike are deeply committed to their ministry to the urban homeless. But vision alone cannot create unity of purpose, and conflict about decisions and their implementation has created a crisis that at best has demoralized the team and compromised its mission. Marcus has acted arbitrarily, overruled decisions made by team members, and forced them to destroy work they had completed. He has wasted the time and resources of his team in what seemed to them to be capricious acts of power.

Although Marcus might argue that he is acting in an appropriate Thai “patron” role, he has misunderstood the Thai hierarchical exercise of power. Marcus has not learned either the important Thai value for consulting with one another nor what Richard Mouw calls “ shared leadership” founded on New Testament teaching about our sinfulness and the diversity of gifts given to us in the body of Christ (2006, 129). Lorraine Dierck (2007) reports that Thais place very high value on consultation together before a decision is made; after that consultation has taken place, Thais recognize and accept the right of a leader to make the decision. But it should be done in such a way that the people involved do not lose face. Marcus violated both of these cultural principles, failing to consult and causing his whole team to feel compromised and lose face.

Marcus has also failed to exercise what Mouw, taking his cue from James MacGregor Burns, calls “transforming leadership [in which] both leader and follower are raised to higher levels of motivation and morality, so that each is changed in the process” (2006, 126). Mouw goes on to explain that, while positional authority is legitimate in Christian community, it must be tempered to assure that all members of the body are able to exercise their gifts effectively (2006, 129). This means that a leader must delegate authority to others with different gifts and then release control, entrusting others to use authority and power appropriate to their roles in the community and the body of Christ.

What if this team had been organized around a different social game, such as the egalitarian game? Would that have solved the problem of the abuse of leadership authority and the exercise of power? The group, or strong members of a group, has all the potential to misuse power that we see in this patron-client team (Koeshall 2008, 265–66). Further, Wood notes that “servant” (power-giving) leadership cannot be effective without an appropriate use of the “powers of office,” even and especially in organizations that seek to operate on the basis of consensus (2006, 216). Wood observes that teams accustomed to making decisions by consensus are often held hostage by one strong member, who blocks the group and may actually dictate the decision by the act of resisting consensus.

In his discussion of how egalitarian Quaker meetings are “biased toward inaction,” Wood suggests that one of the most important powers of a leader is to “require dialog.” He goes on to say, “To use power to require dialog or suspend the status quo is to lead from vulnerability, for it involves taking the risk in opening an issue without controlling the outcome. But it also frees the assigned leader to be a participant in seeking a new solution” (2006, 219–20). I concur with his observation and would extend its application to all the social games of work and leadership.

The exercise of power for the common good of the covenant community is a responsibility of those assigned leadership roles. Anita Koeshall (2008, 268) argues that leaders and followers live in community together as “redeemed agents,” and as such they each are responsible both to lead and to follow. When leaders exercise “redeemed power,” they engage in “self-emptying for the sake of others” (2008, 260), rather than acting to increase their authority, control, and “power distance” (Hofstede 2001). When “redeemed agents” lead and follow in covenant community, they create a “dynamic asymmetry . . . that critiques both oppressive hierarchy and competitive, controlling egalitarianism” (2008, 268).

Leading for results is at its best when leaders and groups understand how and when to use power and when to give it away. Mouw clarifies how an effective leader delegates responsibility and power to others in the body, thus sharing leadership and strengthening the team or organization by increasing its capacity to serve with the full range of spiritual and natural gifts. Wood helps us understand the critical importance and power of dialogue to build effective communication and empower others to exercise their creative gifts to advance the mission. When a leader focuses on the common good, delegates responsibility and power to others, and employs the power of dialogue and effective communications, that leader motivates and enables a team to achieve its maximum potential and results.

Asking for Correction

Over the course of our consulting ministry with mission organizations in Africa and Asia, my wife and I have found that missionary and national leaders are frequently involved in conflict with each other. As we explore more deeply the causes of those conflicts, we find that each group of leaders has proceeded to decisions and action based on their own understanding of the situation without significant dialogue with others. Like Marcus, who reached decisions in isolation from his team members about the housing project, many project leaders we have observed present a decision as an accepted fact to their colleagues. Although they may not have the power to order the others to do what they have decided, they have failed in precisely the same way that Marcus has failed.

One of the most common flaws of leaders is their failure to ask for correction, and when they receive it, to accept it and learn from it. In his discussion of Jewish doctrines of leadership, Elliot Dorff declares that people must learn “to evaluate their leaders’ performance so that they can be justly criticized, corrected, and in the extreme, rejected as a leader. . . . To be a mature leader or follower requires a keen sense of judgment; without that the followers become infants, the leaders become gods, and following them becomes an exercise in idolatry” (2006, 17–18). According to Dorff’s insights, effective leaders encourage and empower followers to evaluate effectively their performance. This must be built into our understanding of covenant community and social game. Regardless of, and appropriate to, the social game employed, a team must plan and implement processes that check and correct its leaders.

The work of designing process and empowering followers and leaders to participate in feedback is a complex agenda. In a situation where a single person, such as Marcus, is organizing a team, that person must act intentionally to create an open door for correction while in the process of forming covenant community. In a situation where two groups are seeking to partner, or two or three expatriates are seeking to bring two or three language communities together around common interests, the question of feedback and correction must be faced at the very beginning of negotiating relationships. If the leaders are going to give covenant community priority in these relationships, the feedback process is the obvious place to begin.

Pathways to Correction

While teaching and learning the core biblical values of community, leaders and followers must ask how to speak “truth in love” to one another. What is an acceptable process—confronting face-to-face, one person to another, or storytelling about a third-person outsider, or sending a mediator, or a periodic team meeting to ask, “how are we doing?” or a periodic survey, or “time out” for crisis dialogue? Identifying one or more acceptable processes will be contingent on the default cultures of the people involved and the social games they are most comfortable playing. Whatever the process or processes adopted by a team or partners, the followers must learn how to appropriately use them and be invited and encouraged by the leaders to do so.

Followers must have means to challenge leaders that are consistent with biblical commands to love one another and at the same time to question without condemning. Reflecting on the case study of Marcus and Sarah, we see that Sarah disagreed strongly with his decision to paint over the wallpaper and remove the trees. She also was embarrassed by his decisions on behalf of the team and afraid of what Sam might think about how they had misused funds. We know that the team operated as a corporate group with a strong patron-client bent. Marcus felt free to override team decisions. If Marcus had anticipated such conflict and wanted his team to be a covenant community, how would he have prepared Sarah and others to respond to such a situation?

Table 11.1 offers alternative ways of addressing these issues, depending on the emotions and reasoning of followers. Marcus, as leader, is responsible for training his team to confront him in ways that will motivate him to listen and help him to make wise decisions and correct his errors. He and the team are more inclined to respect and love one another if they learn how to confront in love. If Marcus had encouraged Sarah to let him know when she was hurt or embarrassed, she would have had more courage to speak to him about his decision to paint the wallpaper. If he had given his team permission to say, “We don’t agree with this decision,” they may have had the courage to tell him that his decision to remove the trees was unwise and could actually hinder future funding from the Swiss foundation.

Table 11.1 Challenging Leaders through Covenant Relationships

Covenant Community Emotions	1. We are hurting (for others).
	2. We are disappointed.
	3. We are embarrassed or ashamed.
	4. We are angry.
Covenant Community Thinking	1. What is not working?
	2. Help us understand.
	3. We disagree.
	4. Could we discuss other alternatives?

The social-game values of team members limit the options for confrontation open to them (see table 11.2). If they are Thais, they will be very reluctant to challenge someone who is of higher status and in a leadership position. To confront a leader is impossible for them, unless the leader invites them to participate in a discussion about a decision before it is made. Once the leader has made a bad decision, they will passively accept it and grieve quietly about the loss of face. In a weak corporate environment such as the one Marcus created, the only way he might discern people’s anguish is by observing their silence and withdrawal. This is a sure sign that something is wrong, and he should ask them gently to tell him what has gone wrong. He could also ask Sarah, who may serve as a mediator for them, and with her Western values is more able to tell him openly why they are silent.

Sarah and her other Asian colleague may feel more free to report to him the feelings of the team, if he is willing to ask. If Marcus had prepared them during their training to share their concerns and emotions about his leadership, they would have been more likely to tell him either face-to-face or in a note or e-mail that team members were grieving about his decision to paint over the wallpaper. Sarah comes from a cultural background that permits confrontation but seldom uses it. Her Singaporean colleague also comes from an Asian culture that is more accepting of confrontation.

The case study suggests that Marcus had failed to empower his team members to confront him in any way. He expected them to do what he told them, and he did not welcome any negative feedback. As a consequence, he treated the team as servants, not understanding God’s call for him to be accountable to the body of Christ in which he served. He failed to be either a servant or a transforming leader; he instead used his power to control and achieve the lesser goods of satisfying his own values and objectives and somehow to feel good about ministering to the poor, but not to the body of which he was an integral part.

Table 11.2 Social-Game Strategies for Challenging Leaders

Individualist (Weak Group)	1. Face-to-face confrontation
	2. Group-to-group confrontation
	3. Public argument
	4. Public negotiation
Collectivist (Strong Group)	1. Observation of withdrawal behavior
	2. Indirect storytelling
	3. Letters or e-mail
	4. Group discussions
Corporate (Strong Group)	1. Letters or e-mail
	2. Mediation
	3. Focus-group discussions
	4. Compensation
Bureaucratic (Strong Group)	1. Informal, private confrontation (letter, report to supervisor)
	2. Formal, open confrontation
	3. Focus-group listening
	4. Survey

Correction as Power Giving

The ultimate act of power giving, even more important than acceptance, is inviting others to critique one’s work and decision making. Because missionaries and mission organizations, who control key resources, hold a structural power relationship with national churches, they may and often do make decisions that have a negative impact on the church without inviting any feedback. When we engage others in such a way as to solicit their reflection, feedback, and interpretation of our decisions, we create an environment of humility, empowering them to help us be more effective in our ministry.

Power-giving leadership invites others to critique one’s work and decisions. By patiently listening and intentionally hearing what others say, we may correct our own structural rigidity and thereby become better able to work together for the purposes of the kingdom of God. The goal is to engage others in such a way that we empathize with their critique, build mutual understanding, and commit to a community relationship with them. By inviting them to critique our decisions and work, we open the door for greater understanding. By being willing to adjust and change what we do to better minister to them, we in fact create deeper community in Christ and greater capacity to love one another.

Adams, Richard N. 1975. Energy and Structure: A Theory of Social Power. Austin: University of Texas.

Banks, Robert J., and Bernice M. Led-better. 2004. Reviewing Leadership:

A Christian Evaluation of Current Approaches. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Barth, Markus, and Helmut Blanke. 2000. The Letter to Philemon: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bennett, David W. 1993. Metaphors of Ministry. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Christian, Jayakumar. 1994. “Powerlessness of the Poor: Toward an Alternative Kingdom of God Based Paradigm for Response.” PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA.

Collins, Jim, and Jerry I. Porras. 1994. Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. New York: HarperCollins.

DePree, Max. 2004. Leadership Is an Art. New York: Currency.

Dierck, Lorraine W. 2007. “Teams That Work: Leadership, Power, and Decision-Making in Multicultural Teams in Thailand.” DMiss diss., Biola University, La Mirada, CA.

Dorff, Elliot N. 2006. “Jewish Models of Leadership.” In Mouw and Jacobsen, Traditions in Leadership, 4– 40.

Douglas, Mary. 1982. “Cultural Bias.” In In the Active Voice, 183–254. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Flanders, Christopher L. 2005. “About Face: Reorienting Thai Face for Soteriology and Mission.” PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA.

Guder, Darrell L. 2000. The Continuing Conversion of the Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Gupta, Paul R., and Sherwood G. Lingenfelter. 2006. Breaking Tradition to Accomplish Vision: Training Leaders for a Church-Planting Movement; A Case from India. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books.

Hesselgrave, David J. 2005. Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today. Grand Rapids: Kregel.

Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and Organizations across Nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Koeshall, Anita. 2008. “Toward a Theory of Dynamic Asymmetry and Redeemed Power—A Case Study of Reflexive Agents in German Pentecostal Churches.” PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA.

Lingenfelter, Sherwood. 1996. Agents of Transformation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

———. 1998. Transforming Culture. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Lingenfelter, Sherwood G., and Marvin K. Mayers. 2003. Ministering Cross- Culturally. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

Linthicum, Robert. 2003. Transforming Power: Biblical Strategies for Making a Difference in Your Community. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Lohfink, Gerhard. 1984. Jesus and Community: The Social Dimensions of the Christian Faith. Translated by John P. Galvin. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Mouw, Richard J. 2006. “Leadership and the Three-Fold Office of Christ.” In Mouw and Jacobsen, Traditions in Leadership, 118–38.

Mouw, Richard J., and Eric O. Jacobsen, eds. 2006. Traditions in Leadership: How Faith Traditions Shape the Way We Lead. Pasadena, CA: DePree Leadership Center.

Myers, Bryant L. 2002. Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Shuster, Marguerite. 1987. Power, Pathology, Paradox: The Dynamics of Evil and Good. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Stackhouse, Max L. 1997. Covenant and Commitments: Faith, Family, and Economic Life. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

Steffen, Tom. 1997. Passing the Baton: Church Planting That Empowers. La Habra, CA: Center for Organizational & Ministry Development.

Watson, David. 1978. I Believe in the Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Watters, John. 2007. “Lessons Learned from Wycliffe’s Journey into Cross-Cultural Partnerships.” Presentation given at the Coalition on the Support of Indigenous Missionaries Conference, June 11–13, 2007, Wheaton College, and written personal communications prepared for this manuscript.

Weaver, Alan Ray. 2004. “Toward a Cross-Cultural Theory of Leadership Emergence: The Hungarian Case.” PhD diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA.

Willard, Dallas. 1998. The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God. San Francisco: Harper.

Wood, Richard J. 2006. “Christ Has Come to Teach His People Himself: Vulnerability and the Exercise of Power in Quaker Leadership.” In Mouw and Jacobsen, Traditions in Leadership, 208–21.

Wright, Tom. 2004. Paul for Everyone: The Prison Letters; Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

Wright, Walter C., Jr. 2000. Relational Leadership: A Biblical Model for Leadership and Service. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster.

Yamamori, Tetsunao. 1993. Penetrating Mission’s Final Frontier: A New Strategy for Unreached Peoples. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Yancey, Philip. 1997. What’s So Amazing about Grace? Grand Rapids: Zondervan.