ANALYSIS OF A ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT MODEL
1.INTRODUCTION
Every organization needs leaders to sustain itself for the future (Amagoh,
2009; Fletcher, 2018). The need for leadership development is crucial as
organizational health is associated with the "continuous development of leaders
within organizations" (King & Nesbit, 2015, p. 134). If everything rises and falls
on leadership, an organizational leadership development process must be one of
the leading priorities of every organization. Further, growing organizations are
faced with the challenge of ensuring their leadership development stays ahead of
the pace of their growth (Hao & Yazdanifard, 2015). Leadership development is
improving the quality of leadership in organizations, providing support to an
organization's leaders in order to meet their objectives, and bringing about needed
change and alignment in the organization (Amagoh, 2009; Fuller, 2001; Groves,
2007; Hotho & Dowling, 2010). The primary responsibility of an organizational
leader is to design a culture that encourages and fosters leadership development
(McKee, 2003). It is also that leader's responsibility to create a strategy of
leadership development and empowerment that will provide a clear pathway for
his or her followers (Geiger& Peck, 2016).
However, not all organizations create a culture that fosters leadership
development. Football coach Urban Meyer (2017) of the Ohio State Buckeyes
said, "Leaders create a culture, culture drives behavior, behavior produces results"
(p. 64). Organizational culture influences every organization because every
organization has a culture either by design or default(Friedman, 2018). The
foundation of that culture forms the core beliefs of the organization. The beliefs of
that organization will be the primary influence on behavior that forms the culture.
When the culture is healthy, team members will be better able to fulfill the mission
of their organization (Heathfield, 2018). Accordingly, lasting leaders are lifelong
learners and lifetime mentors of those who follow them. Without effective
leadership development, the organization will be stifled in its growth (Palmer-
Atkins, 2017). A decrease in growth can lead to frustration and a decline in
leadership, followership, and teamwork. This decline will also affect the
production capabilities and ultimately, the success of the organization (Palmer-
Atkins, 2017). As a result, the researcher proposes the following hypotheses that
are examined in this project:
There is a correlation between the church's internal leadership
development program and the growth the church has experienced.
The church staff agrees that there is a positive correlation between the
internal leadership development program and the steady incline of
growth they have experienced.
Summary
The data gathered from the survey supported the hypotheses proposed by
the researcher that the study site church continues to grow and invest in developing
leaders who are prepared to assist the church in seizing growth opportunities.
Problem Statement
Although not all organizations create a culture that fosters leadership
development, many organizations invest in leadership education and development,
as the cost was almost $50 billion in 2000 (Ready & Conger, 2003) and the
investment has continued to increase to a $366 billion industry today (Westfall,
2019). However, an investment in leadership education and development does not
mean that the education and development programs are effective or that the
investment in education creates a culture of leadership development. Ready and
Conger (2003) explained, In this atmosphere, it is difficult to find the CEO of a
large company who doesn't have a carefully honed speech about the importance of
developing the next-generation leaders at every organizational level. And yet for
most companies, the combination of eloquent statements and massive investments
has not produced a sufficient pipeline of leaders. (p.83)
Specifically at IBM, Ready and Conger (2003) posited that the lack of
"homegrown" leaders within that organization can be attributed to a few causes for
failure in organizational leadership development, including leadership
development efforts not being aligned with their strategic goals. Also, not all
leaders within the organization are committed to making leadership development a
top priority within the organizational culture. A leadership development culture is
necessary for any organization to be able to seize opportunities for growth, while
eliminating any barriers that may potentially impede that growth (Beh, 2012).
Glamuzina (2015) explained: Today, leadership is extremely important for
development and future prospects of modern companies. Organizations with
poorly developed leadership have difficulties coping with the changes in the
environment, they respond reactively and eventually, not being able to counteract
the competition, they often go bankrupt. Leadership and its development represent
the source of the competitive advantage for many organizations.(p. 90)
The need for effective leadership development is also a concern for the
Church. The church needs leadership development just as much as secular
organizations do (Ginnan, 2003).However, many churches fail to provide viable
outlets for developing promising leaders. There are many possible reasons for this
lack of leadership development, including later life expectancies, a higher-than-
average number of "second career" pastors taking on longer positions in clergy
after spending many prime years in non-ministry careers, the fact that many
pastors today are not financially sound enough to retire and forego regular
paychecks, the lack of leadership development opportunities for Millennials and
Gen-Xers, and a lack of succession planning among Boomers (Barna, 2017).
Barna's (2017) research titled The State ofPastors also indicated that the
median age of the American pastor is 54 years old. It was 44 years old in 1992.
Only one in seven pastors is under the age of 40, and half are over 55 years old. In
1992, one in three pastors was under the age of 40, and one in four was over 55
years old. Accordingly, "the percentage of church leaders 65 and older has nearly
tripled, meaning there are now more pastors in the oldest age bracket than there
are leaders younger than 40" (para. 8). In contrast, 55% of all Protestant clergy
were in their 20s, 30s, and early 40s in 1968. Today, only 22% are under the age
of 45.
Mullins (2015) wrote a book called Passing the Leadership Baton to help
pastors recognize the need for developing and implementing a transition plan.
Mullins suggested the following reasons as to why pastors find it difficult to "hand
off the baton" to the next generation:
an inability to step away from a lifetime of personal investment in
building the church; an identity crisis that falsely compels a leader to
hold on to their position for fear of a lack of purpose and meaning in the
future;
an unwillingness to put what would be best for the church's growth
ahead of one's own comfort and convenience; financial instability;
A fear of the changes that may be made under the leadership of
someone else.
(pp. 38-46)
Barna (2017) postulated that the average age of pastors today is higher than
in the past and there is a decreasing number of young individuals available to take
up positions of leadership within the Church. This difficulty should be of
tremendous concern to the church and, therefore remedied in the church (Thoman,
2009). Current pastors find identifying young people desirous of ministry careers
to be a challenge, much less mentoring and equipping those individuals to pursue
ministry careers. Two out of three current pastors believe identifying suitable
candidates is becoming more difficult (Barna, 2017). Barna attributed this
difficulty to the "declining percentage of practicing Christians in each successively
younger generation" (para. 5) and the attraction of other non-ministry related
vocations in which Christians believe they can have an impact with their gifts.
Therefore, there is a leadership crisis within the Church. The church is, and
will remain, ill-equipped to sustain growth unless it is more intentional about the
recruitment and development of young leaders to take up positions of leadership in
the future (Fletcher, 2018). Barna (2017) recommended that churches "need
younger leaders...and older pastors are uniquely situated (and called) to raise up,
train and release godly, capable and resilient young pastors" or the church will face
a "massive leadership shortage" (para. 6) in the coming decades. Other possible
contributing factors to the leadership development crisis in the Church include that
only
10% of pastors prefer developing other leaders over preaching or teaching
(Kinnaman as cited in Nieuwhof, 2017). Therefore, pastors are not choosing to
spend time developing leaders. This statistic conflicts with the understanding that
one of the primary roles of a leader of an organization or a church is to establish a
culture that fosters leadership development. Accordingly, the American church's
opportunity for growth is unlimited, but the lack of preparation to nurture that
growth is the true problem (Fletcher, 2018; Ginnan, 2003).
Professional Significance of the Problem
The researcher has traveled throughout the United States working with the
largest churches in America and has served as the President of EQUIP, a Christian
non-profit leadership organization founded by leadership expert Dr. John C.
Maxwell. EQUIP is responsible for training more than 6 million leaders in 196
nations around the world and thousands more from leading churches in America.
As he has traveled and trained leaders, the number one question the
researcher has fielded is "How do I grow my church to the next level?" His answer
undergirds his conviction that one can only grow their organization to the degree
that they have grown their people. Accordingly, a common weakness for all
churches aspiring to get to the next level of impact is an insufficient leadership
development strategy. Understanding how to build and sustain a leadership culture
is an important factor in the growth of any organization (Chand, 2011).
The purpose of this project was to offer insights and practical guidance to
assist leaders in developing an effective leadership culture that will carry their
organization to the next level and avoid the frustration resulting from
organizational growth limitations (Palmer-Atkins). These limitations are
detrimental to the health and future of the Church because they limit its ability to
fulfill the Great Commission, thus creating an actual decline in the spread of the
Gospel (PalmerAtkins, 2017).
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this project was to examine the impact of the development
of a leadership culture in an organization, specifically one church in the
Southeastern United States. To accomplish this purpose, the researcher used a
cross-sectional quantitative design to examine the correlation between the growth
of the study site church and the study site college, its internal leadership
development program.
The study site church is the second largest church in America with an
average weekend attendance of more than 42,000 people and presently has
multiple campuses located throughout the state in which they are located. They
also conduct services every week inside each prison located within their state. In
addition to being recognized as one of the largest and fastest growing churches in
America, they are also one of the leading churches in the training and development
of leaders for the kingdom of God. They host national conferences where they
train other churches on developing leaders as they have built their church on the
philosophy of raising up leaders to fulfill the Great Commission in taking the
Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world.
The senior pastor of the study site church began his ministry there with a
philosophy deeply rooted in the importance and implementation of a leadership
development process.
During his interview with the researcher, he stated that the staff at his church is
hired to train up leaders to do ministry, not to do the ministry themselves.
The pastor began as an intern with a local church in Louisiana where he was
prepared for the ministry he leads today. As a result of his experience, he believes
interns must have practical, hands-on experiences in ministry that complement
their theological and academic knowledge in order to become effective leaders in
their ministerial fields.
The college associated with the study site church emerged from the vision of
the pastor's own internship experience in 2011. Today, they serve approximately
1000 students annually. According to the senior pastor, the philosophy of the
college is to combine the best attributes of both the Greek-style ("Come and learn
from me."), and the Hebrew-style ("Come and do ministry with me.") approaches
to education.
The senior pastor believes his church could not have embraced the
phenomenal growth experienced in recent years had it not been for the leadership
development pathway created through the college. They have been able to seize
new opportunities because they had leaders ready and able to carry out the ministry
needed to accommodate such growth. As the pastor stated, "You can never allow
your vision to outpace your leadership development." Being driven by this
philosophy, the study site church has made the development of its prospective
leaders at its college a top priority.
Overview of Methodology
The method used to conduct this study was a cross-sectional survey design.
Staff members at the study site church were the participant pool for the survey. A
cross-section of 100 staff members were chosen, including campus pastors,
department directors, and a random selection from each department at each of the
church's campuses. Eighty-six of the 100 completed the survey within the 24-hour
timeframe requested by the president of the college. The survey, which was hosted
on surveymonkey.com, included four general demographic multiple choice
questions and 10 statements for which the participants were asked to indicate
whether they strongly agreed, agreed, were uncertain, disagreed, or strongly
disagreed. The analysis of the data provided by the survey, along with the answers
given in the interviews, led to the findings reported in this study.
Limitations of the Study
This study had the following limitations imposed upon it by the researcher.
First, the researcher did not study or survey the need for a leadership development
program within the church. He assumed that all organizations require a plan for
leadership development if they are to continue growing and having impact. Also,
the researcher did not examine the means of leadership development within all
types of organizations. Although there are many methods and models for
leadership development programs from which to glean insights for such a study,
the only leadership development program studied for this project was a church
school of leadership. Third, the researcher did not study all church schools of
leadership. Although there are many churches that have schools of leadership, a
case study was conducted on the school of leadership at one church. Fourth, the
researcher did not intentionally conduct interviews or surveys with students,
faculty, or graduates of the study site college. The only survey conducted was with
a limited sampling of staff at the study site church. Fifth, the researcher did not
define all the factors that contribute to a successful, growing church. His research
was limited to the impact of a school of leadership as one contributing factor to
organizational growth. Sixth, this study focused on the need for and the value of
having a program to develop leaders. It did not intentionally address how to create
a program for developing leaders. Finally, the results of this study are not limited
to multi-site mega churches as compared to the case study church examined. The
results may help inform churches of varying sizes.
Organization of the Dissertation
The dissertation will be organized as follows. Chapter 2 will provide a
review of literature that will include academic, peer-reviewed articles and
dissertations along with books written about church growth and discipleship
models and contexts.
Chapter 3 will provide the methodology for the case study the researcher is
using to conduct his research. These details include background on the survey
purpose and design, a demographical overview of the survey participants, the
survey instrument and accompanying questions used to canvas the participants, the
procedures implemented and the correspondence made with participants, the data
analyses gleaned from the survey results, and a general overview of the
methodology.
Chapter 4 will present the results of the study. In this section, the researcher
will provide a detailed look at the data produced from the survey instrument and
the interviews conducted as part of the methodological study. He will then use that
data to draw conclusions as they relate to the assumptions made about the solution
to the problem stated in the introduction to the project. Chapter 5 will include a
summary and accompanying discussion of the researcher's findings. It will also
include his conclusion to the problem stated previously and practical implications
based on the findings of this study.
11. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Do We Develop Leaders
The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a correlation
between church growth at the study site church and the leadership development
model utilized at its affiliated college. This chapter provides context to the study by
synthesizing the existing literature on the philosophy and trends of leadership
development, their importance to the Church, and the factors associated with the
current crisis of leadership development existing in the Church.
The literature review is divided into three main parts. The first section
defines leadership development and its purpose, identifies trends in leadership
development, and assesses the effectiveness of development programs. The second
section explores the need for leadership development specifically in the Church.
The third section examines the reasons for the leadership crisis within the Church.
Organizations that thrive in an ever-changing and complex society have
strong leaders that are either bought or built (Pernick, 2001). Buying leaders entails
hiring competent, experienced leaders from outside the organization. Hiring
outside executives may provide a speedy solution for an important open position,
but it is often expensive to hire seasoned leaders and this caliber of leader is often
in short supply (Patterson & Pointer, 2007; Pernick, 2001).
In contrast, building leaders entails training potential leaders within the
organization through an internal leadership development program (Patterson &
Pointer, 2007; Pemick, 2001 ). Establishing and managing internal leadership
development programs can be costly and timeconsuming, but doing so allows
organizations to groom the next generation of leaders according to their culture and
have greater control over their supply of skilled leaders (Pernick, 2001
Defining Leadership Development
Leadership development can be defined and practiced in a variety of ways.
However, one distinction made in research is the fact that leader development and
leadership development are separate dimensions (Day, 2001; Freed, Covrig, &
Baumgartner, 2010; Iles & Preece, 2006;
Jones, 2006). Although the two are distinct concepts within the literature, there is
some confusion regarding the differences between leader development and
leadership development as many organizations consider the concepts to be
interchangeable (Day, 2001; Freed et al., 2010; Iles & Preece, 2006; Jones, 2006;).
Leader development trains individuals to attain the qualities that senior
leaders view as needed to protect their human capital (Day, 2001). In contrast,
leadership development addresses what qualities are viewed as needing to be
developed in the organization (Dalakoura, 2010) to protect their social capital
(Day, 2001). The answers to these questions guide training and programming to
meet different needs. Although leadership development focuses on a broader
context of people and processes across the organization, leader development
focuses on the individual (Freed et al., 2010). Developing leaders is seen as
occurring solely within the leader, whereas leadership development involves
developing the leader in relation to others in context of the organization at large.
An implication can be made that leadership development incorporates leader
development (Freed et al., 2010; Rothausen, 2016). The focus of this dissertation
study is leadership development, which centers on developing leaders in order to
meet the purpose and mission of the organization in which they participate.
The Purpose of Leadership Development
The purpose of leadership development includes improving the quality of
leadership in organizations, providing support to an organization's leaders in
order to meet their objectives, and bringing about needed change and alignment
in the organization (Amagoh, 2009; Fuller & Goldsmith, 2001; Groves, 2007;
Hotho & Dowling, 2010).
One purpose of leadership development is planning systemic efforts to
improve the quality of leadership in institutions (Amagoh, 2009; Groves, 2007).
Having certain competencies as a leader is believed to be directly connected to
organizational performance and productivity (Amagoh, 2009). Organizations with
skilled leaders tend to "innovate, respond to changes in markets and environments,
creatively address challenges, and sustain high performance" (Amagoh, 2009, p.
989). Such skills include the ability to envision the future, establish goals,
effectively communicate, plan, and implement strategies to reach goals
(Reinertsen, Pugh, & Bisognano, 2005), build teams, maintain healthy
interpersonal interactions, and change one's attitude (Burke & Collins, 2005).
These skills coincide with leadership attributes such as selfawareness, openness,
trust, creativity, and intelligence (Amagoh, 2009). Organizations capable of
sustaining quality performance have quality leaders. Therefore, it is imperative that
organizations provide leadership development programs which focus on producing
quality leaders (Amagoh, 2009).
Another purpose of leadership development is to provide support based on
needs in order to enhance the performance of leaders and deliver on strategic
objectives (Hotho & Dowling 2010). A needs analysis determines the starting point
for designing a leadership program according to the organization's most valuable
desired outcomes. The chosen program elements will ultimately narrow the gap
between the identified needs and existing capability of participants (Hotho &
Dowling, 2010). These needs must be identified by senior leaders who understand
the objectives those needs will meet within the organization instead of relying on
potential participants to determine them according to their personal shortcomings
(Hotho & Dowling, 2010).
Leadership development also helps bring about change and strategic
alignment in the organization (Fuller & Goldsmith, 2001). Increasing one's
effectiveness in guiding organizations through periods of uncertainty and change is
a major goal of all leadership development programs (Amagoh, 2009). Therefore,
organizations without properly trained leaders are significantly impeded in their
ability to implement and sustain strategic change initiatives (Amagoh, 2009).
While some organizations see leadership development as a luxury in times of crisis
or change, all agree it is needed for times of crisis or change because it aids in
producing high-yield results and accountability (Hayward, 2001 ).
Early Models of Organizational Leadership Development
The development of leaders has experienced a shift in theory and
implementation. Many early leadership development programs in the United States
were focused on evaluating individuals within the organization to help them
cultivate whatever skills and character traits they lacked (Dalakoura, 2010;
O'Toole, 2001). Three major skills are identified in individual leader training (Day,
2001). The first is self-awareness which encompasses the character traits of
emotional awareness and self-confidence. The second is self-regulation which
creates selfcontrol, trustworthiness, personal responsibility, and adaptability. The
third skill is selfmotivation and it results in initiative, commitment, and optimism.
The primary emphasis of cultivating these skills is to build the intrapersonal
competence required for an accurate model of oneself (Day, 2001).
In the last 20 years, the focus of development has shifted from developing
individual leaders to giving attention to the context or organization in which the
development takes place, determining how to best use leadership competencies,
and understanding the importance of helping team members balance life and work
(Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004). This philosophical shift to leadership
development, in which the focus is less on the characteristics and behavior of
individuals and more on leadership dispersed across teams in the organization,
naturally regards everyone as a potential leader (Bennett, 2004). This philosophy is
in contrast to the idea that leaders are only recognized if they are at the top of the
organizational chart or chain of command. A view of hierarchical leadership as a
metric for leadership potential has been challenged or tarnished because of
corporate failures and individual moral and ethical failures of these leaders
(Bennett, 2004).
With a focused move from supervisory leadership in the organization to
strategic leadership of the organization (Bennett, 2004), leadership development
now accounts for training all people with leadership potential to understand how to
build relationships, access resources, develop commitments, and build social
networks inside and outside the organization (Iles & Preece, 2006). These means of
development are often reflected in the list of competencies leadership development
program participants are expected to develop within themselves and in relation to
others in their immediate group or team and across the organization (Freed et al.,
2010).
In the 1980s, the W9K. Kellogg Foundation (WKKF), an organization with a
long history of investing in leadership development, conceived and implemented
the first formal leadership development program within the United States (Black &
Earnest, 2009; Russon & Reinelt, 2004). Prior to founding their leadership
development program and following the outbreak of World War Il, WKKF funded
two educational leadership programs in the 1950s to meet the postwar need for
more nurses and health care administrators as well as the demand for more junior
colleges (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, n.d.). These programs, called the Cooperative
Program in Educational Administration and the Junior College Leadership
Programs respectively, were in fulfillment of a commitment made to the American
Association of Junior Colleges. The Foundation's intent was to provide support to
community leaders as they tried to raise up new leaders to address social problems.
Since 1980, WKKF has focused on developing individual leaders. The
Kellogg National Leadership Program (KNLP) emphasized assisting emerging
leaders in the development of leadership knowledge, skills, and competencies
addressing human, societal, and community issues (W. K. Kellogg Foundation,
2004, p. 3). Concentrated effort resulted in organizations leaning on the Kellogg
Foundation to help them train potential leaders for new positions of needed
leadership.
WKKF continued to expand with several new programs in the 1990s, and in
recent years, their approach to leadership development has moved away from
seeing leadership investment as a distinct and separate endeavor to being an
integral component of strategic initiatives of any company or organization (Russon
& Reinelt, 2004). Some organizations abandoned leadership development in both
philosophy and practice in the 1990s (Maxwell, 2006). Still other large companies
in addition to Kellogg's, such as PepsiCo, General Electric, Shell, Hewlett-Packard,
and Intel, led the way in successfully conceptualizing and implementing leadership
development programs (Thomas, 2008).
History of Leadership Development Within the Church
As this chapter has discussed the history of leadership development, this
next section examines current practices in church leadership development. The
practices in church leadership development include seminary training, the
leadership emergence theory (LET), and some other organic training methods
within individual churches or denominations.
Seminary education. A traditional trend in church leadership development is
seminary education. From its beginnings, American higher education has been
shaped by religious purpose (Ford, 2017). The purpose of these learning
institutions was to preserve Christian culture by educating clergy (Ford, 2017).
Harvard, the first college in America in 1636, was named after a Christian minister
and was established by colonists for the dual purpose of educating English and
Indian young men in knowledge and godliness for a life of service (Ford, 2017).
The planning of The College of William and Mary, the second oldest university in
America, began in 1618 and was chartered by King William Ill and Queen Mary Il
in 1693 to be a college of divinity (Ford, 2017). However, given the pluralistic
society and the advent of denominational differences in theology and ordination in
the United States, seminaries were established within individual religious and
secular colleges and universities by which clergy are traditionally trained (Lipsey,
1914). The United States is now a culturally and religiously diverse nation that
does not use its public institutions of higher education to maintain a Christian
culture with Christian values (Ford, 2017).
In the seminary environment, students learn Scripture and theology, but
many are illprepared to manage real-world ministry issues and situations (Banks,
1999; Baumgartner, 2017; Cronshaw, 2011) or lead and develop other leaders
(Malphurs & Penfold, 2014), creating a huge gap between theory and practice
(Cronshaw, 2011). "They have studied the message of the Christian church but not
the world in which the message should be given" (Baumgartner, 2017,p. 17).
Seminary graduates are also not necessarily returning more passionate, motivated
for the mission of Christ in the local church (Cronshaw, 2011), which has resulted
in nearly half of seminary graduates feeling led to abandon ministry in the first five
to ten years after graduation (Baumgartner, 2017).
Seminary may, therefore, be only part of the equation for attaining a level of
maturity fit for leadership readiness. Many pastors and denominational leaders
have asked whether seminaries are capable of making pedagogical changes that
will create graduates who have both the knowledge and expertise to fulfill their
ministry responsibilities (Banks, 1999). This question stems from the fact that
many seminary professors actually have little to no practical experience
themselves, making the basis of their teaching purely theoretical (Reese, 2003).
Megachurch leaders and house church leaders are outspokenly critical of this fact,
citing the way seminaries take their future leaders away from their churches where
practical habits and skills are learned and honed for effective ministry to, instead,
be taught by teachers who are removed from current issues and trends in the local
church (Reese, 2003).
Also in response to the question of whether seminaries are effective, Shaw
(1989), Smith (1997), and Miles-Tribble (2015) noted that, despite seminaries
successfully teaching character and spiritual formation, they also need to reassess
and focus on their effectiveness in regards to the leadership needs of the local
church. Ineffectiveness would also be remedied if seminaries underwent the same
level of critical self-examination that leads to educational reform similar to other
types of higher education in America (Cohall & Cooper, 2010; Kelsey, 1993;
Miles-Tribble, 2015). Kelsey (1993) also suggested that seminaries must consider
blending two types of theological training approaches for training church leaders
the "Athens" model, which stresses the importance of character and spiritual
formation, and the "Berlin" model which offers a more systematic approach to
shaping one for ministry.
There have been some seminary reformers who suggested that there is only
so much a seminary can do to identify and prepare persons for ministry
(Cunningham, 1996; Winter, 1997; Welch, 2003; Miles-Tribble, 2015) and that
seminaries must consider approaching learning styles and practicum opportunities
with fresh eyes (Smith, 1997; Welch, 2003). Winter (1997) stated, "At any given
time the vast majority of the saints who have the gifts of ministry are to be found in
the churches and will never darken the door of a seminary" (p. 184). Winter's
statement may suggest that the church should consider alternative means by which
those gifted individuals can be educated and given practical experience so they too
can fulfill their calling to ministry. Additionally, Smith ( 1997) suggested that
seminary training should be more "user-friendly" through a more decentralized
program that makes training more convenient and available to the men and women
participating in it. This philosophy was instrumental in encouraging many
seminaries to develop online learning opportunities in the 21 st century rather than
solely providing campus-based programs (Reese, 2003), but it may not be
sufficient.
Leadership development models and programs in the local church. In
response to the perceived inadequacies of seminary education by church and
denominational leaders, many have explored alternative learning and training
leadership development programs (Reese, 2003; Cunningham, 1996). "Growing
churches in increasing numbers are establishing church based theological
education programs" (Elliston, 1995, p. 8).
Apart from this desire by some churches to supplement or replace seminary
education, Mohler (as cited in Warnock, 2006) believed many churches have
neglected their responsibility to train pastors and leaders. "I emphatically believe
that the best and most proper place for the education and preparation of pastors is
in the local church. We should be ashamed that churches fail miserably in their
responsibility to train future pastors" as it is the "ultimate responsibility of local
churches" (Warnock, 2006, para. 7). Rather than outsourcing their responsibility
by sending potential leaders away to seminary without any support or
accountability for what they are learning and experiencing, church leaders need to
be actively engaged in their training (Granger, 2010).
Churches that do actively develop congregants for positions of leadership
and responsibility in the local church (Taylor, 2014) have learned to adapt existing
programs to their environment and culture by providing training that is accessible,
appropriate, affordable, and reflective of both theory and practice (Taylor, 2014).
Such programs aid participants in focusing on the mission of God to share the
Good News and make disciples (Baumgartner, 2017) The fulfillment of this
mission occurs when evangelical organizations provide an intentional process by
which emerging leaders can develop their Christian character through learning
ministry knowledge and skills (Malphurs & Mancini, 2004).
Churches should undertake the development of potential leaders who not
only have a vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ but who also have a God-given
capacity and responsibility to influence a group of believers toward the fulfillment
of his purposes (Reese, 2003, Baumgartner, 2017; Clinton, 1989). As churches
seek to develop lay-leaders, it is important that the individuals selected for
leadership development are following Jesus and are notjust churchattenders who
are successful in their careers. When individuals selected for leadership
development are not pursuing Christian growth, problems with both leadership
development and discipleship are likely within the organization (Logan, 2017).
As for the kind of leadership development programs happening in the local
church, there are four common approaches: apprenticeships, cohort programs,
training institutes, and finishing residencies (Hancock, 2017). Apprenticeships
happen when a pastor mentors and trains an individual called to ministry over the
period of one to four years (Hancock, 2017). Cohorts are a group of pastoral
trainees working through a church-based curriculum in which they learn and serve
together (Hancock, 2017). A training institute, often offered by larger multi-site
churches, focuses on leadership development, particularly to aid in their campus
growth or church planting efforts, through the means of classes, seminars, cohort
learning, coaching and mentoring, and supervised ministry experience (Hancock,
2017). A finishing residency is for post-seminary graduates who have academic
knowledge but may have not had much practical ministry or internship experience
(Hancock, 2017).
The leadership emergence theory. Apart from seminary programs and
individual church and denominational leadership development initiatives, a
prominent leader in Christian leadership development is Robert James Clinton, the
founder of the leadership emergence theory (LET). He believed that leadership
development is a lifelong process built upon leadership experiences unique to each
individual (Stadler, 2009; Taylor, 2014). He studied 420 historical and
contemporary Christian leaders and missionaries to determine a method for
categorizing and organizing life-history data for analysis and to assemble the
findings to form a basis for leadership development within the Church (Stadler,
2009).
The LET proposes that potential and growth are uncovered over time and in
the context of certain environments. Clinton's formula for leadership development
is LF (p, t, r). L stands for leadership development. F means "a function of; "P is
"processing" or an understanding of God's shaping activity in spiritual formation. T
is "time," or the developmental phases leaders go through in their lifetime. R is
"leader response" which is how leaders respond to God's interventions (Taylor,
2014). Clinton believed that, if leaders understand this process of development and
the components it entails, they will help guide future leaders to see how God is at
work (Taylor, 2014).
Unlike other theories of leadership development, LET is based on the
concept that God orchestrates an eternal, providential plan for one's development
and the leader actively participates in that process rather than assuming it happens
by chance (Stadler, 2009). Theories of chance produce a lack of inner discernment
and failure to take personal ownership for the direction or purpose of one's own
development, which causes failures in leadership development because it becomes
based on external values and expectations, such as professions and societal values,
rather than on a deeply spiritual and personally meaningful value or ends
(Rothausen, 2016).
A study of whether Clinton's LET is equally as effective in corporate
settings as in corporate settings was conducted by Stadler (2009). Results
demonstrated that, after two decades of successful application of LET in ministry
environments, LET is also applicable for corporate leaders who believe God cares
about every aspect of their lives, including their development as leaders (Stadler,
2009). LET's emphasis on how past events prepare one for maximizing learning
from future events assists leaders even if they subscribe to a worldview other than
Christianity (Stadler, 2009). These insights can be used by practitioners to
"broaden corporate leadership development approaches, enhance executive
coaching programs, revitalize mentoring initiatives, and improve succession
planning strategies" (Stadler, 2009, p. 121). Local church leaders should consider
having conversations that include lifelong learning, LET, the importance of one's
contextual and environmental needs, and different philosophies of adult education.
The goal of such conversations is to find a balance between training in the local
church and attending a seminary program (Reese, 2003).
Strategic Planning and Implementation of Leadership Development Programs
Leadership development is strategically planned and implemented in a
variety of ways depending on the philosophy, purpose, resources, and environment
of the organization (Leskiw & Singh, 2007). Over the last few decades, there has
been an increase in use and recognition of the value of using a variety of
developmental activities and approaches to develop leaders in organizations
(Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004). Some of these activities and approaches are
short-term activities and programs although others are more extensive and
involved. Most are provided by the human resources personnel within an
organization but are encouraged or specialized by supervisors and upper level
management (Dalakoura, 2010),_Regardless of the person or group offering the
opportunity, the goal is to increase the participant's ability to lead their
organization, community, school, or church (Freed et al., 2010).
In order to make sure participants are receiving all the benefits and outcomes
desired by those who sanctioned and created the development opportunity, it is
important to determine what experiences are key in the participants' development
(Stadler, 2009). Although many organizations choose to offer the same program to
all participants, some go to lengths to customize their development programs.
Customization allows senior leaders to invest in activities specific to the needs of
their participants' growth in the organization rather than presuming that, because
they are at a similar organizational level or age, they need the same type of support
or training (Stadler, 2009). "Programs aiming at the development of leadership at
all levels are more difficult to design and implement than those targeted at
increasing the skills and competencies of individual leaders" (Dalakoura, 2010, p.
434).
It is important to create development programs that offer insight into how to
navigate existing and potential challenges participants may face and instill hope
that what participants are learning is valuable to their current and future positions
and responsibilities in the organization (Stadler, 2009).
In addition to determining how leaders best develop and what key
experiences are needed to offer a successful program, participants must be
informed as to why they need to learn this material and how the topic will be
valuable to them (Black & Earnest, 2009). This understanding motivates
participants and results in learning (Birkenholz, 1999). Motivating factors for
learning as an adult include fulfilling expectations of oneself or others, improving
one's ability to serve in the community, or pursuing professional advancement
opportunities (Black & Earnest, 2009). Adults are most motivated to learn when (1)
they are valued as independent persons; (2) the content is relevant to their present
stage of development; (3) they are willingly pursuing the opportunity to develop
themselves; (4) and there is flexibility and individualization in their learning
(Maehl, 2000).
Components of Leadership Development Programs
Evidence suggests that leadership development programs engage in six
primary types of learning activities: assessment, personality-related assessments,
performance assessments, feedback, ongoing education, relationships, and planning
and reflection (Rothausen, 2016). Two widely used contemporary methods of
development are developmental relationships and experiential learning.
Developmental relationships. Developmental programs emphasize a team-
based delivery approach, but developmental relationships in the form of mentoring
or coaching are recognized as being key components of developmental programs
(Amagoh, 2009; HernezBroome & Hughes, 2004; Leskiw & Singh, 2007; Taylor,
2014). Mentoring is defined as a committed, and usually long-term, relationship in
which a more seasoned person supports the development of a more junior person or
protégé (Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004; Leskiw & Singh, 2007). Mentoring can
take place in either a structured program or in an open, learner-led and initiated
agreement (Marcus, 2004); and it involves learning goal orientation and leadership
competencies in order to be beneficial to both individuals and organizations
(Amagoh, 2009).
Teaching future leaders strategies, tactics, skills and practices is fruitless if
organizations do not connect them to senior leaders to help them assimilate what
they are learning in their context (Watt, 2014). "Leadership is after all a
relationship between those who choose to lead and those who choose to follow a
reciprocal process" (Watt, 2014, p. 134). A mentor or coach is needed to transfer
knowledge into one's context (Baumgartner, 2017). Through regular meetings to
help junior leaders understand what they are learning and how it that information
translates in their shared environment and culture, coaches foster reflection and
accountability (Baumgartner, 2017).
One certainly learns in the larger group, classroom environment. However,
one-on-one relationships provide deeper and more valuable assistance to junior
leaders seeking to assimilate information learned (Amagoh, 2009; Baumgartner,
2017). According to a study by Baumgartner (2017), with coaching, 85% of
participants were able to transfer what they learned into their context and keep
progressing. Without the benefit of coaching, only 15% were able to benefit long
term from what they learned.
Mentoring and coaching also creates mutual accountability and relational
support, which results in a more effective learning process (Selzer, 2006). This
process is of particular value when it is acknowledged that old or bad habits are
present and efforts are made by the junior leader to break them and develop new,
healthier patterns and practices (Baumgartner, 2017).
Coaches help junior leaders navigate these issues by showing them the route they
need to take, offering encouragement and direction along the way, helping to
troubleshoot when they get off course, and reminding them they are not alone
(Logan, 2017).
Modeling that results in imitation is another valuable result of coaching
relationships (Black & Earnest, 2009). Modeling entails transferring behaviors and
perspectives from mentors to mentees as expressed in skills, attitudes, values, and
emotions (Black & Earnest, 2009). Modeling is seen as most valuable when the
organization is undergoing change, the context for what is being learned is
ambiguous, or when there are time limitations on meeting or discussion times
between the mentor and mentee (Freed et al., 2010). The result is that many
needless errors are avoided as junior leaders observe and ultimately, model — the
choices and decisions of their mentors (Bandura, 1986).
There are several biblical examples of mentoring and coaching relationships
further illustrating its value in a church environment. The two most well-known
relationships were between Paul and his protégés, Timothy and Titus, and Jesus'
ministry with the twelve disciples (Douglas, 2014). Mentoring relationships like
the ones in the Bible provide a template for the church today as older or more
experienced ministers on staff come together in an overseer relationship with
those who are younger or less experienced. This process of training and
replication within the context of an intimate relationship creates a cycle of
leadership development (Douglas, 2014).
Studies in leadership development must include not only formal training
programs, but also a full range of experiences that leverage a mentoring
relationship between senior leaders and junior leaders (Collins, 2001). Some are
job assignments given and directed by the mentor, corresponding feedback systems
and timelines, providing real-time opportunities to learn and experience new
things, and allowing additional exposure to other senior executives (Collins, 2001).
Experiential learning. A second key element of leadership development
programming is experiential or action learning. Experiential learning entails
combining instruction with practical skills in real-time settings to help participants
grow and organizations to address relevant issues (Hernez-Broome & Hughes,
2004; Dalakoura, 2010). This kind of learning involves practical hands-on
activities in the context of ongoing work initiatives that are tied to strategic
business situations in which participants solve problems or perform tasks within a
certain time frame (Cacioppe, 1998a; Dalakoura, 2010).
Additionally, the experience-based approach to development incorporates
on-the-job experience with one's life experience while seeking to develop specific
skills (Thomas & Cheese, 2005). The outcome is that participants are equipped to
continuously tap into their experiences for insight into what is necessary to lead at
that level or in that situation and what it takes to grow themselves and to grow their
team members as leaders (Amagoh, 2009).
Many large corporations, including Toyota, Boeing, and General Electric,
have put programs in place for their employees to develop experientially (Thomas,
2008). Organizations that have not taken advantage of providing experiential
learning opportunities are lacking— particularly when it comes to leveraging
"crucible" (Thomas, 2008, p. 15) moments in an employee's life or employment
Crucibles are highly concentrated tests or challenges in which individuals extract
lessons of value by employing a personal learning strategy such as heightened
awareness of the situation, individual aspirations or motivations, or learning styles
(Thomas,2008).
Although Pernick (2001) suggested that learning on the job may threaten an
organization's long-term viability, other research indicates that providing
challenging job assignments for developmental purposes provides numerous
benefits along with a competitive advantage for the organization so they should not
be overlooked or underused (Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004). Further, "the
successful integration of the leadership development program into everyday
organizational practices is a critical success factor to effective leadership
development at all levels" (Dalakoura, 2010, p. 434).
Most people typically learn more from experiences that are personally
meaningful or correspond with goals of the organization (Rothausen, 2016).
However, it matters little whether the actual activities are challenging in nature,
directly related to normal work activities, or completely unrelated to the workplace
(Cacioppe, 1998a). What does matters is that the takeaway concepts, skills, and
relevance of the activity are always related back to the workplace through
discussion or further application work (Cacioppe, 1998a).
Leadership development through experience is frequently retained by
participants for years to follow because of its vivid reality and the emotions tied to
the memories associated with this type of learning (Cacioppe, 1998a). Retention
occurs because after adults have gained knowledge, they assimilate it best through
hands-on experiences and interactions with that material (Black & Earnest, 2009).
Although cultivating key relationships and implementing experiential
learning opportunities are central to developing leaders within an organizational
setting, leadership development programs take on many forms and combine many
methods. Little work, however, has been done to determine which methodologies
work best in particular contexts (Lawrence & Whyte, 2012); thus, there is a gap in
the literature regarding leadership development in the specific context of a church.
Leadership Development's Effectiveness
Assessment of training programs evaluates effectiveness, thus verifying the
value of organizational investment (Kilpatrick, 2006). Accordingly, best practice
organizations commit themselves to evaluating the effectiveness of their leadership
development programs (Leskiw & Singh, 2007). In order to evaluate effectiveness,
organizations must employ methods of build successful programs, determine the
factors that contribute to the success of development programs, and rely on models
that accurately measure effectiveness.
The foundational elements of an effective program. Before a leadership
development program can be successful, human resource executives and senior
leaders must first determine what type of candidates are needed, how participants
will be selected, what it takes to become a good leader in the organization, how
participants compare to current leaders, what activities will grow participants into
leaders, how the program is being reinforced throughout the organization, and
whether the program provides a satisfactory return on the investment made to
create these leaders ( Aguilera, 2006; Pernick, 2001). A needs assessment will
serve to identify clear objectives of the program, leadership qualities sought, and
gaps in available leaders (Cacioppe, 1998a; Leskiw & Singh, 2007). It is of
particular importance to make sure the program elements and outcomes align with
the values and virtues organizations desire to see in their leadership team members
(Amagoh, 2009).
When determining who should be selected to apply for or chosen to
participate in development opportunities, senior leaders should not focus only on
higher-level management positions, but rather target a blended group of leaders
from various departments (Leskiw & Singh, 2007). A broad focus ensures that the
program connects to the organizational succession plan for all positions in all
departments (Leskiw & Singh, 2007). Developing leaders at all levels also ensures
that the organization's people act more like owners than hired employees by taking
initiative to solve problems and acting with a sense of urgency and accountability
(Dalakoura, 2010). Indicators that determine whether an organization develops
leaders at all levels include the evidence of a culture that values leadership
behavior, explicitly stated leadership values and principles, rewards for positive
behavior, opportunities to explore new leadership situations, and teaching being
hardwired into all encounters between senior leaders and those they supervise
(Dalakoura, 2010).
Leadership development programs that set participants up for successful
involvement tend to focus on the whole life of the participant, not just the skills and
traits required to accomplish their work responsibilities within the organization
(Aguilera, 2006) as is typically the focus (Rothausen, 2016). Knowledge and skill
development are important and necessary, but they are insufficient for a relative,
growing leadership community (Freed et al., 2010) because, when emphasized
alone, they create a gap between what is expected and the leader's understanding of
how to develop those qualities (Rothausen, 2016). Rather, the kind of training that
is effective is focused on teaching leaders to "process and reflect as opposed to
developing a particular style or behavior" (Avolio, 2010, p. 762). It also
encompasses information, activities, and reflections that build the physical,
emotional, mental, and spiritual aspects of the people participating (Loehr, 2003).
However, Popper and Lipshitz (1993) stated three skills components necessary for
a successful leadership development program. The first is if the leader has
developed self-confidence in leadership. The second is if the leader has developed
an awareness of ways to motivate those they lead. And the third is if the leader has
developed specific skills for their role as a leader on the team.
Effective leadership development programs are also comprised of both
formal instructional training and experience-based learning (Hotho & Dowling,
2010; Leskiw & Singh, 2007). Traditional theory-based course lectures and
workshops have been replaced with by a "learning journey of customized
interactive learning sessions with ongoing support focused on real business issues"
(Leskiw & Singh, 2007, p. 455). Traditional classroom teaching is appropriate and
necessary, but it should be supplemented with opportunities that encourage
participants to apply what they are learning (Leskiw & Singh, 2007). The most
effective means to promote rapid and enduring learning are those in which
participants find solutions to real problems (Hotho & Dowling, 2010; Leskiw &
Singh, 2007) because experiences that are directly linked to one's ongoing work
have the greatest impact on development as a leader (HernezBroome & Hughes,
2004).
Programs are considered to be successful based on a number of factors,
including employee satisfaction, adequate participant preparation, advancements in
competitiveness, total organizational buy-in, and added value to all the levels of the
organization (Amagoh, 2009; Collins, 2001 ; Leskiw & Singh, 2007; Taylor,
2014). Confirmations of a correlation between an organization's investment in
leadership development opportunities and the level ofjob satisfaction of their
employees are considered to be an indication of a successful program for
leadership development (Amagoh, 2009). Programs are also considered to be
successful if qualified (Taylor, 2014) new leaders are ready when jobs are available
to be filled by capable leaders. Programs are also considered to be successful if the
organization is able to pursue new endeavors and opportunities sooner than their
competitors and if the whole organization gets behind the program (Leskiw &
Singh, 2007). A successful leadership program also adds value to the entire
organizational system at all core levels, including organizational, group, and
individual(Collins, 2001).
Methods Of Measuring Effectiveness.
Organizations must assess their leadership development programs to make
sure they are getting the results they desire. A leadership development program is
considered valuable even if it cannot "be measured in quantifiable terms that
dictate assessment of capital expenditures" (Leskiw & Singh, p. 457). Instead, an
evaluation of a program's success should be based on whether the program fulfilled
the initial needs assessment in which objectives and desired outcomes were defined
prior to the construction of the program (Leskiw & Singh, 2007).
Outcomes can be defined as "a measurement of effectiveness or efficacy of the
organization relative to core outputs of the system, subsystem, process, or
individual" (Holton, 1999, p. 33).Using outcomes as a metric helps senior leaders
connect their initiatives to leadership competency and when needed, to develop
new or additional programming elements to meet their needs (Amagoh, 2009).
Measurement of leadership development programs is not a universal process
(Taylor, 2014). The leadership and context of each organization determine the
standards of success by which effectiveness is measured (Taylor, 2014). However,
there are a few key elements of measuring leadership development effectiveness
such as participant feedback regarding learning and change and program evaluation
models like the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model, which is used to evaluate whether
desired goals and objectives are being met. One key element of measuring
leadership development program effectiveness is participant feedback (Amagoh,
2009). Failing to provide an opportunity for participant feedback results in an
inadequate understanding of the program's impact because participants are the ones
directly impacted by the time and effort invested in the program (Amagoh, 2009).
However, there seems to be an over reliance on data collected from program
participants (Russon & Reinelt, 2004). Given the broader considerations of the
program's purpose and desired outcomes, along with the fact that participant
feedback is subject to bias (Russon & Reinelt, 2004), accurate assessment entails
more than just the participants' perceptions (King & Nesbit, 2015; Martineau &
Hannum, 2004). Accordingly, efforts should be made to triangulate self-reported
data (Russon& Reinelt, 2004).
There are very few means of evaluation that measure intangible outcomes
such as leadership capacity and customer satisfaction (Black & Earnest, 2009; King
& Nesbit, 2015). Instead, evaluation models are designed to determine whether
training objectives have been met and learning is being transferred to participants'
work (King & Nesbit, 2015). The most popular model used for such evaluation is
the Kirkpatrick Evaluation Model, in which participant outcomes are defined
according to participants' emotion post-program, learning, behavioral change, and
the projected financial impact of the changes experienced within the organization
(Black & Earnest, 2009; Cacioppe, 1998a; King & Nesbit, 2015). Kirkpatrick's
model has the capacity to elicit both an immediate response from participants and
the ongoing transfer of training and its long-term impact on both the participants
and the organization (King & Nesbit, 2015).
The first level of Kirkpatrick's evaluation model, the participants' emotion
post program, involves gauging their reaction towards and satisfaction of the
program. Evaluators answer questions about whether they were happy or
dissatisfied with their experience and whether they believed objectives were met
and presenters were effective (Cacioppe, 1998a). The second level, learning,
assesses what participants learned or what specific skills were gained from their
involvement in the program (Cacioppe, 1998a). The third level, behavioral change,
assesses how those new skills are being used to improve their work or to
accomplish a task they were previously unable to complete (Cacioppe, 1998a). The
fourth level of evaluation, projected financial impact, relates to new knowledge,
skills, and behaviors they acquired that lead to actual results (often financial) that
improve the operation of the organization (Cacioppe, 1998a). The fact that this
model distinguishes between learning, behavioral, and financial outcomes makes it
less subjective and, therefore, a sustainable model for assessment (King & Nesbit,
2015).
Although Kirkpatrick's model is capable of being used to evaluate long-term
impact, it rarely is used to assess impact (King & Nesbit, 2015). Black claims that
his instrument, the Leadership Program Outcomes Measure (LPOM), is the first to
examine the effect of leadership development at the post-program level (Black &
Earnest, 2009). Black and Earnest studied the veracity in their study, "Measuring
the Outcomes of Leadership Development Programs," to determine whether it
would assist in the evaluation process at the individual, organizational, and
community levels because
There are relatively few published studies designed to measure the level of
change that a participant experiences from his or her leadership program
experience and to what degree this change radiates from the participant to
the community in which he or she interacts.
(Black & Earnest, 2009, p. 185)
The purpose of the LPOM is to gain insight into alumni outcomes and program
achievements as identification of these factors will assist program administrators
as they seek to achieve excellence in these programs and document its effects and
outcomes at both individual and organizational levels (Black & Earnest, 2009).
Prior to the development of the LPOM by Black & Earnest (2009), the
WKKF leadership team also saw the need for a tool to evaluate the outcomes and
impact of its leadership development programs (Russon & Reinelt, 2004). They
identified and invited the leadership of more than 80 leadership development
programs to participate in a scan to determine the results of the developmental
efforts made through their programs. Criteria for being invited included a focus on
positive social change through their programming, the use of multiple innovated
approaches to development, a time period of three months or more, the provision of
either a collective or cohort experience to participants, a targeted effort to include
non-traditional leaders, and an emphasis on building individuals, organizations, and
communities (Russon & Reinelt 2004).
The scan revealed a variety of different measurements being used to assess
effectiveness. Program personnel collected data through 360-degree assessments,
interviews, journals, direct observations, and focus groups. The first key finding of
this executive scan was the confirmation that WKKF was not alone in their need
for a useful program evaluation tool. The second key finding was that leadership
development programs evaluate outcomes and impact on many levels individual,
organizational, community, and system. The third key finding was that few
programs have an explicit theory for how and why chosen activities are expected to
lead to desired outcomes. And the fourth key finding was that most methods only
evaluate short-term outputs even though they wish to assess long-term impact as
well (Russon & Reinelt, 2004).
These findings led Russon and Reinelt (2004) to conclude that few
leadership development programs have the resources to document outcomes
beyond the individual level as participants are leaving the program. This lack of
information limits the amount of data available for accurate assessment and
evaluation. They also found that effective evaluation warrants the use of multiple
methods of evaluation to triangulate the data for accuracy and consistency and that
sharing tools and data between private and nonprofit leadership development
programs would benefit both sectors (Russon & Reinelt, 2004), but no one has
done so yet, thus creating a gap in the literature.
Best practices for evaluation still need to be determined. Leadership
development programs are considered to be in their infancy (Alimo-Metcalfe &
Lawler, 2001: Collins, 2001 ; Hotho & Dowling, 2010) and therefore
undertheorized ( Collins, 2001 ; Edmonstone & Western, 2001). This conclusion,
along with the fact that there is very little empirical evidence suggesting that
leadership development actually leads to improved organizational and individual
performance (Drake, 2003), creates a question of such programs' impact on
individual and organizational performance (Alimo-Metcalfe & Lawler, 2001;
Collins, 2001).
Additionally, there are very few published studies designed to measure the
impact of leadership development programs (Black & Earnest, 2009; Cacioppe,
1998b; Collins, 2001) given the fact that most organizations fail to assess the direct
impact of their programs (Amagoh, 2009; King & Nesbit, 2015), leaders are
limited in being able to properly assess areas needing revision (Amagoh, 2009;
Black & Eamest, 2009). If there are learning methods and activities that have been
proven successful over the last few decades, they need to be integrated to provide
leadership program developers with a framework to properly evaluate their current
program offerings and make any modifications that may be helpful for meeting
program objectives (Black & Earnest, 2009; Cacioppe, 1998b); however, this
integration has not happened yet. Thus, there is a gap in the literature regarding the
effectiveness of leadership development.The Importance of Leadership
Development in the Church
Leadership Development is a Universal Need
Every organization needs leaders to sustain itself for the future (Amagoh,
2009; Fletcher, 2018). The need for leadership development has become essential
given the "growing realization that organizational and national prosperity is linked
to continuous development of leaders within organizations" (King & Nesbit, 2015,
p. 134). However, 86% of the World
Economic Forum (as cited in Fletcher, 2018) attendees reported there is still a
leadership crisis in the world today.
Organizations will lack oversight, direction, and alignment without new
leaders being developed to take the place of leaders who, for whatever reason,
leave the leadership role they have had (Amagoh, 2009). Some organizations
continually look for new leaders (Amagoh,
2009; Cacioppe, 1998b; Freed et al., 2010; King & Nesbit, 2015) because of their
responsibilities in a rapidly changing modern world that perpetuates individual and
organizational issues such as globalization, financial meltdowns, moral failures,
technological advances and opportunities, and pluralism and postmodernism
(Leskiw & Singh, 2007). Organizations continually develop these new leaders to be
adaptable to these societal changes (Amagoh, 2009).
This leadership crisis is not a merely business sector issue (Fletcher, 2018).
Several professional fields, such as nursing, have noted a cyclical pattern of
nursing shortages and surpluses (Snavely, 2016). A critical shortage of these
professionals is projected for the next decade because 55% of the current
Registered Nurse workforce is age 50 or older, making nearly
I million nurses eligible for retirement. There is also a shortage in nursing school
faculty members, preventing schools from admitting a large number of students
into their programs (Snavely, 2016). According to the American Association of
Colleges of Nursing (2015, as cited in Snavely, 2016), nursing programs have had
to turn away 80,000 qualified applicants due to an insufficient number of faculty,
clinical sites, and classroom spaces. These factors limit the number of leaders
who can be developed for the future (Snavely, 2016).
This leadership crisis is also a concern for the Church. There are not enough
leaders in the church to meet the needs inside and outside the local church
(Fletcher, 2018). "Growth requires that we add new leaders. Continual growth
requires a continual supply of leaders" (Fletcher, 2018, p. 2). Based on the concern
for the crisis of leadership development, the next section will present a scriptural
basis for leadership development within the Church, including how it helps fulfill
the mandates of both the Great Commission and the equipping of saints for acts of
service.
Leadership Development Helps Fulfill the Great Commission
Leadership development helps to fulfill the Great Commission. In this
section, several passages of Scripture are examined to understand what the Bible
states regarding the Great Commission and making disciples and how that applies
to leadership development in the church. The theoretical framework guiding this
part of the study is from Fee and Stuart's (2014) How to Study the Bible for All It's
Worth. Fee and Stuart (2014) explained that first one must understand what the
passage meant at the time it was written before making application to today. First,
the passage of Scripture will be stated and then an understanding of what the
Scripture meant at the time it was written and how it can be applied will follow.The
Great Commission is found in Matthew 28: 18-20 where Jesus stated,All authority
in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. (New
International Version).The same account is recorded in John 20:21 , "As the Father
has sent me, I am sending you."Jesus commanded his disciples to continue in his
mission to reconcile humanity back to the Father by spreading the good news of his
death, atonement, and resurrection (Petersen & O'Day, 2009).
If the disciples were to continue in Jesus' mission, how did Jesus accomplish
his mission with his disciples? This discipleship process was unlike that of
Hellenistic philosophers or Jewish rabbis in which students sought after a teacher
because this call and commissioning was initiated by Jesus in whom they were
fully engaged (Mays, 2000). The disciples' relationship with Jesus could be labeled
as apprentice-master as they learned from him and experienced life together
(Moon, 2009). According to the exegesis of the Gospel accounts of Jesus'
leadership development strategy for the disciples (Douglas, 2014), Jesus called
them to follow after him and join him in the work of "making the advent of the
kingdom known" (Mays, 2000, p. 874), as described in Matthew 4, Mark 1, and
Luke 5. Then Jesus taught them and supervised them in community throughout his
time on earth (Moss, 2013).
According to a hermeneutical understanding of the gospel accounts of
leadership development, the Great Commission (Matthew 28: 1800) is a universal
truth. Jesus' transformational mission demonstrates the heart of God for all
humanity (Stetzer & Rainer, 2010), and it has an "open-ended ending" (Barton &
Muddiman, 2013, p. 886) of invitation for all believers to join. In moving from the
kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light, God empowers his followers to be
his agents in helping others to do the same (Stetzer & Rainer,2010) by discipling
them which, [prior to Jesus' instructions in Matthew 28: 18-20], had been solely the
work of rabbis (Keener, 2014). As partners in grace (Philippians I :7), the church's
passion in ministry should be to get God's people on mission (Stetzer & Rainer,
2010) to make disciples of all nations as was commanded in this mission-
inaugurating (Talbert, 2010) event of the reception of the Great Commission. "The
preaching of the gospel is imperative to the Great Commission, but the
development of leaders is the undercurrent to multiplying the fulfillment of the
Great Commission." (Blandino, 2018, para. 16). Blandino (2018) continued,
"without equipped and empowered leaders, the Great Commission fails to gain the
traction necessary to reach the ends of the earth" (para. 16).
The New Testament details how the apostles went about fulfilling the Great
Commission in that time, especially the work of the Apostle Paul. Paul also
modeled the importance of training the next generation of leaders in the church in
order to fulfill the Great Commission. In 1 Timothy 4: 12, he stated, "Don't let
anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the
believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity." In this passage, Paul
challenged Timothy to take up his position of leadership as a young leader in order
to leverage his life and his influence for the kingdom of God (Durken, 2009; Mays,
2000). Leaders serve others and set the example, which influences others and is the
foundation of leadership (Bethel, 1989; Durken, 2009; Ebener & O'Connell, 2010).
Paul addressed Timothy again about his leadership responsibilities in 2
Timothy 2:2 (Durken, 2009; Mays, 2000): "And the things you have heard me say
in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be
qualified to teach others." In this verse, Paul admonished Timothy to carry on the
legacy of leadership development he had learned and experienced as Paul's
student to those he would lead under him in a ministry of multiplication (Joy,
2010; Liftin as cited in Luter, 1985; Tucker, 2014) or "faithful transmission"
(Durken,2009, p. 570). Paul also wrote to the church at Ephesus:So Christ himself
gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip
his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until
we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and
become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ
(Ephesians 4:1 1 13). Paul explained that Christ gave different types of leaders
who would equip their followers to lead. In order to have influence for the
kingdom, Paul discipled Timothy who discipled those following him; and in turn,
they discipled their followers (Durken, 2009; Tucker, 2014; Wilson, 1978).
Just as Jesus challenged his disciples to go and multiply themselves by
raising up other disciples, the Apostle Paul challenged Timothy to go and raise up
other leaders to carry the message of life to the world. The universal truth of the
Pauline epistles' attention to leadership development for the fulfillment of the Great
Commission is that it provides a mandate that should be replicated in the Church
today (Luter, 1985; Tucker, 2014).
Though the mission has been made clear through Jesus' words and Paul's
example in the early church, many contemporary churches struggle to keep this
mission in view or to cany it out (Hoskins, 2006; Watson, 2010). To remedy this
problem, the Church must remember that it exists because there is a mission: "go,
therefore, and make disciples" (Matthew 28: 18-20). The mission does not exist
because there is a church (Hoskins, 2006). The Church's mission is to partner with
God to fulfill the Great Commission, not to simply maintain itself (Watson, 2010).
The church needs to focus on its core purpose and mission, which is to partner with
God to reach the lost with the love of Christ. It is still very important to maintain
the health and vitality of the Church without ignoring the reality of the current
socio-economic context of our society or the current trends that will continue to
draw seekers to explore a relationship with Christ (Watson, 2010). Fulfilling this
mission is challenging in a culture that is "increasingly hostile to the faith and
values of the church" (Beekmann, 1993, p. 42) and a congregation that struggles to
be faithful to the commission of Christ to reach out to the lost in our pluralistic
society (Beekman, 1993; Pachuau & Jorgensen, 2011). However, the mission of the
Church is clearly defined in the Great Commission of Christ in Matthew 28: 18-20
(Fanning, 2014) which asserts that congregants are instrumental in the
transformation of society through communicating the Good News of Christ, calling
people to faith and repentance, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe the
precepts of Christ (Pillay, 2017).
Leadership Development Helps Fulfill the Mandate to Equip the Saints for Acts of
Service
Leadership development within the church also helps fulfill the mandate to
equip the saints for acts of service. Every believer is first called to relationship with
God, and then to live a holy life and serve God with their Spirit-given gifts
(Thoman, 2011). As believers grow in their faith, they are more apt to use their
gifts to further the mission of Christ in their lifetime (Geiger & Peck, 2016).
The Apostle Paul stated there are different roles for the many different
members of the body:
Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God
has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers,
then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various
kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all
work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues?
Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts. (l
Corinthians 12:27-31)
Just as a human body cannot be a body without a number of parts, the body of
Christ cannot be a body without each believer functioning in his or her giftedness
(Durken, 2009). "Hence the diversity within the community is not a reality to be
obliterated, nor even merely tolerated. It is essential" (Durken, 2009, p. 435).
Regarding the application of this text for the Church today, the call to serve
is not necessarily that of a pastor; it may be as teacher, counselor, missionary, small
group leader, or another ministry role (Watt, 2014), thus creating corporate identity
(Fitzmyer, 2008), diversity in unity (Durken, 2009), and love for one another by
opposing any hierarchical notions of honor or importance between gifts (Barton &
Muddiman, 2013; Fitzmyer, 2008). "No one individual has all these roles, just as
no role is played by everyone" (Fitzmyer, 2008, p. 484). And regardless of the
specific gifting or context in which the gifts are granted, they are for the "common
good" (l Corinthians 12:7). Therefore, the local church needs to provide outlets for
its congregants to identify their particular giftedness and learn how use it to reach
today's culture (Swindoll, 2017; watt, 2014).
In addition to identifying and honing skills related to giftedness, developing
leaders must grow in their knowledge of God and the Bible (Thoman, 2011). This
knowledge must exceed a mastery of basic facts to create a foundation of wisdom
and ministry practice (Forman, Jones, & Miller, 2004) in order to serve as a leader.
Education should be founded on a theological worldview that is grounded in the
revelation of God's word, related to the issues of our culture and society, and made
practical to life and ministry (Erickson, 1998). God is the ultimate source of all
truth, so developing leaders must root themselves in God's word in order to
"produce the fruit of a changed life and effective ministry. If leaders do not have
their roots in God's word, they can easily be blown over by the winds of the
cunning and craftiness of men (Ephesians 4: 14)" (Thoman, 2011, p. 33), thus
leaving them less effective or completely ineffective.
From the first century church until now, it has been and continues to be the
responsibility of the senior leadership of the local church to pour into emerging
leaders, thus preparing and equipping them to use their gifts within their church
and to fulfill the unique call they have upon their lives (Luter, 1985). "The head
gives, leaders equip, saints minister, and thereby the body is built" (Karuvilla,
2015, p. 126). Accordingly, when the Church teaches, prepares, enhances, and
empowers its people for their collective service together, they will have greater
influence to achieve the mission of Christ, which is to reach the world with the love
of God (Watt, 2014). Leadership development is the intentional process by which
these emerging leaders are taught how to access and develop their Christian
character and the skills needed to serve effectively in ministry (Malphurs &
Mancini, 2004). This development happens when "knowledge (truth), experiences
(posture), and coaching (leaders) converge" (Geiger, Kelly, & Nation, 2016, p.
163). Jesus's calling and equipping of the disciples provided us with the greatest
model of leadership development (Blandino, 2018). His example suggests that he
never expected pastors to do all the work of evangelizing and discipling themselves
(Douglas, 2014). In Luke 10, Jesus acknowledged the immensity of the tasks to be
completed in comparison to the few people prepared to participate in
accomplishing those tasks, and he trained and commissioned 72 people to do
ministry together (Hoskins, 2006).
Discipleship was a command, not a suggestion (Warren, 1995). Accordingly,
a priority of senior leaders should be to grow the bride of Christ because healthy
growth is representative of lives changed for eternity, which ultimately fulfills the
church's mission. The Church will not, however, prioritize the development of
potential leaders unless its current leaders acknowledge that one of their main
responsibilities is to equip the saints for acts of service (Ephesians 4: 12).
Some churches are intentional about equipping lay people and have a clear
path and strategy in place to do so while other churches do not (Taylor, 2014).
Many pastors believe their primary responsibility is to preach and teach, but it is
actually to do so in tandem with equipping his or her congregation to do the same
(Espinoza, 2017). Pastors who are most effective in equipping the saints for acts of
service are those who display a high level of shepherding and equipping (Douglas,
2014). The process of equipping the saints serves as a "powerful lever that will
bring about change and strategic alignment" (Fuller & Goldsmith, 2001, p. 307).
Leadership development programs allow the church to fulfill its mandate to equip
the saints and fulfill its mission from Jesus to make disciples.
The Long-Term Viability of the Church Depends on Leadership Development
Many organizations, in a variety of sizes, have competitive environments
(Amagoh,2009); the ones that thrive and have long-term success are those that
intentionally and continually regenerate their leadership (Tichy, 2007). Investing
in tomorrow's talent builds the future of an organization, ensures its sustainability,
and creates a legacy (Ulrich, Smallwood, & Sweetman, 2008). Likewise, church
leaders must continually grow new leaders because the church will never grow
beyond its capacity to meet the needs of the people they serve without them
(Warren, 1995).
The church of the 21 st century has and will continue to see change with new
forms of ministry emerging along with a culture needing effective leaders
(Thoman, 201 1). There seems to be a "leadership vacuum" (Thoman, 2011)
creating a desperate need for new, godly leaders who will provide continued
leadership to the Church of future generations.
Churches and denominations only survive the ages through the production of
new, capable pastors raised up in each new generation (Douglas, 2014). These new
pastors learn from those who came before them: "Polycarp and Ignatius learned
from the Apostle John,Melanchthon from Luther, Beza from Calvin, and Rick
Warren from Spurgeon" (Douglas, 2014,p. 84).
In addition to a continual training of new pastors to lead in the Church, there
must be an educated and intentional investment in the development of laity in the
church. "The Church cannot be successful in its mission without a mobilized,
empowered, and deployed laity. They are the Church. Laypersons are the agents
who are sent to carry out the work of God in the world" (Hoskins, 2006, p. 40).
There are simply too many tasks to be done, but so few are equipped for the work
unless the Church has an action plan to develop leaders (Hoskins, 2006). However,
despite the great need, "most churches have no apparent strategy for developing
leaders" (Forman et al., 2002, p. 24).
A commitment to creating and implementing a process for developing
leaders is the only way the church can continue to disciple all those who come
through its doors in search of a lifechanging transformation (Moss, 2013). And the
"facilitation of strong leadership, prudent management and dedicated and
committed service are required for the church to remain the dynamic life-giving
body of Christ" (Manala, 2010, p. 3).
There is a Leadership Development Crisis in the Church
Organizational growth requires the simple addition of new leaders which
often comes through a training program to raise the supply of capable leaders
(Fletcher, 2018). However, organizations are failing on one key metric of success:
leadership development (Fernandez- Araoz, Roscoe, & Aramaki, 2017). The
church of the 21 st century is not immune to this problem of leadership development
(Thoman, 2011). Between the aging of Baby Boomer senior pastors and new forms
of ministry regularly emerging and requiring adaptation, there are simply not
enough trained leaders to meet the challenges organizations face as they grow and
try to meet the demands of those they serve (Dalakoura, 2010; Fletcher, 2018;
Thoman, 2011). This perceived "leadership vacuum" has created a need for the
development of "godly leaders who will provide leadership to the church"
(Thoman, 2011, p. 283).
Despite the need for the Church to actively develop new leaders, "most
churches have no apparent strategy for developing leaders" (Forman et al., 2002, p.
24). Geiger et al. (2016) and Taylor (2014) confirmed leaders are still in short
supply in the Church. This lack of readiness can be attributed to a failure to
recognize the need for leadership development, confusion about how to best
develop leaders, and a failure of senior leaders to create cultures that encourage
leadership development. This section will examine these problems contributing to
the leadership development crisis in the church.
Senior Leaders Fail to See the Need for Leadership Development
One issue contributing to the lack of leadership development in the church is
that senior leaders do not often see the need for leadership development in their
congregations. Because leadership is vital to the life of an organization, senior
leaders must concentrate on securing, developing, and keeping good leaders on
their teams (Pernick, 2001). When it comes to the need for prioritizing this main
responsibility of growing leaders to oversee the church, Jesus was not concerned
with anything peripheral to the development of leaders who could carry on the
work of the kingdom in the next generation (Geiger et al., 2016). Therefore, the
task of developing leaders cannot be at the mercy of other, lesser things in the
church today (Geiger et al., 2016).
Unlike many churches today, Jesus was not concerned with building
programs that would reach the multitudes, but rather with building people whom
the multitudes would follow (Geiger et al.). Leaders should therefore not focus on
building people to build the organization. Rather, leaders should build people and
the organization will get built as a result (Fletcher, 2018). When leaders prioritize
the development of new leaders, they do not let anything interfere with creating the
necessary time to implement ongoing training even though they may feel
overwhelmed with all their other responsibilities (Aguilera, 2006; Moss, 2013).
There are always sermons to prepare, hospital visits, Bible studies to teach, phone
calls to return, issues to resolve, budgets to reconcile, and people to counsel. The
weight of these ancillary responsibilities is universal in smaller churches where
pastors are bi-vocational in ministry and in a secular trade that provides some,
most, or all of their income (Miller, 2006; Perry & Schleifer, 2019; Vaters, 2017).
Churches must identifr and grow potential leaders, but in addition to a lack
of prioritization in time, many senior leaders do not believe extensive planning for
leadership development is necessary or practical (Taylor, 2014). Instead, church
leaders commonly prefer to do things as they have in the past unless a new tried
and proven method is presented as a sure means to growth (Taylor, 2014). This
lack of planning and unwillingness to try new things for the sake of leadership
development has resulted in church leaders being in short supply, which has
contributed to a leadership crisis in the church (Taylor, 2014). An intentional
process to help potential leaders grow in their giftedness in the church would make
a significant difference in the church's viability (Taylor, 2014) and concurrently, in
American society (Barna Group, 2017).
In addition to an unwillingness to try new things to develop leaders, many
senior leaders in the church also feel ill-equipped to train others because their own
leadership training was inadequate, leaving them feeling incompetent to fulfill their
duties (Forman et al., 2004). This sense of inadequacy also tends to lead to a senior
leader's own lack of effort to continue growing themselves (Taylor, 2014). When
senior leaders fail to continue growing themselves, they inevitably find less value
in development and will not have leaders eager to follow them in positions of
leadership (Taylor, 2014). Further, because many pastors consider their calling into
ministry a lifelong one, they tend to struggle to surrender their leadership positions
which produces gaps between their tenure and their transition to predecessors
(Morrow, 2018; Ogden, 2003). Church leaders who fail to honestly assess the
future needs of the organization and plan a timeline for transitioning their
leadership to others will not see the need for the development of new leaders
(Leskiw & Singh, 2007; Morrow, 2018).
What pastors today fail to recognize when it comes to leadership
development is that they are either burning out early or are approaching retirement
while the target age group for senior leaders in the church, 35-44, is declining
(Leskiw & Singh, 2007; Morrow, 2018). The Barna Group (2017) posited that the
number of leaders in the church age 65 and older has tripled for reasons including:
later life expectancy, a higher-than-average second career pastors are filling up
those positions, financial instability leaving pastors unable to retire, a lack of
succession planning, a failure to provide leadership development opportunities for
younger prospective leaders, and fewer young people desirous of ministry careers.
However, one of the primary roles of all leaders, regardless of any personal
inhibitions or limiting demographics, is to cultivate next-generation employees so
the organization will outlive any single person (Morrow, 2018; Ulrich et al., 2008).
Talent managers are human capital developers because they ensure "shorter-term
results through people", while human capital developers ensure that "the
organization has the longer-term competencies required for future strategic
success" (Ulrich et al., 2008, p. 16). When this commitment is evident, one's
organization becomes known for a being an outstanding developer of future talent
(Ulrich et al., 2008).
Senior leaders must take the lead on advocating for leadership development
within their organization, but it is not realistic or wise for senior leaders to be
solely responsible for the identification or training of future leaders (Ready &
Conger, 2003; Bandow & Self, 2016). A lack of experience, limited exposure to
up-and-coming leaders, time demands, and work responsibilities are reasons why it
takes a broad team of dedicated people to train up new leaders (Ready & Conger,
2003). Therefore, it is the responsibility of senior leadership to recruit and provide
training to future talent, but everyone in the organization needs to be a talent scout
because "the best source of future talent is present talent" (Ulrich et al, 2008, p.
120). At IBM, every executive is accountable for identifying and developing
potential leaders. These potential leaders are discussed at top management
meetings, and if managers do not participate in the future of leadership
development within their area or demonstrate skill in that process, they will not be
considered for promotions (Ready & Conger, 2003).
When leaders are identified, it is the responsibility of the pastor or the senior
leadership team to make leadership development a priority (Chand, 2011; Mallory,
2001). Successful organizations have senior leaders who are committed to
leadership development at all levels and are personally involved in the training
(Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004; Chand, 2011). If a leader is to be successful, he
or she must develop others to be leaders. A person may have all the other traits of
leadership, but if he or she doesn't personally see to the development of new
leaders, the organization won't be sustainable, and the person is not a true leader at
least not a winning one. (Tichy, 2007, pp. 42-43).The alternative to following
existing leadership development pipelines requires a deep commitment and
investment from senior leadership is gravely greater because competition for
quality employees will continue to rise (Fernandez-Araoz et al., 2017).
Senior Leaders are Confused About How to Best Develop Leaders
Another problem contributing to the lack of leadership development in the
church is that senior leaders are confused about how to best develop leaders. Many
senior church leaders have not embraced the fullness of the vision and calling on
the church to fulfill its mission by raising new leaders (Hancock, 2017; Malphurs
& Mancini, 2004). Yet, Geiger and Peck (2016) insisted that no other organization
should outpace the Church in developing leaders because it have the greatest
mission, promise, and reward.
Despite this calling and opportunity, there seems to be an ongoing sense of
confusion among senior church leaders about how to best disciple leaders
(Malphurs & Mancini, 2004; Geiger & Peck, 2016). This confusion can be
attributed to the fact that there is no standard formula for doing so (Taylor, 2014).
It can also be attributed to the fact that many senior church leaders fail to
distinguish between helping congregants matriculate in their faith and theology
versus developing them to be competent enough to lead in the church (Geiger &
Peck, 2016; Mallory, 2001). Although everyone is called to discipleship, not
everyone is called to responsibilities of leadership (Taylor, 2014). Therefore, it is
important for leaders in the Church to be mindful of the difference between
maturing disciples and developing leaders when creating programs and processes
(Taylor, 2014).
Robinson (2005) suggested that many pastors may have gained a vision for
developing leaders in their church, but they struggle to turn the vision into reality.
He stated that, although these leaders have experienced a move of God in their
church, they do not know how to support ongoing change and development with an
appropriate structure so it fizzles out, making that move seem short lived and
inadequate (Robinson, 2005).
Alternatively, in many organizations that have established leadership
development programs, it has been determined that these programs have not met
the needs of the organization (Fernandez-Araoz et al., 2017). Research indicates
that 66% of companies invest in programs that aim to identify potential leaders and
help them advance, but only 24% of senior executives believe the program is
successful (Fernandez-Araoz et al., 2017). This lack of return on investment has
caused senior leaders both confusion and frustration in determining how to best
develop leaders (Fernandez-Araoz et al., 2017). Further, leadership development
that senior leaders are confused about, and therefore less invested in themselves,
creates skepticism and a lack of support from the employees that senior leaders are
trying to develop (Ready & Conger, 2003). Everyone wants to develop leaders, but
the majority of senior leaders struggle with how to do it well (Logan, 2017).
Senior Leaders Fail to Create a Culture of Leadership Development
Another issue with the lack of leadership development within the church is
that senior leaders do not create a culture that encourages leadership development.
Culture can be defined as "the way we do things around here," and it includes the
vision, values, philosophy, traditions, language, systems, measurements, and
behaviors that provide meaning and identity to an organization (Blandino, 2010).
Culture can also be defined as a relationship entwining the attitudes, actions, and
values of a group that is reproduced in their followers (Malphurs & Mancini,
2004). There is nothing, including vision or strategy, that is more important or
powerful than the culture of an organization (Chand, 2011) for the following
reasons: it conveys a sense of identity for those inside and outside the organization,
it instills a sense of value and purpose for the organization, it promotes stability
and direction, and it provides a rationale for the workplace so people know what to
expect (Chand, 2011 ; Montgomery, 2006). These factors are important for senior
leaders to convey to prospective leaders being trained and assimilated into church
culture because they must connect within the established community to be
successful in their role on the team ( Chand, 201 1; Mallory, 2001).
A positive culture in an organization will serve as an accelerant for its
vision, encouraging prospective leaders to engage in the leadership development
process (Chand, 2011). The church that values the development of others holds a
deep conviction for leadership development and it becomes the core identity of that
church (Geiger & Peck, 2016). Further, if lay people are given opportunities to rise
above their observation and structure of the church through a crafted program, they
will likely do what is necessary to become the leaders they were meant to be, thus
embracing the vision set by senior leaders (Taylor, 2014). In contrast, a negative
culture, or one in which learning and growing is hindered or discouraged, will stifle
the realization of that vision (Taylor, 2014). In a Gallup poll, church attendees
reported that their individual strengths and talents were not being fully utilized in
the Church (Stetzer & Rainer, 2010).
Congregants will not engage leadership pathways, or the strategy for
development established by the church, if they sense a lack of conviction from the
senior leadership (Geiger & Peck, 2016). The senior pastor must provide the vision,
validation, and budget for the chosen path of development for it to be accepted by
the rest of the church staff and congregation (Mallory, 2001). If the senior leader
fails to create a culture of expectation for leadership development, lay people will
not rise to the opportunity (Taylor, 2014). Without a clear and useful process for
developing leaders to feel empowered to use their gifts in the church, a lack of
cultural expectation for congregants will likely continue to be a problem (Stetzer &
Rainer,2010).
111. METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a correlation
between the study site church's growth and the leadership development model
utilized at its affiliated college. It was specifically designed to explore one
leadership development model used by a large church in the Southern region in the
United States. This study utilized a correlational quantitative research design by
analyzing a cross-sectional dataset. The following research questions guided the
study:
1. What are the perspectives of the study site church staff regarding
leadership and organizational growth?
2. Is there a correlation between church growth and the leadership
development model utilized at the study site church's affiliated college?
Research Site
The study site church was first considered by the researcher because,
although there are multiple churches utilizing a school of leadership to develop
leaders from within the organization, the study site church is one of the largest to
do so. Given the steady growth of the study site church, the researcher chose to
study its leadership development model to determine whether there was a
correlation between the church's growth and its leadership development model.
Additionally, the researcher has a personal mentoring relationship with the senior
pastor, and he regularly coaches the study site's staff and speaks to the church's
congregation a few times a year. The research site met the criteria of the type of
organization the researcher wanted to study further.
The study site church is located in a metropolitan area of the Southeastern
United States with 1.1 million residents. It is a non-denominational, multi-site
church with over 45,000 members and has ministries focused on a multi-
generational congregation. The church employs 410 full-time staff and 362 part-
time staff. A biblically based leadership college with an annual enrollment of 1,039
is affiliated with the church. It employs 38 full-time staff and 24 part-time staff
including adjunct faculty.
The researcher began this study by contacting the senior pastor at the site
study church to ask him for permission to conduct the case study at his church and
accompanying school of leadership development. The pastor expressed gratitude
that the researcher had chosen to study his growth model and affirmed his consent
and desire to read the results, indicating it would help their team evaluate their
existing model and make any needed adjustments for the future. He also believed
the material shared in this project would encourage and equip other churches to
implement and evaluate leadership development programs. The pastor then
encouraged the researcher to connect with the president of the college for whatever
would be necessary to conduct the case study and assured him of the church's and
college's invested and eager cooperation. The study site senior pastor also agreed to
a phone interview following the researcher's interview with the affiliated college
president to answer any additional questions.
The researcher then contacted the president of the college to set up a time for
a phone interview to better understand the background and philosophy of the study
site college. The president was agreeable to the request and suggested the executive
vice president of academics be invited to participate in the call as well. Two
interviews were conducted during the Fall 2018 semester that provided additional
background information about the research site. The participants also emailed
information regarding organizational growth since the launch of the college in 2011
including recorded salvations, visiting families, attendance, and baptisms between
2001 and 2018, as well as small group, Dream Team (volunteers), and Growth
Track participants between 2011 and 2018 (L. Chatham, personal communication,
October 1 8, 2018). Both interviews were recorded and transcribed.
Participants
The participant sampling was convenient, purposeful, and random. It was
convenient because the researcher has a relationship with the leadership and staff at
the study site church and affiliated college (Creswell, 2017). It was purposeful
because the president of the study site college chose to send the survey to all of
their campus pastors and department heads (Creswell, 2017). The participant
sampling was also random because, of the 100 potential participants who received
the survey invitation, those who did participate self-selected to complete the
survey.
One hundred staff members from the study site church were invited to
complete the survey through an email sent by the study site college president.
Eighty six people chose to participate in the survey by the deadline.
Table I lists how many of the college graduates are under each participant's
leadership.
Table I
How Many Graduates Are Under Your Leadership?
Answer Choices Responses Total
1
2-3
4-5
6+
4.71%
25.88%
18.82%
24.71%
4
22
16
21
Unknown
None
4.71%
21.18%
4
18
n=85
Table 2 indicates the departments represented in the sample population. See
Table 2 for the departments represented in the survey's participant sample.
Table 2
In Which Area Do You Lead?
Answer Choices Responses Total
Children's Ministry
Student Ministry
Pastoral
Creative
Administrative
Small Groups
Growth Track
Finance/Generosity
Events
Worship
Care & Counseling
Production
Dream TeamNolunteers
Human Resources
Information Technology
Outreach/Missions
Other
13.95%
9.30%
20.93%
6.98%
4.65%
6.98%
2.33%
0.00%
3.49%
3.49%
1.16%
3.49%
6.98%
0.00%
3.49%
3.49%
9.30%
12
8
18
6
4
6
2
3
3
1
3
6
3
3
8
n = 86
Many of the participants were also graduates of
research
Information is listed in Table 3.
Table 3
Are You a Graduate ofthe Study College?
site's associated college.
Answer Choices Responses Total
Yes 52.33% No 47.67% 45
41
n = 86
Instrumentation
A researcher-created survey instrument was developed for data collection in this
study.
The survey was reviewed by the study site college president and vice president for
their input and suggestions for the questions. The instrument was also reviewed by
the researcher's dissertation committee and methodologist. Finally, the survey was
submitted to the IRB for formal review. Survey questions are included in Table 4.
Table 4
Individual Participant Questions
Questions
How many graduates are under your
leadership?
In which area do you lead?
Are you a graduate of study college?
What is your age?
The leadership development
strategy of my organization is
directly related to the growth of
my organization.
Study college is the greatest
supporter of growth in my
organization.
Most effective leaders in my
organization are raised up from
within my organization.
Having a team member that
embraces all aspects of the culture
is essential to the growth of my
organization.
Coding Schemes
Scale : I 3 = 4-5,
4 = 6+, 5 = unknown, 6 = none
Scale: 1 Children's Ministry, 2 Student
Ministry, 3 Pastoral, 4
Creative, 5 — Administrative, 6 —
Small Groups, 7 Growth Track, 8
Finance/Generosity, 9 = Events, 10
Worship, I I Care & Counseling, 12
Production, 13 Dream
Team/Volunteers, 14 Human
Resources, 15 = Information
Technology, 16 = Outreach/Missions,
17 Other
Dichotomous: 1 — no, 2 yes
Scale : I = 18-24, 2 = 25-29, 3 -30-39, 4 —
40-49, 5 = 50-59, 6 60+
Scale: I — Strongly Agree, 2 Agree,
3 Uncertain, 4 = Disagree, 5 Strongly
Disagree
Scale: I = Strongly Agree, 2 — Agree,
3 = Uncertain, 4 Disagree, 5 Strongly
Disagree
Scale: I — Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree,
3 = Uncertain, 4 = Disagree, 5 — Strongly
Disagree
Scale: I — Strongly Agree, 2 Agree,
3 Uncertain, 4 = Disagree, 5
Strongly Disagree
The study college graduates in my
ministry strengthen the leadership
culture of my organization.
In my role at survey church I regularly
interact with students enrolled in study
college.
I believe graduates from study
college are properly prepared to
assume positions of leadership on
staff.
One of the best ways I grow
myself is by helping to grow the
emerging leaders in my
organization.
My primary role in my
organization is to
reproduce leaders.
I believe it is a pastor's
responsibility to create a
culture that fosters
leadership development.
Scale: I Strongly Agree, 2 Agree,
3 — Uncertain, 4 = Disagree, 5
Strongly Disagree
Scale: I — Strongly Agree, 2
Agree,
3 Uncertain, 4 Disagree,
Strongly Disagree
Scale: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2
Agree,
3 = Uncertain, 4 Disagree, 5
Strongly Disagree
Scale: I = Strongly Agree, 2 —
Agree,
3 = Uncertain, 4 = Disagree, 5
Strongly Disagree
Scale: I Strongly Agree, 2 Agree,
3 — Uncertain, 4 = Disagree, 5 Strongly
Disagree
Scale: I — Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree,
3 Uncertain, 4 Disagree, 5
Strongly Disagree
Scale: 1 Strongly Agree, 2 Agree,
3 = Uncertain, 4 Disagree, 5
Strongly Disagree
Data Collection
After the survey instrument was created, the eligible participants were
invited to participate in the survey, which was distributed via Survey Monkey. An
email invitation to participate in the survey was sent by the president of the college
to the potential participants from the site study church staff explaining the purpose
of the survey and requesting their participation along with a return time of 24 hours
(See Appendix A). The survey questions, along with the selection of possible
answers and the answers selected by the participants, are provided (see
Table 4).
Data Analysis
After the data collection was completed, the researcher analyzed the data in
SPSS version 25 to determine descriptive statistics and a correlation coefficient.
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the perspectives of the site staff
regarding leadership and organizational growth. The correlation coefficient was
used to analyze whether a correlation existed between the growth of the study site
church and the study site college. In order to analyze the survey data, the researcher
downloaded a report showing the participants' responses to each of the survey's
questions. The complete survey results by question can be found in the appendices.
The raw data from the participants' answers to the survey questions.
The researcher then interpreted the data by looking at all the responses to
each of the 14 questions from the 86 participants. He evaluated how many
participants answered each question in a particular way. He was also able to see
how each participant (numbered in order of the time in which they completed the
survey) answered all of the questions collectively in individual reports.
In addition, the researcher reviewed the growth statistics provided by staff at
the site study church, taking note of the steady incline of growth in all areas of
church health.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to use a quantitative research design to
determine whether there was a correlation between the exponential growth the
study site church has experienced and its affiliated leadership development model:
an onsite leadership college. In this chapter, the researcher explained the
background of the research site, the participants, and the method created and used
to conduct the research. The next chapter will present the results obtained from
those methods.
IV. RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose of this project was to examine the impact of the development of
a leadership culture in an organization. To accomplish this purpose, the researcher
examined the perspectives of the site staff regarding leadership and organizational
growth, as well as conducted a correlation analysis to see if a correlation existed
between the growth of the study site church and the study site college, its internal
leadership development program. The instrument used to conduct the research for
this project was a survey. The following research questions guided the study:
l . What are the perspectives of the of the study site church's staff
regarding leadership and organizational growth?
2. Is there a correlation between church growth at the study site church
and the leadership development model utilized at its affiliated college?
Descriptive Analysis
Demographical information about the participants was collected in the
survey. This information includes their direct involvement with the study site
college students, the ministry area in which they serve on staff, their graduation
status from the college, and their age.Demographic information is included in
Tables 1-3.
The participants were asked how many college graduates were under their
leadership. The largest group of participants, almost 26%, replied that they
supervised 2-3 graduates,
accounting for the highest average amount. The data for this question indicated that
more than 70% of the staff surveyed supervise between two and six college
graduates in their ministry area.
Table 1
How Many Graduates are Under Your Leadership?
Answer Choices Responses Total
2-3
4-5
6+
Unknown
None
4.71%
25.88%
18.82%
24.71%
4.71%
21.18%
4
22
16
21
4
18
n=85
Nearly 26% of the participants answered "unknown" or "none" to the
question "How many graduates are under your leadership?" The researcher
believes the questions should have been changed to read: "How many of the
college's current students and/or graduates are under your leadership?" Another
alternative may have been to create a second question that identified how many
current college students they had on their team, rather than solely focus on the
number of graduates on the team. This change may have brought more clarity to
the author'sintent for the question, which was to determine how many people on the
study site church's teamhave been or are currently being trained by the college.
However, the inference made is that nearly 75 0 0 of the staff members surveyed
supervise at least one graduate in their ministry area.Participants also indicated the
church department that they lead. Results are included inTable 2. The majority of
those surveyed (58.14%) came from what those in church leadership would refer to
as "core" ministry areas of the church: children's ministry (13.95%), student
ministry (9.300 0), pastoral ministry (20.93 0 0), creative ministry (6.98%), and
small groups(6.98%).
Table 2
In Which Area Do You Lead?
Answer Choices Responses Total
Children's Ministry 13.95% 12
Student Ministry 9.30% 8
Pastoral 20.93% 18
Creative 6.98% 6
Administrative 4.65% 4
Small Groups 6.98% 6
Growth Track 2.33% 2
Finance/Generosity 0.00%
Events 3.49% 3
Worship 3.49% 3
Care & Counseling 1.16% 1
Production 3.49% 3
Dream Team/Volunteers 6.98% 6
Human Resources 0.00% 0
Information Technology 3.49% 3
Outreach/Missions 3.49% 3
Other 9.30% 8
n = 86
Participants were asked whether they were graduates of the study college.
Theesearchernoted that more than half of the 86 participants responded "yes" to
that question. Study siteleaders stated that the majority of staff are either graduates
of either the traditional or nightprograms indicating that the study site church does
raise up leaders from within. See Table 3 forresults.
Table 3
Are You a Graduate ofthe Study College?
Answer Choices Responses Total
Yes 52.33%
47.67%
45
41
n = 86
Perspectives on Leadership Development and Organizational Growth
Participants reported their perspective on the leadership development model
and the organizational growth (see Table 6).
Participants were asked, "The leadership development strategy of my
organization is directly related to the growth of my organization." As indicated
on the associated graphic, 83 participants either strongly agreed or agreed with
the statement while only one participant
disagreed. The data indicated on Table 6 is a strong indicator in their belief that the
growth of the study site church has been strongly supported by the leadership
development of their college students.
Table 6
The Leadership Development Strateu ofMy Organization is Directly Related to the
Growth of My Organization.
Answer Choices Responses Total
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
67.44%
29.07%
2.33%
1.16%
0.00%
58
25
2
1
n = 86
Participants also shared their perspective on whether the study site college
was a strong contributor to organizational change. The response among participants
who strongly agree and agree were both 38.37% (33 participants each totaling 66
of the 86). With more than 75% of those surveyed agreeing or strongly agreeing,
the cross-section of church staff surveyed believe
there is a direct link between the growth of the study site church and the
development of
emerging leaders in the associated college. See Table 7 for results.
Table 7
Study Site College is the Greatest Supporter ofGrowth in My Organization.
Answer Choices Responses Total
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
38.37%
38.37%
17.44%
5.81%
0.00%
33
33
15
5
O
n = 86
Participants were then asked to report, "The most effective leaders in my
organization are raised up from within my organization." Fifty-eight point eight
percent of participants (50participants) strongly agreed with the statement. The
response of those who agreed were 34.88%(30 participants). The majority of
responses to this question reflects a strong belief among thestudy site church staff
that having staff members who are trained to reflect the culture of the organization
is a substantial component of a leader's success within the study site's organization.
See Table 8 for results.
Table 8
The Most Effective Leaders in My Organization are Raised Up From Within My
Organization.
Answer Choices Responses Total
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
58.14%
34.88%
2.33%
4.65%
0.00%
50
30
2
4
n = 86
Then, participants responded to the statement "Having a team member that
embraces all aspects of the culture is essential to the growth of my organization."
The researcher observed that 100% of participants agreed with this statement to
some extent. Accordingly, all participants philosophically believed that it was
essential for staff members to reflect the study site church'sculture in order to grow
and experience organizational success. See Table 9 for results.
Table 9
Having a Team Member That Embraces All Aspects ofthe Culture is Essential to
the Growth of My Organization.
Answer Choices Responses Total
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
91.86%
8.14%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
79
7
n = 86
Participants were asked if the study site graduates strengthened the
leadership culture in the organization. Eighty-two of the 86 participants of strongly
agreed or agreed with the statement. The general response to this question indicates
that the study site's leadership development program is doing a great job infusing
the culture of their church in their students.
See Table 10 for results.
Table 10
The Study College Graduates in My Ministry Area Strengthen the Leadership
Culture ofMy Organization
Answer Choices Responses Total
Strongly Agree
Agree
67.44%
27.91%
58
24
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
4.65%
0.00%
0.00%
4
0
0
n = 86
Participants were then asked to indicate whether they regularly indicate with
students enrolled in the site college. Eighty-three of the 86 participants strongly
agreed or agreed with that statement, indicating they have regular interaction with
the students enrolled in the college.
This data reflects the church's commitment to engage their staff in the leadership
development of
the students at the college. See Table 1 1 for results.
Table 11
In my role on staffat the study church, I regularly interact with students enrolled in
the study college.
Answer Choices Responses Total
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
81.40%
15.12%
1.16%
2.33%
0.00%
70
13
1
2
n = 86
The participants were then asked to indicate their level of agreement with the
statement "1 believe the students who graduate from the college are properly
prepared to assume positions of leadership on our staff." Seventy-three of the 86
participants strongly agreed or agreed with the statement. With 84.89% of those
surveyed agreeing that students are properly prepared to step into leadership
positions at the study site church, the researcher believes this data support the
college's goal to raise up leaders prepared for ministry in the local church. With I I
participants reporting uncertainty, the researcher wonders if the study site church
may need to help the staff understand how the college specifically helps prepare
students for employment. See Table 12for results.
Table 12
I Believe the Students Who Graduate From the Study Site College are Properly
Prepared to Assume Positions ofLeadership on Our Staff
Answer Choices Responses Total
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
27.91%
56.98%
12.79%
2.33%
0.00%
24
49
11
2
n = 86
The participants were asked whether they agreed that one of the best ways to
grow themselves is by helping to grow the emerging leaders in their organization.
Ninety-eight point eighty-four percent of the participants strongly agreed or agreed.
This fact reinforces the corephilosophy the study site church has that staff members
are responsible for their continued personal growth, and one of the best ways that
happens is through teaching and influencing others. It also supports the next
question about being responsible to reproduce leaders within their organization.
See Table 13 for participant responses.
Table 13
One ofthe Best Ways I Grow Myselfis by Helping to Grow the Emerging Leaders
in My Organization.
Answer Choices Responses Total
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
70.93%
27.91%
1.16%
0.00%
0.00%
61
24
0
n = 86
Participants were then asked if they believed their primary role in the
organization was to reproduce leaders. Eighty of the 86 participants strongly agreed
or agreed with the statement.
Four disagreed. The researcher wonders if the four who disagreed did so because of
the use of the word primary. However, with 93.03% asserting agreement, the
researcher believes this data supports the understanding that study site church staff
members mostly agreed that their role wasto reproduce leaders, which
demonstrates that their core value of leadership development has
been properly instilled into their culture. See Table 14 for results.
Table 14
My Primary Role in My Organization is to Reproduce Leaders.
Answer Choices Responses Total
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
65.12%
27.91%
2.33%
4.65%
0.00%
56
24
2
4
n = 86
Participants were asked to respond to the statement "I believe it is a pastor's
responsibility to create a culture that fosters leadership development." Seventy-
nine of the 85 participants strongly agreed or agreed with this statement. Four
participants stated they strongly disagreed or disagreed.
This statement was the only one among the 14 that generated a "strongly
disagree"
response as well as one participant who elected not to respond at all. This data
created a curiosity for the researcher. He wondered why there were more people
who disagreed andstrongly disagreed with this particular statement and what their
reasons were for their responses.His initial thoughts in analyzing this data were that
perhaps either the question was unclear or,philosophically, those participants do
not believe it is the pastor's responsibility to create aculture that fosters leadership
development, but rather that of the staff members who support him directly by
overseeing ministry areas. See Table 15 for results.
Table 15
I Believe It is a Pastor 's Responsibility to Create a Culture That Fosters Leadership
Development.
Answer Choices Responses Total
Strongly Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
74.12%
18.82%
2.35%
3.53%
1.18%
63
16
2
3
1
n= 85
Correlation Analyses Regarding Leadership Development and Organizational
Growth
The results of the correlation analysis indicated there is a positive correlation
between the prompt that stated "The leadership development strategy of my
organization is directly related to the growth of my organization" and the prompt
that stated "I believe it is a pastor's responsibility to create a culture that fosters
leadership development." This finding indicates the positive relationship between
believing a leadership development strategy is related to growth and believing it is
a pastor's responsibility to create a culture that fosters leadership development.
Additionally, the results of the correlation analysis indicated there is a
negative correlation analysis between the statement "The most effective leaders in
my organization are raised up from within my organization" and the statement "My
primary role in my organization is to reproduce leaders." This correlation provides
an interesting result. Those who believe the most effective leaders are raised up
from within the organization are negatively correlated with those who agree that
their primary role in the organization is to reproduce leaders. indicates that each
statement stands alone as a valuable addition to the researcher's information base.
Growth Statistics
The purpose of gathering the growth statistics was to provide actual figures
representative
representative of the correlation between the growth of the study site church and
their leadership development program. The researcher requested these statistics in
the table below from the study site college and church (see Table 16).
Table 16
Growth Correlation between the Study Site Church and the College
Year52-week total attendance Total Avg. Weekly AttendanceCollege Enrollment
2003 76,390 1 ,469
2004 122,158 2,349
2005 138,545 2,664
2006 177,026 3 ,404
2007 259,013 4,981
2008 425,729 8,187
2009 503,534 9,683
2010 563,226 10,831
2011 668,226 12,851 251
2012 866,115 16,656 363
2014 26,766 585
2015 32,649 723
2016 38,482 844 2017 42,471 1039
** Fall Semester
The results of the correlation analysis between the study site church and the
collegeenrollment indicated the study site church has had an average of
additional 18. I % growth peryear in weekend attendance since 2011. The
*2018 — through September 2018
enrollment in 2011 included 251 students. As ofFall 2018, enrollment reached
981 students. The average percentage of growth per year between2011 and the
fall of 2018 was 21.7%.
Although the national average of church growth is in decline, the study site
church leaders attributed the church's ability to continue to grow at such an
exponential rate to its investment in leadership development. Investing in emerging
leaders has created a leadership base that supported the study site church's growth.
The survey results and the growth statistics provided by the site study church
helped the researcher determine that the church staff agreed that there was a
positive correlation between the college's existence and the steady increase in
church growth.
Summary
The data gathered from the survey indicated that the study site college's staff
believe that the leadership development model is contributing to developing new
leaders in the site study church. Also, there is a correlation between church growth
at the study site church and the leadership development model utilized at its
affiliated college. Other key data points were discussed in this chapter as well. The
next chapter will detail the discussion and implications of this study.
V. DISCUSSION
The fulfillment of an organization's mission rises and falls on leadership
(Baumgartner, 2017). Further, for an organization to have a lasting impact and
continuation of its vision, developing new leaders must be one of the organization's
key priorities so that it can have a long-standing impact rather than one that is
short-lived. Leadership development can be defined as developing individuals
within an organization for leadership so that these individuals are best equipped to
fulfill the purpose and mission of the organization in which they participate (Day,
2001; Freed et al., 2010; Rothausen, 2016). However, there is a crisis in leadership
development in the world today (Fletcher, 2018). Several professions have noted
that they lack new leaders to take the place of existing ones, yet these professions
need to create a sustainable culture for their organizations so that the organizations
can thrive in the an ever-changing society (Amagoh, 2009; Cacioppe, 1998a; Freed
et al., 2010; King et al., 2015). Specifically, the Church is an organization that
needs effective leadership development, but few empirical studies have been done
to understand effective leadership development models in the Church. Therefore,
this study sought to address that gap in the literature by examining the leadership
development practices at the one church that prioritizes the development of its
prospective leaders and has experienced organizational growth and effectiveness.
The purpose of this project was to examine the impact of the development of
a leadership culture in an organization, specifically one church in the Southeastern
United States. To accomplish this purpose, the researcher conducted a cross-
sectional quantitative design to examine the correlation between the growth of the
study site church and the study site college, its internal leadership development
program.
Background to the Study
Organizational growth and vision can outpace leadership development,
ultimately creating frustration and decline in leadership, followership, and
teamwork (Hao & Yazdanifard, 2015). If there are not new leaders to address the
needs of a growing organization, then the organization will lose impact and
effectiveness and could eventually fail. The Church is one specific organization
that is experiencing a leadership crisis that can be traced to a lack of effective
leadership development.
There are more needs and opportunities for the Church to address than there
are leaders to meet those needs and opportunities. Therefore, leadership
development is crucial to attend to these needs (Fletcher, 2018). "Growth requires
that we add new leaders. Continual growth requires a continual supply of leaders"
(Fletcher, 2018, p. 2). Based on a concern for leadership development and
understanding effective leadership development in the Church, this project sought
to offer insights and practical guidance to assist leaders in developing an effective
leadership culture capable of carrying their organizations to the next level while
avoiding frustration resulting from organizational growth limitations (Palmer-
Atkins, 2017). These limitations are detrimental to the health and future of the
Church because they limit its ability to fulfill the Great Commissions thus creating
an actual decline in the spread of the Gospel (PalmerAtkins, 2017, Abstract).
The senior pastor of the research site church shared the concern for
leadership development and prioritizing leadership development while growing the
organization stating "You can never allow your vision to outpace leadership
development." In the researcher's communication, the senior pastor stated, "I am
convinced that most pastors have vision. They just don't have the leaders to pull it
off. We have to train people that you need in order for God to bring you the
opportunities for growth." Consequently, the study site church trains the next group
of leaders in preparation for the next vision God provides.
The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the development of a
leadership culture in an organization, specifically one church in the Southeastern
United States. To accomplish this purpose, the researcher conducted a cross-
sectional quantitative design to examine the correlation between the growth of the
study site church and the study site college, its internal leadership development
program.
The following research questions guided this project:
Is there a correlation between the church's internal leadership
development program and the growth the church has experienced?
Does the church staff agree that there is a positive correlation between
the intemal leadership development program and the steady incline of
growth they have experienced?
The History of the Study Site College
The study site pastor started his church with 34 committed congregants and
two paid staff members in 2001. Prior to that, he started in ministry as an intern at
another church in the Southeast. There, he realized the call of God on his life and
learned the practical skills necessary to minister effectively. Leveraging his own
experience as an intern, he created an intern program upon launching the church.
He invited 19 young men and women who had demonstrated that they were fully
committed to the work of ministering in the local church. They covered their own
expenses to serve on the team and grow in their ministry development under his
leadership. He credits those interns with not only helping to build the foundation of
his church in those early years, but with its actual survival because they would not
have made it with only two staff members had they not had their assistance.
After years of successfully growing the internship program at the study site
church, the pastor and the leadership team proactively added a formal, educational
component to the program to attract high school graduates who have a ministry
calling on their lives but may otherwise choose a conventional educational path.
Their leadership development college was established in 2011; and today, their
traditional (full-time) students can graduate with an accredited associate's degree
through the college's partnership with Southeastem University.Additionally, there
is a part-time night track for church volunteers (Dream Team members).
The vision of the college is to be "a premier college developing biblically
educated ministry leaders to advance the mission of the church." Their mission
statement is, '— is a Biblical higher education institution that exists to supply the
church with leaders of character to fulfill the Great Commission." Graduates of the
study site college should be known for their commitment to the authority of
scripture, the pursuit of a Christ-centered life, the passion of lifelong learning, the
calling of ministry leadership, and the advancement of the kingdom. (See
Appendix E for more details about the study site college.)
The students of the college's traditional program are asked to serve a
minimum of 10 hours a week in active ministry at the study site church. These
students also participate in small groups at the church where they are mentored by
members of the staff and other mature DreamTeam leaders.
Once a student graduates the two-year program at the college, they enter a
year-long, formal internship at the church where they will serve a minimum of 20
hours per week in active ministry at one of their campuses. Once they complete the
entire three-year program, they can apply for full-time employment at the study site
church or receive assistance with placement in a ministry position elsewhere.
According to the data collected in this study, more than 50% of the current staff
surveyed at the study site church are study site college graduates.
The leadership development culture at the study site church is strengthened by its
college. This culture is what allows them to continue to develop leaders that can
continue to impact others through the love and the message of Jesus Christ. The
study site pastor has led the charge to develop well-equipped leaders committed to
fulfilling the dream that God has placed on the heart of his church.
Significance of the Study
This study contributes to the organizational leadership and leadership
development literature by examining the leadership development model in a church
that has documented organizational and leadership growth and uncovering the
practices of this organization. This study also provides an in-depth analysis of a
church taking action to live out the Great
Commission in the 21 st century. The results from this study as well as the practical
implications included in this chapter can help other churches determine action
items for leadership development in their congregations. Further, based on the
findings of this study, future research can continue to identify best practices in
leadership development as well as the type of organizational culture that fosters
leadership development in the Church. As leadership development in the Church is
further studied, effective practices can continue to be identified.
Discussion of Major Findings
A few major findings of this dissertation include that the majority of leaders
at the study site church have staff they lead that are graduates of the research site's
college, that the leadership developmental model is a strong contributor to
organizational change, that most effective leaders in their organization are raised
up from within their organization, and their leaders have a personal value to
continue to develop the leaders underneath them. Also, the quantitative analysis
indicated correlations between the leadership development model and
organizational growth. This section will discuss these findings as well as how these
study findings are compared to and integrated with the existing literature
concerning leadership development and organizational leadership.
First, the participants indicated that they believe the internal leadership
developmental model is a strong contributor to organizational change. Ninety-six
percent of the participants agreed with this statement. This data supports the
understanding that as an organization, specifically a church, grows seizing growth
opportunities may also necessitate have a strong leadership development program
in place.
These findings are consistent with Fuller's (2001) recommendation that
leadership development assists in bringing about change and strategic alignment in
organizations.Organizations without properly trained leaders significantly impede
the organization's ability to implement and sustain strategic change initiatives
(Amagoh, 2009). However, the research site church is working to develop leaders
to meet the changing needs of a growing organization. Although some
organizations see leadership development as a luxury in times of crisis or change,
other organizational leaders know leadership development is necessary because
leadership development aids in producing high-yield results and accountability
(Hayward, 2001).
The research site is utilizing a leadership development model which leaders in the
organization believe is contributing to the organizational change.As stated in
Chapter I of this project, the Barna Group (2017) indicated churches in America
today are either not growing or have declined in size and that there is a correlation
that can be made between a trend in aging clergy and a lack of young, emerging
leaders entering the ministry. However, this discrepancy is not representative of
either the numerical growth of the study site church or the average age of the study
site church staff. In fact, their staff is actually younger than the national norm.
Seventy-four percent of the staff surveyed for this study were under the age of 40.
Next, the participants in this study indicated that they feel that the better
leaders that serve under them are the leaders developed within that organization.
Ninety-two percent of participants agreed that the most effective leaders are the
ones raised from within the organization. Thoman (2009) noted that the church of
the 21 st century has and will continue to see change as new forms of ministry
emerge alongside a culture needing effective leaders. Rather than allowing for a
leadership vacuum, where there is a desperate need for new leaders, the research
site church is seeking to develop new leaders from within the organization who
will provide continued leadership to the Church of future generations (Thoman,
2009). Also, in many churches, leaders are in short supply in the Church. The lack
of leadership development can be explained as a failure to recognize the need for
leadership development, confusion about how to best develop leaders, and a failure
of senior leaders to create cultures that encourage leadership development (Taylor,
2014). However, the research site is taking a different approach to foster
organizational health and growth. They have a strategic plan to develop new
leaders from within the organization to ensure that there will be sufficient
leadership as the organization grows, Mancini (2008) echoed the importance of
developing leaders to fulfill an organization's vision.
The engine for your vision is your leadership. Period. Neglect it and you
neglect your vision; lead your leaders well and everything else will take care
of itself. The church today demonstrates a profound, disproportionate
emphasis on crowds over core I call it 'crowd fixation.' We have completely
forgotten the model of Jesus as he spent a majority of his time with twelve
men in order to release a worldwide movement. In fact, whenever the largest
crowds were gathered in the gospels, Jesus had an agenda for training the
twelve more than he did for teaching the crowd. We do the opposite today.
We build everything around the crowds coming to worship, and we are lucky
if we get all of our leaders together once or twice a year.. .the greatest need
in the church today is recovery of a centralized leadership development
process. (p. 220)
There is no substitute for a plan. Leaders must develop additional leaders or their
organizations will lose the momentum that vision creates. Robinson stated:
Many pastors and leaders do gain a true vision of their church from God but
they struggle to turn vision into reality. These leaders may have experienced
God moving in incredible ways throughout their church. But instead of
helping facilitate that move of God with appropriate structure, it fizzles out
with little more than a moment of momentum...lf structure is not added to
what God starts, the powerful momentum can be short lived. (p.
30)
Malphurs and Mancini (2004) concluded "The solution to the leadership
crisis is to do a much better job of leadership development not the preparation of
better senior pastors or church staffs alone but development of committed leaders
at every level within the organization" (as cited in Moss, 2013, p. 109). The
leadership at the study site espoused this philosophy by making it their primary
focus to create a culture of leadership development because they recognized it as a
leading factor in their ability to continue to seize God-sized opportunities to impact
their region and the world for Christ.
The findings of the present study also indicated that the participants believe
the organizational culture has been strengthened because of the internal leadership
development model. Leadership development at the study site church is congruent
with existing literature on effective leadership development within the church.
Churches that actively develop congregants for positions of leadership and
responsibility in the local church (Taylor, 2014) help their congregants to focus on
the mission of God to share the Good News and make disciples (Bumgartner,
2017). The fulfillment of this mission occurs when evangelical organizations
provide an intentional process by which emerging leaders can develop their
Christian character through learning ministry knowledge and skills (Malphurs &
Mancini, 2004). Such a process strengthens the congregants as individuals and the
organization's culture as well (Bumgartner, 2017).
When leaders of an organization live out the core values and model them for
their team, the leaders are able to establish the behavioral patterns of the
organization's culture. In another key finding for this study, 92% of participants
strongly agreed with the statement that "Having a team member that embraces all
aspects of the culture is essential to the growth of my organization." The remaining
8% of participants responded with agree. Accordingly, 100% agreed with the
statement, thus emphasizing the importance of embracing the culture of an
organization in order to not only work effectively within that organization, but also
to be an agent of growth within that organization. The study site church and the
study site college have aligned their cultures, and this alignment reflects an
organization's character. (Daft, 2018). The core values of an organization become
the foundation of its culture.
The findings of this study also indicate that the participants are developing
and empowering the individuals under their leadership. Development and
empowering of others are key aspect of the Great Commission. "The preaching of
the gospel is imperative to the Great Commission, but the development of leaders
is the undercurrent to multiplying the fulfillment of the Great Commission."
(Blandino, 2018, para. 16). Blandino (2018) continued, "Without equipped and
empowered leaders, the Great Commission fails to gain the traction necessary to
reach the ends of the earth" (para. 16). Further, churches can prepare, enhance, and
empower potential leaders and current leaders towards a unified vision, so that they
will have greater influence to achieve the mission of Christ and reach the world
with the love of God (Watt, 2014). The current study also examined participants'
views on how leadership culture impacts the organization with the survey item
"The College graduates in my ministry area strengthen the leadership culture of my
organization." Ninety-five percent of those surveyed agreed with this statement.
Only 5% replied that they were uncertain about their position on this statement.
This data reinforces the researcher's perspective that alignment of the culture is
present between the church and its leadership development program.
This conclusion was also reinforced by the responses to question 10 in the
survey which states, "In my role on staff at I regularly interact with students
enrolled in College." Ninety-six percent of those surveyed agreed. This data
supports the participants' perception of their impact of their personal interactions
with students upon the potential leaders' growth and strengthening of the church.
Empowerment is another finding of this study. One survey item stated, "My
primary role in my organization is to reproduce leaders." Sixty-five percent
strongly agreed with this statement, 28% agreed, 2% were uncertain, and 5%
disagreed. With 93% in agreement that their primary role is to reproduce leaders,
the responses reiterated the pastor's goal for his staff to see leadership development
as essential to their role on his team. Another survey item stated, "One of the best
ways I grow myself is by helping to grow the emerging leaders in my
organization." Ninety-eight percent of those surveyed agree with this statement. In
general, a leadership culture is infused by team members who are eager to keep
themselves growing and learning by helping to lead others in their own
development and growth.
Maxwell (1998) explained in The 21 Irrefutable Laws ofLeadership that
developing others is powerful not only for the person being developed, but also for
the one developing stating, "Enlarging others makes you larger" (p. 131). Growth
stimulates more growth. The researcher can testify to this fact in his own life. As
individuals invest in enlarging others, they create new capacity to grow in their
own life and leadership. Likewise, as the study site church continues to grow, the
senior leadership also grows by increasing their personal capacity in leadership,
modeling their investment in the leadership development process, actively
engaging with and mentoring emerging leaders, and embracing challenges to
expand their own leadership responsibilities.
The findings of this study also indicated that a majority of the participants
view the senior pastor as responsible for creating a leadership development culture
within the church. Although 93% agreed with this statement, it was interesting to
note that only one person of the 86 surveyed strongly disagreed.
Finally, the research site seized growth opportunities by developing this
specific leadership development model. The findings of this study indicate a
correlation between the leadership development process and the study site church's
continued organizational growth. There is a correlation between the growth of the
study site church and its expanded commitment to developing emerging leaders,
resulting in the birth of its college in 2011. As the study site college matured and
produced more leaders prepared for ministry, the church was able to better support
its exponential growth. In 2011, the study site church was averaging 12,851 in their
weekly attendance. By September 2018, its average weekly attendance has grown
to 42,573. Organizational growth requires the simple addition of new leaders which
often comes through a training program to raise the supply of capable leaders
(Fletcher, 2018). The intentional leadership development model, the research site's
college, is the organization's training program which the findings of this study
noted as correlated to the church's growth.
Implications
The findings from this study have several implications that can inform
leadership development and leadership development models in churches.
Raising Leaders from Within
One practical implication from this current study is the importance of
developing leaders within the organization. There are many obvious benefits to
raising up leaders from within one's organization, including higher performance
rates. According to research conducted by the Human Capital Institute (Maurer,
2015), a global talent management association, 60% of employees surveyed who
were promoted into jobs in their existing companies performed significantly better
than employees hired externally into similar positions. In addition, the character
and leadership strengths of leaders from within an organization have already been
observed and evaluated. Character is essential to effective leadership, particularly
in the church where people do not follow title alone.
Having the opportunity to observe potential staff members as they serve
others, respond to challenges, and properly handle responsibilities offers leaders
keen, first-hand insight into the potential staff member's character. Whereas, when
one hires from without, he or she must go by the limited reputation of the person's
character.
Another benefit of hiring from within is gleaning an understanding of a
candidate's level of competency. When there is a proven track record of the work a
potential leader has completed, a positive response to assignments given, and the
ability to interact with coworkers favorably, it is easy to gauge one's aptitude for
fitting well in a leadership position. The researcher also believes potential leaders
must pass the "bloom where you are planted" test. In other words, the size of an
assignment should not affect one's level of commitment. Additionally, to
demonstrate commitment to the organization, one must take what he or she is
entrusted with and make it better.
A third benefit of raising up leaders from within one's organization is that
they already have an established rapport with the team. Chemistry is an element of
successful teamwork because established relationships and connections with other
team members not only puts leaders in position to be more successful but also
allows them to receive support so they can accomplish their ministry assignments
(Jinuk & Semi, 2017). At the outset of hiring for any position, leaders look for
character, competency, and connection. These qualifiers help determine leadership
aptitude. Hiring from within the organization allows leaders a firsthand and valid
perspective on the presence of these three key elements.
Strategic Planning for Leadership Development
Another implication from the current study, as churches consider developing
an internal leadership development program such as a college, the learning
philosophy of the leadership development program should be planned strategically.
The pastor at the study site shared with the researcher that, when originally
designing his internship program, he wanted to include the best of classroom
experience along with practical experience in the field:
In America, as in most of the world, we have been influenced by the way
the Greeks approach education. The Greeks are the ones who created the
classroom where everybody simply listens. The students come to class to
learn theory and then they leave and are left on their own to put it into
practice.
The Hebrew context for education, the one in which the Bible is
written, takes a 'Come follow me' approach. Jesus said, 'I will make you a
fisherman. Come joumey with me. Let's go live life together so I can prepare
you for your mission.' Their education took place in the round. That Hebrew
context is the scenario I am trying to create for the students at our college.
They aren't just sitting in a classroom taking notes. They are actually in the
ministry field doing ministry and learning as they do (C. Hodges, personal
communication, September 17, 2018).
It was during the Renaissance period that the university system became the
primary center of learning for student development (Moss, 2013, p. 1 16). The
classroom continues to play a critical role today, but, as the study site pastor
advocated, students also need to be exposed to actual hands-on training in their
field of study in ministry. Believing strongly that learning comes from doing, he
relayed to the researcher that he has been in ministry for 35 years, and 95% of what
he knows has been learned on the job, not in the classroom.
When considering the leadership approach of Jesus, in which he called his
12 disciples to come and do life with Him and all the evidence of their success in
spreading the gospel to the world, one can see the value in adding practical training
to classroom learning (Matthew 10:1-4). As a result, the study site model blends
the Greek and the Hebrew approaches to provide a wellrounded learning
experience. Other churches can consider embracing this leaming philosophy where
potential leaders are provided with classroom learning opportunities as well as
practical experience and application.
To illustrate the importance of providing practical training, the researcher
reviewed the survey Moss (2013) conducted with 64 pastors from the Southern
Baptist Convention to determine the state of leadership development in the local
church. The researcher's questions focused on the areas of general leadership
definitions and assumptions, leadership training methodology, formal leadership
roles and structures, and the surveyor's general assessment of the effectiveness of
their church's leadership development. One of the questions Moss asked survey
participants was to identify the best methods for equipping leaders. The options
available for selection included: one-on-one mentoring, on-the-job training, small
groups, classroom instruction, seminars, retreats, conferences, and self-led using
books, tapes, and videos. Moss (2013) indicated that the two highest responses
were one-on-one mentoring and on-the-job training, stating relational methods
were the most favored means to training those recruited for positions of leadership
(71). This survey data from Moss further validated the researcher's findings that a
combination of classroom and practical training are key aspects in leadership
development.
Transferring Culture
Another implication for organizations to consider is whether or not their
current culture is intentional. Every church has a culture, whether by design or by
default. The difference lies in culture's intentionality. The study site pastor has
been intentional about building a culture by design. The study site church and
college are aligned not only in their core values and beliefs, but also in their sense
of vision and mission. Individual team members have a responsibility to be an
effective carrier of the culture of the study site church and of the college. As a
result, leadership values have emerged from the life of their leadership (See
Appendix F.) Staff members are committed to being servant leaders first as they
follow the example of Jesus Christ. They are also committed to being faithful in
the small things. As the word of God teaches,"Whatever you do, whether in word
or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Colossians3:17).
Empowering to Create Pathways for Organizational Success
Raising up new leaders necessitates the empowerment of those leaders. Once
a leader has embraced the organization's culture and is adequately prepared to take
on leadership responsibilities within the organization, it is the leadership's
responsibility to release the new leaders to step into new roles and opportunities on
the team. Empowerment is a sign of one's own security and one's desire to leverage
the development program established.
In the researcher's book Passing the Leadership Baton (2015), his son and
predecessor at Christ Fellowship shared about how the researcher demonstrated
security by making space for him to lead during their transition in leadership
stating, "He made room for me to lead. He didn't use up all the 'leadership oxygen'
in our organization" (p. 203). The prioritization of the practice of empowerment is
also valued at the study site church as evidenced by its commitment to engaging,
equipping, and empowering emerging leaders.
Empowerment multiplies effort and elevates emerging leaders into
leadership roles, creating more opportunity for the organization while creating
personal ownership of ministry. When individuals are empowered to use their gifts
and lead in that area of giftedness, they feel personally invested in the success of
that ministry area thereby deepening the commitment of team members. Covey
(1992) affirmed, "An empowered organization is one in which individuals have the
knowledge, skill, desire, and opportunity to personally succeed in a way that leads
to collective organizational success" (p. 212).
Empowerment also naturally stimulates personal growth because increased
responsibility reveals the need to continue learning to meet the needs perpetuated
by new levels of leading others. Further, empowerment has the propensity to affirm
and validate new leaders on a team by communicating trust and confidence in those
who have been given that responsibility as an extension of a senior leader's
influence. In addition, empowerment attracts new leaders.
Accessing a process for being trained and affirmed in their calling on the team
provides prospects with confidence and excitement. Leaders serve where they
believe they can make a difference and are able to team up with other leaders who
will challenge them to lead at a higher level — and leaders stay where their value
and influence continue to grow.
Anderson (2015) indicated that an organization's retention is influenced by
its ability to empower its team.
If your best people don't feel challenged, trusted, or that they're growing into
new responsibilities, you are likely to lose them. It's just a matter of time.
Empowering people with broadened latitude and discretion to stretch their
abilities and make them more valuable is an essential retention tool. By
finding ways to make your people less dependent on you, you will elevate
their morale and growth. You will also find yourself more effective because
you do not have to personally make every decision, solve all the problems,
and have every idea. (p. 189)
In conducting this research study on the site church, the researcher
discovered additional keys to effective empowerment. The study site church has
very clearly defined goals and objectives for their leadership development process
and for their leaders' roles in ministry. This sense of clarity produces confidence in
the team which, in turn, has strengthened the leadership culture at their church.
These factors, coupled with the study site's intentional effort to empower new team
members on the team, is guided by the study site church's core values. Core values
establish what is important and what drives the direction of the ministry as well as
provides boundaries for the team so they know what is culturally enhancing and
what may cause division if each team member is not careful with the responsibility
given them. Both authority and responsibility must be aligned for an effective
empowerment culture to prosper as it does at the study site church.
The study site church's tremendous numerical growth along with its growth
as related to their broad impact on the church at large is one of the greatest success
stories of the Church in America today. The study site church hosts an annual
conference where thousands of pastors come to be trained to be better equipped to
return to build the leadership culture at their churches. Between the study site
church's efforts to host leadership conferences and an extensive investment in
church planting, thousands of pastors are being trained to minister effectively to
reach the world for Christ. The study site church leads the way in providing clear
pathways to engage, equip, and empower leaders to fulfill the mission of Christ.
Senior Leader's Responsibility in Leadership Development
The senior leader must be fully committed to the leadership development
process as demonstrated through time and effort spent engaging in said practice.
The study site pastor stated,We all think about developing more leaders. That is the
highest calling. It is theEphesians 4 model. He made some to be pastors to equip. I
tell my staff all the time that 'If I catch you doing ministry I'll fire you. Your job is
to equip and train team members to do ministry.' I don't hire leaders to do a job. I
hire them to lead teams.
This philosophy is the driving force behind the study site church's leadership
development strategy, and the researcher believes it has been the engine to support
its vision. Lead pastors can be intentionally engaged at all levels of their leadership
development process. Examples of such intentionality include leading small groups
at the church, teaching at the college, supervising interns, and leading the monthly
staff meetings. Since the lead pastor is committed to remaining engaged, the tone
and pace for leadership development is set within the organization. The study site
pastor models empowerment himself. He speaks around the world sharing his
vision and wisdom about leadership development. He has trained leaders at major
conferences throughout Latin America, Europe, and Australia, and he is a board
member for a major Christian leadership organization. His influence has grown
from his early days in ministry as an intern in a local church to now serving as a
global leader in the Church of Jesus Christ. His commitment to leadership
development has been a major factor in the platform of influence he has been given
today, and it has profoundly impacted his church's growth and impact. Without
developing leaders and intentionally stretching and expanding, growth is limited to
the capacity of the current leadership of any organization. Many churches are not
experiencing growth today because they fail to develop leaders equipped to help
them cast a wider, deeper net of impact.
Conclusion
The leadership development model the study site church employs is one that
can be replicated by any church, of any size, anywhere in the world. It is not about
how many people attend or how many resources are available to invest. Rather, it
is a matter of priority. Leadership development must be a primary area of emphasis
in order to sustain the growth of an organization. Leaders must be intentional about
integrating a culture of leadership development into the fabric of their ministry
philosophy.
The study site church pastor did not start with 42,000 people attending
worship services each week or 23,000 people equipped to serve in ministry. He
started with 19. He was willing to invest his time and energy in mentoring and
developing the 19 young leaders who joined him in his vision to see a work of God
established in his church. Now, those leaders are touching the world. Whether a
pastor is leading a church of 50 or a church of 5000, developing a leadership
culture is attainable. At every level, the church can prepare to embrace the future
growth opportunities God will bring.
It is never too late to develop a leadership culture that results in a legacy that
will impact generations to come and will continue to establish a broader foundation
to support more new growth opportunities. The problem is many church leaders
have yet to connect their lack of growth with their failure to produce leaders
zealous about collectively pursuing growth opportunities. In fact, there has never
been a lack of opportunity for growth for the church, but rather there is a lack of
people being prepared to seize those opportunities. Jesus pointed this need out in
Matthew 9:37-38 when he said, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few.
Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into the harvest field."
The church must prepare its people for the harvest.
The researcher has interacted with countless church leaders on every
continent of the world, and the one common characteristic practiced by each of
them is intentionality. Great leaders are focused on fulfilling the call of God on
their life and the church they have been directed to lead. These great leaders also
recognize that fulfilling their calling requires that they actively and relentlessly
prepare emerging leaders to partner with in their quest to impact the world for
Christ. One of the slogans present in many athletic locker rooms around the
country is "Preparation is the key to victory!" As a former football coach, the
researcher himself has used that phrase to encourage and inspire his teams because
he knows that preparation and training equips players for victory. Church leaders
must embrace this same spirit of preparation when it comes to leadership
development. It truly is the key to seizing opportunities that will help them fulfill
their mission.
This case study has validated the researcher's conviction that leadership
development cannot be ignored or just another program of the church. It must be a
priority. The study site church's commitment to developing leaders increases its
capacity to seize growth opportunities. It is the researcher's conviction that all
church leaders must adopt a philosophy of leadership development that rests on the
foundation of their leadership values, and they must be willing to invest the time,
energy, and resources that the study site church pastor made in his early years and
continues to expand upon to this day.
During the researcher's interview with him, the study site church pastor
pointed out that the first recorded words spoken by God in Genesis I :22 were "be
fruitful and multiply." When one looks deeper into the heart of God for man, it is
easy to see that he wanted mankind to not only be fruitful and multiply physically,
but spiritually as well. It is the church's responsibility to reproduce spiritual
children who will populate the world and carry the message of God's love and
redemption to the world. Its mission is plainly stated by Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:20.
"We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal
through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God."
To further iterate the expectation of the Father for us to take up the mission
of Christ, one can examine the final words of Jesus to his disciples, as recorded in
Matthew 28:19. "Go and make disciples of all nations." Jesus was telling his
followers to go and reproduce themselves. This admonition is the duty of Christian
leaders. Their calling and responsibility is to invest their lives in raising up the
emerging generation of leaders for the kingdom of God. The mission of Christ
depends on their investment. The researcher's personal challenge to himself, and to
theChristian leaders he coaches, is to never let vision to outpace leadership
development.
The underlying success of the site study church in experiencing and
embracing its phenomenal growth is in direct correlation with its intentionality to
create a culture that develops emerging leaders. When leaders are developed, they
then can take up their role of leadership in the Church today, thus advancing its
mission for tomorrow.
