National Association of Christian Ministers, NACM, christian ordination, ordained minister, nacministers

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

Organizational Decision Making

D. Holland, D. Maddox, M. Mooney, A. Powers, M. Reynolds

Herein is a summary of major research findings regarding the subject of decision making within groups and organizations.

Making organizational decisions is a complicated matter that can be mastered through prototypical approaches and understanding of hindrances.

This presentation will examine two standard approaches:

1) Behavioral Decision Making, an approach that considers social equity and behavioral tendencies to make best use of the circumstances at hand (Geller, 2009; Robinson & Kerr, 2009; Howell, 1966).

2) Strategic Decision Making, an approach that uses quality information, tools, and protocol to make good decisions (Gudonavicius, Bartoseviciene & Saparnis, 2009).

In ODM, probably the most difficult decision are those with the greatest risks.

High Stakes Decisions (HSD) are such that usually contain a large potential loss of some resource (tangible or intangible) with few options to reverse the decision (Kunreuther & Meyer (2002).

It is better to approach HSD with the council of a group that undergoes continued training (Proverbs 24:6; Blinder & Morgan, 2005; Brodbeck, Kerschreiter, Mojzisch, & Shulz-Hardt, 2007).

It is also important to note that heuristics often result in biases that hinder effective ODM (Das & Teng, 1999).

In all of these things, it is most important that believers rely on God to assist them in making decisions (Pro 16:25).

Behavioral decisions:

Cultivating courage is more complex and less straightforward than developing competence and commitment. Specifically, individuals with greater competence and commitment in a given situation are more likely to demonstrate courage. Thus the propensity to show courage under certain circumstances is increased whenever relevant competence or commitment is augmented (Geller, 2009, p. 45).

“Legitimation” of power is helpful in unmasking the potential human cost and possible long-term damage or extreme leadership episodes within organizations (Robinson & Kerr, 2009, p.875).

The skill of 'satisficing', as defined takes on a different quality in the systems context. The reason for using the satisficing concept derives from the various limits to rationality, important amongst which are emotional and attitudinal behavior. Since these non-rational elements have greater scope when the area of uncertainty is greater, more sophisticated systems analysis will reduce the areas of uncertainty, leaving less scope for non-rational factors in evaluating data and in the consequent decisions. The task of any administration is so to design the manager's environment 'that the individual will approach as close as practicable to rationality (judged in terms of the organization's goals) in his decisions (Howell, 1966, p. 150).

Strategic decisions:

According to Gudonavicius, Bartoseviciene, and Saparnis (2009) correct strategic decisions must be decided in order to implement a formed strategy (p.75).

“Quality decisions may be perceived as a function of imperatives (requirements, regulations, orders, sophistication, and knowledge) based on information needed” (2009, p.76).

Decision making formula is defined as  “Decisions = f (imperatives + information)” (2009, p.76).

Top tools utilized in strategic decision making.

Stenfors, Tanner, Syrjanen, Seppala, and Haapalinna (2007) indicated SWOT analysis, spreadsheet applications, balanced scorecard, and risk analysis as the top instruments utilized in decision making (p.932).

SWOT analysis – Evans and Wright (2009) indicates this tool is the most used and  consist of assessing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that may affect an organization, which defines a clear basis of a company’s strategic position (p. 10).  

Spreadsheet applications – Stenfors, Tanner, Syrjanen, Seppala, and Haapalinna (2007) believes this is used  supplementary to the other tools (p.932).

Top tools utilized in strategic decision making (cont.).

Balanced scorecard – Basic reasons for implementing a scorecard are “the need to track progress toward achieving organizational goals, to align employee behavior with an organization’s strategic objectives, to communicate strategy to everyone in a clear and simple manner, to measure performance at different levels, and ability to measure people, projects and strategies” (Lawson, Stratton, & Hatch, 2006, p.37).  

Risk Analysis – Bryant and Dunford (2008) defined risk as ‘the extent to which there is uncertainty about whether potentially significant and/or disappointing outcomes of decisions will be realized” (p.337). Additionally it is, “the ability to identify, assess, and manage risks and uncertainties is necessary for effective decision making, because the costs associated with bearing and managing risks and uncertainties must be weighed against the potential return from those decisions” (Csiszar, 2008, p.3).

Behavioral Decision Making vs. Strategic Decision Making

Each intervention requires individual courage for interpersonal  interaction with others. Conscientiousness is facilitated while cultivating courage.  Additional traits  needed for decision makers are caring person-status, belongingness, empowerment and culture (Geller, 2009, p.43) .

A business environment that identifies opportunities for subjective processes in problem solving. This trait of individuality does allow time for creative thinking.  Other than primary decision criterion, the display pattern allows for creativity and  sequential patterns in the search for alternatives  (Fleming, 1966 p. 51).

People often use self-talk to avoid impulsive at-risk behavior and work for long-term goals (Mischel, 2004, p. 186).

A Strategic decision making model is decentralized, it relies on entrepreneurial actions by the leaders of decentralized units. Decisions are made by  coordinating committees to try to bring unity to the organization. This approach focuses on scientific propositions about organizations instead of the people who belong to them. It is difficult to separate strategy and an organization from an economic, managerial, and legal perspective. Distinctions between strategy and organization collapse eventually and the only thing  that survives is a configuration of information.

Strategy in terms of three increasingly complex layers of information  (termed as the  3-Cs'):

    a.  Coordinated sets of actions, that are;

    b.  Comprehensive; and

    c.  Conditional.  (Cyert & Williams,1993 ,p.6)

Making High Stake Decisions

No matter the type of decision either Behavioral or Strategic, making high stake decisions are difficult and have risk associated with them.  

Raiffa, Howard, Kenney, and Hammond (1998) suggest that the fault of some ineffective decisions is the mind of the decision-maker (p.2).

According to Kunreuther and Meyer (2002), high stake decisions have two distinct properties.

The existence of large financial or emotional prospective loss outcome(s) (p.261).

The presence of high costs to reversing a decision once it is made (p.261).

Various factors impact making good high-stake decisions.    

According to Kunreuther and Meyer (2002), subjects either insufficiently utilize or ignore probability information (p.261).    

Hutchison (2001) implies that humans have difficulty  considering the long-term consequences of current actions.

According to Hammond (2000), stress  can enhance performance during high-stake decision making, by making better use of existing salient cues.

Stress can also be harmful.

Researchers have developed the following tips for making high-stake decisions more effectively:

Raiffa, Howard, Keeney, and Hammond (1998) suggest to avoid anchoring by gathering information from other sources after thinking the problem through on your own(p.1).

Gathering statistics can prevent overestimating or forecasting (1998, p.1).

Since how decisions are made are mostly analyzed by studying individuals, Zeckhauser  and Vicusi (1990) suggest that better theories at organization and group level should be developed by researchers.

Thus, is the reason group size, composition  and effects are studied.

Group Size, Composition and Effects on ODM

Group decisions are better than individual decisions.

Blinder and Morgan (2005) conduct experiments that show that “group decisions are on average better than individual decisions” (p. 789).

Training enhances the ability of a group to make decisions.

Brodbeck, Kerschreiter, Mojzisch, and Shulz-Hardt (2007) explain that group decision making outperforms individual decision makers especially when the group is trained in group decision making (p. 474).

Less personnel usually = increase in quality supervision.

Cummins and King (1973) point out that “the more personnel a supervisor has to supervise, the less time he has to spend with each person” (p. 88).  Highly structured tasks with close supervision can positively effect productivity if the supervision is perceived as “supportive” (p. 88).  

Heuristic Model of Group Decision Making.

Gist, Locke, and Taylor (1987) prove a heuristic model of small group interaction.  Size, ability, personality, gender, and race all influence the way a group, or organization, makes decisions (p. 237).

Groups with broad knowledge of topics perform better.

Rulke and Galaskiewicz (2000) conclude that a group made up of members with a broad knowledge of the group topics outperformed groups that were made up of members with highly specialized knowledge of the topic.

There are no perfect groups nor teams (Field, 2009, p. 3).

Group size and the make up of its members all effect ODM.

There are also many hindrances to Organizational Decision Making.

Hindrances to Organizational Decision Making

Toxic Decision Process: A “decision makers’ anxiety and apprehension about an issue may delay a decision action, which can in turn intensify others’ anxiety and generate tension in an organization” (Maitlis & Ozcelik, 2004, p. 391).

False Consensus: “the tendency to overestimate the degree of similarity between self and others may result in biased judgments or decisions” (Jones & Roelofsma, 2000, p. 1134).

Group Think: “a five-step causal model: antecedents of groupthink, concurrence seeking, symptoms of groupthink, decision-making defects, and poor decision outcomes” (Hogg & Hains, 1998, p. 37).

Cognitive Biases: are defined as “a negative consequence of adopting heuristics. Biases entice decision makers away from making optimal decisions in terms of utility maximization” (Das and Teng, 1999, p. 760).

Along with Hindrances, Heuristics and Biases are associated with Organizational Decision Making.

Heuristics and Biases

Biased Assimilation:  “Research is evaluated more favorably if it supports initial attitudes” (Masnick & Zimmerman, 2009, p. 30).

Omission bias: “the tendency to avoid actions that carry some risk but that would prevent a larger risk” (Stanovich & West, 2008, p. 680).

Status Quo Bias: When people “tend to choose an alternative they chose in a previous decision situation, even if it is no longer the optimal choice” (Kempf & Ruenzi, 2006, p. 211).

Planning Fallacy: The propensity to underestimate the amount of time necessary to complete a task (LeBoeuf & Shafir, 2009).

Escalating Commitment: The increasing commitment “to a losing course of action [, it] is usually attributed to a need on the part of decision makers to maintain the illusion that they have not erred (Jones & Roelofsma, 2000; Whyte, 1986).

Biblical Worldview -Don’t worry

Peter teaches that believers should tell the Father of their troubles because He cares (1 Pet 5:7). God is concerned with anxieties, such which are often caused by the need to make high risk decisions.

Jesus said that not even one sparrow falls to the ground without the Father’s interest in knowing it (Mat 10:29).

It is not God’s will that His children be troubled with worldly fears, but rather to have peace (Joh 14:27).

Indecisiveness leads to restlessness, and long enough in this condition can lead to instability (James 1:8).

James instructs believers to ask God for directing wisdom, declaring that it is His pleasure to provide it abundantly (James 1:5).

Often the answer has already been provided in the Bible (Psa 119:105).

Leave the consequences to God

In the midst of abstract situations where it is difficult to get clarity about how to respond, it becomes all too easy to rely upon human reasoning that leads astray (Pro 16:25).  

However, God’s ways and thoughts are not like those of finite men (Isa 55:8).

Solomon’s wisdom is that believers should not rely solely on their human reasoning, but rather to acknowledge God in their decisions with the expectation that He will offer providential direction (Pro 3:5-6).

No matter what decision is made, the children of God can rest assured that He is in control of the outcome (Pro 16:9, 33), and Working all of it together for His sovereign goodness (Rom 8:28).

Therefore believers can rest assured that God who takes pleasure in walking with them directs their paths (Psa 37:23-25)!

Conclusion

God is sovereign over all decisions.

Either a behavioral approach or strategic approach to decision making impacts the outcomes.

Group size and composition effect organizational decision making.

Training enhances organizational decision making to avoid hindrances and contribute with high stakes decisions.

There is right and wrong in organizational decision making.

Answers to decision can be found in the Bible.

All rights reserved. 

National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

References

Blinder, A., &  Morgan, J. (2005). Are two heads better than one? Monetary policy by committee..  J. Money, Credit Banking, 37, 789-811. Retrieved May 25, 2009, from EBSCO  Publishing Citations database.

Brodbeck, F., Kerschreiter, R., Mojzisch, A., & Shulz-Hardt, S. (2007). Group decision making  under conditions of distributed knowledge: The information asymmetries model.  Academy of Management Review, 32, 459-479. Retrieved May 25, 2009, from EBSCO Publishing Citations database.

Bryant, P., & Dunford, R. (2008). The influence of regulatory focus on risky decision-making.  Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(2), 335-359.

Csiszar, E. (2008). Managing risk and uncertainty. Business & Economic Review, 55(1), 3-7.

Cummins, R., & King, D. (1973).  The interaction of group size and task structure in an industrial organization.  Personnel Psychology, 26, 87-94.   

Cyert, R.M., & Williams, J.R. (1993). Organizations: Decisions and strategy: Overview & comment. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 5-10. Retrieved June 7, 2009,  from EBSCO  Business Source Complete.    

Das, T., & Teng, B. (1999, November). Cognitive biases and strategic decision processes: An integrative perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 36(6), 757-778. Retrieved May 24, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Evans, C., & Wright, W. (2009). The “how to…” series. British Journal of Administrative Management, (65), 10–11.

Field, A. (2009).  Diagnosing and fixing functional teams.  Harvard Management Update, 1-6.  Retrieved May 25, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Fleming, J. (1966). Study of a Business Decision. California Management Review, 9l(2), 51-56.

Geller, E.S. (2009, May). Courage, culture & interpersonal intervention. Professional Safety, 54(5), 43-51. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from Academic Search Complete.

Gist, M., Locke E., and Taylor, M. (1987).  Organizational behavior: Group structure, process,  and effectiveness.  Journal of Management, 13(2), 237-257.     

Gudonavicius, L., Bartoseviciene, V., & Saparnis, G. (2009). Imperatives for enterprise strategists. Engineering Economics, 61(1), 75-82.

Hammond, K. (2000). Judgments under stress. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hogg, M., & Hains, S. (1998, May). Friendship and group identification: A new look at the role of cohesiveness in groupthink. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(3), 323-341. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from Academic Search

Complete database.

Howell, W. (1966, May).  Managers and Systems. Journal of Management Studies, 3(2), 150-162.

Hutchinson, W. (2001). ‘‘Bumbling geniuses: The power of everyday reasoning in multistage decision making.’’ In Wharton on Making Decisions, S. Hoch and H. Kunreuther (eds.), New York: John Wiley.

Jones, P., & Roelofsma, P. (2000, August). The potential for social contextual and group biases in team decision-making: Biases, conditions and psychological mechanisms. Ergonomics, 43(8), 1129-1152. Retrieved June 7, 2009, doi:10.1080/00140130050084914.

Kempf, A., & Ruenzi, S. (2006, December). Status quo bias and the number of alternatives: An empirical Illustration from the mutual fund industry. Journal of Behavioral Finance, 7(4), 204-213. Retrieved June 8, 2009, doi:10.1207/s15427579jpfm0704_3.

Kunreuther, H., & Meyer, R. (2002). High stakes decision making: Normative, descriptive and prescriptive considerations. Marketing Letters, 13(3), 259-268.

Lawson, R., Stratton, W., & Hatch, T. (2006). Scorecarding goes global. Strategic Finance, 87(9), 35–41.

LeBoeuf, R., & Shafir, E. (2009, January). Anchoring on the here and now in time and distance judgments. Journal of

Experimental Psychology / Learning, Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 81-93. Retrieved June 8, 2009, doi:10.1037/a0013665.

Maitlis, S., & Ozcelik, H. (2004, July). Toxic decision processes: A study of emotion and organizational decision making. Organization Science, 15(4), 375-393. Retrieved May 30, 2009, doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0070.

Masnick, A., & Zimmerman, C. (2009, April). Evaluating scientific research in the context of prior belief: Hindsight bias or confirmation bias. Journal of Psychology of Science & Technology, 2(1), 29-36. Retrieved June 8, 2009, doi:10.1891/1939-7054.2.1.29.

Mischel, W. (2004). Toward a integrative model for CBT: Encompassing behavior, cognition, affect and process. Behavior Therapy, 35, 185-203.

Raiffa, Howard, Keeney, R. L., & Hammond, J.S.  (1998, September-October). Thinking about the hidden traps in decision-making. Harvard Business Review, 1-2.

Robinson, S. K., & Kerr, R. (2009). The symbolic violence of leadership: A critical hermeneutic study of leadership and succession in a British organization in the post-Soviet context. Human Relations, 62(6), 875-903.

Rulke, D., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2000). Distribution of knowledge, group network structure, and  group performance. Management Sci, 46(5), 612-625. Retrieved May 25, 2009, from EBSCO Publishing Citations database.

Stanovich, K., & West, R. (2008, April). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 672-695. Retrieved June 8, 2009, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672.

Stenfors, S., Tanner, L., Syrjanen, M. , Seppala, T., & Haapalinna, I. (2007). Executive views concerning  decision support tools. European Journal of Operational Research, 181(2), 929 – 938.

Whyte, G. (1986, April). Escalating commitment to a course of action: A reinterpretation. Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 311-321. Retrieved June 8, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Zeckhauser, R. J., & Viscusi, W. (1990). ‘‘Risk Within Reason,’’ Science, 248, 559-564.    

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

Great Man Theory of Leadership

Management assumes the idea of levels within organizations to which people may be appointed (Shivers-Blackwell, 2006).   Yet, leadership caries the idea of individual callings that are not appointed but rather birthed.  Over the years it has been a common belief that people are leaders because of a certain “specialness” with which they were born.  This concept could be a carryover from Descartes “belief in the psychological reality of innate ideas implanted in us by God” (Ouellet, p. 93, 1976).  Thomas Carlyle is noted for popularizing the term “great man” saying, “The history of the world is but the biography of great men” (Carlyle, 1841).  Listing such examples as Shakespeare, Luther, Rousseau, and Napoleon, his argument is that heroes shape history by their mental powers, beauty, art, competence, and divine inspiration.  These men are considerably influential individuals possessing personal charisma, intellectual genus, or political persuasion.

Whether or not the Great Man Theory of leadership is accepted, in the context of recorded history it is an undeniable fact that literature depicts great men who do great things.

References

Ouellet, J. (1976). On Locke's counter-Cartesianism. American Psychologist, 31(1), 93. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.31.1.93.a.

Shivers-Blackwell, S. (2006). The Influence of Perceptions of Organizational Structure &

Culture on Leadership Role Requirements: The Moderating Impact of Locus of Control & Self-Monitoring. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies (Baker College), 12(4), 27-49. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

Personal growth is a major part of the human experience; although some experience much more than others.  Growth without change is inconceivable; therefore, it follows that both are a part of the process.  Change is something that human nature seems to resist.  People’s desire for familiarity is likely one of the biggest reasons for such resistance (Welch & McCarville, 2003).  Ironically, in spite of the predictability of change, it still equals things that are unknown and thereby diminishes predictability.

Ordained ministers have an obligation to growth, but even they are not above change resistance (Mann, 2000).  It seems normal to think of leaders initiating organizational changes, but not as obvious that they undergo personal changes through growth.  However, “the Servant Leader nurtures his or her own desire to grow.  Growth is power. People will not follow a leader who does not grow…Growth means one has to take action” (Tellerman, 1999, p. 2).  As a result leaders must perpetuate continual improvement if they want to maintain a following.

Goleman (2002) describes this transformation as being self-directed –meaning that leaders must accept responsibility for their development. Yet complacency has the power to make people forget the necessity of such directedness.  That is until life brings remembrance in the form of wake-up calls.  Whether through emergencies or determination, growth usually begins with a stage of awareness.  The first stage of personal improvement is the discovery of who you wish to become.  It is from this stage that leads to the second: discovery of who you presently are.  It is here where comparisons and contrasts are made between your real self and your ideal self.  Next is a more focused approach where personal strengths and weaknesses are considered within the context of maximizing your positive personal qualities.  Taking this information, in the fourth step you begin to seek situations where you can exercise your strengths to further improve them. Then, you position yourself within the reach of a support group or relationship of encouragement and accountability (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002).  Lastly, you call upon the Holy Spirit in every step of the way to reveal to you His holy insights regarding your life and development.  Following this protocol will ensure that you are never in a stagnate state of non-growth, and will increase the effectiveness of your leadership.

Below is an excellent chart to offer a big picture perspective:

Richard E. Boyatzis’ self-directed learning model

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

References

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A.  (2002).  Primal leadership: Learning to lead with

emotional intelligence.  Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.  ISBN: 978-    1578514861.

Mann, D. (2000). Why Supervisors Resist Change and What You Can Do About It. Journal for Quality & Participation, 23(3), 20. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Tellerman, J. (1999, February). The Editor's Perspective. The Group Psychologist, p. 2. Retrieved from PsycEXTRA database. 

Welch, R., & McCarville, R. (2003). Discovering Conditions for Staff Acceptance of Organizational Change. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 21(2), 22-43. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

Leaders and Ministers –one in the same

Leadership is the kind of word that (like love) carries with it a familiarity of meanings.  However, such meanings are not necessarily accurate.  Scholarly research demonstrates that there are multitudes of attempts to define and characterize the subject (Northouse, 2010).  A common definition by comparison is that of leadership and management.  While there are many similarities between the two, there are also notable differences that make inadequate such a comparison.  Leaders hold higher esteem in the minds a many, often conceptualized as being charismatic. Contrarily, managers are often viewed as organizational taskmasters (Kotterman, 2006).  Such tasks focus on organizational functionality by means of routine processes (Takala, 1998).  However, leaders deal in human motivation by means of persuasion toward organizational visions and goals (Weathersby, 1999).  Therefore, “leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, p. 3, 2010).  In practice Kouzes and Posner (2002) describe leadership relations as modeling, inspiring, challenging, enabling, and encouraging.

These definitions sound very much like the roles of ordained ministers –both as leaders and managers.  As managers, ministers watch over the house of God and the ministry.  As leaders, ministers inspire the people, challenge them to honor God, enable them to use their gifts, encourage them to keep the faith, and lead them to spiritual growth.  God has called ordained ministers to “leadership”.

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

References

Kotterman, J. (2006). Leadership Versus Management: What's the Difference?. Journal for 

    Quality & Participation, 29(2), 13-17. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Kouzes, J., Posner, B. 2002. The Leadership Challenge. Jossey-Bass Publishing.

    McClelland, David. 1979. Power: The Inner Experience. New York: Halstead.

    Adams, John. 1793. August 8, 1793.

Northouse, P. G.  (2010).  Leadership: Theory and Practice (5th ed.).  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.  ISBN: 978-1-4129-7488-2.

Takala, T. (1998, May). Plato on Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(7), 785-798.

    Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Weathersby, G. (1999, March). Leadership vs. Management. Management Review, 88(3), 5.

    Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

Summary of Personalism

Emmanuel Mounier and Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) have become authoritative figures in the servant leadership philosophy of personalism.  This ideology is summarized in its emphasis on the value of human relationships through five themes:

1) the dignity of human existence

2) the autonomy of free-will

3) the supremacy of humans over all other creation

4) the community of human society

5) the need for brotherly love

From these principals transactional, transformational, and servant leadership theories were born (Whetstone, 2002).         

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

References

Whetstone, J. (2002). Personalism and Moral Leadership: The Servant Leader with a Transforming Vision. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(4), 385-392. Retrieved from Philosopher's Index database.

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

Summary of Transformational Theory 

Transformational theory is a moral approach to leadership through the valuing of human dignity by the elevation of the self-esteems, fulfillments, and actualizations of those who follow (Whetstone, 2002).  “Transformational leaders demonstrate self-confidence, the ability to articulate a vision, a willingness to pursue the vision even if they must assume high personal risks, and an ability to promote change” (Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998, p. 1728).  Because this approach is also people-centered, there are parallels to the servant leadership model in areas such as “influence; vision; trust; respect/credibility; risk-sharing/delegation; integrity; and modeling” (Hannay, 2009, p. 4).  The servant theory developed from these with the concept of positioning the needs and desires of followers above and before those of the leaders (Whetstone, 2002).   Servant leadership introduced the new wave of theory that leads by emphasizing relationships and service to others (Taylor, Martin, Hutchinson, Jinks, 2007). 

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

References

Giampetro-Meyer, A., Brown, T., Browne, M., & Kubasek, N. (1998). Do We Really Want More Leaders  in Business?. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(15), 1727-1736. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Hannay, M. (2009). The Cross-cultural Leader: The Application of the Servant Leadership Theory in the International Context. Journal of International Business & Cultural Studies, 11-12. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.     

Taylor, T., Martin, B., Hutchinson, S., & Jinks, M. (2007). Examination of leadership practices of principals identified as servant leaders. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(4), 401-419. doi:10.1080/13603120701408262.

Whetstone, J. (2002). Personalism and Moral Leadership: The Servant Leader with a Transforming Vision. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(4), 385-392. Retrieved from Philosopher's Index database.

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Ordination, Personal & Leadership Development

Leader-Member Exchange Theory

By Michael Mooney

Definition

    Organizations function through working roles of people that are often defined through hierarchies of positions, titles, and responsibilities.  In one aspect these structures are clearly defined by positions and policies, yet there remain unofficial and ambiguous structures that are defined by interpersonal relations (Betts, p. 115, 2004).  People generally embrace work environments from at least one of two perspectives: leader to member or member to member (Chung-Kai & Chia-Hung, 2009).  Leader-member exchange theory (LMX) is the focus of such structures in the context of relationships between managers and subordinates. LMX is defined in terms of a series of transactions between managers and subordinates that result in psychological categories of statuses, persuasion, and or lack thereof.  The concept is that managers are limited in their allocation of time and resources; therefore pure equality among employees is simply not possible (Deluga, & Perry, 1994).  Members find their status’ within favorable or unfavorable groups based upon how well they do or do not work with leadership (Northouse, 2010).

Grouping

    These differentiations of familiarity and preferential treatments are further categorized as “high” and “low” quality, or “in” and “out” groups. Employees who are members of high groups are predictably more productive, strive for excellence, and assume responsibilities beyond their job descriptions.  LMX references these behaviors as the likely reasons why they achieve favorable statuses with management.  This naturally results in greater notability through increased interactions, and shared work related opinions.  Contrastingly, those of the low quality groups will experience minimal interactions with management weakening notability, appreciation, and mutual opinions (Mayfield, & Mayfield, p.74, 1998).  This group is not necessarily formed though leadership biases, but rather by the common attitude of not acting beyond their clearly defined job descriptions.  Naturally this outlook on the workplace is not well received by leaders who tend to see things in terms of the organization’s interest –in light of big picture thinking (Northouse, 2010).

Behaviors

    “Traditionally, leadership is treated as if it were completely determined by a leader's attributes…toward all workers…In contrast, LMX theory defines leadership as the specific work interactions between a leader and an individual worker” (Mayfield, & Mayfield, p. 73, 1998). The LMX model follows at least four specific behaviors. 1) Individualized consideration, the action of meeting member’s needs from an individual and subjective standpoint.  These needs can be emotional, physical, professional, etc.  2) Inspirational motivation, the process of vision casting.  3) Idealized influence, the building of rapport through the expression of personalities. 4) Intellectual stimulation, the leadership’s expression of special knowledge that promotes education of creativity (Chung-Kai & Chia-Hung, 2009).

Traits

    Day and Crain’s (1992) research shows that traits are very important factors in the overall perceptions leaders hold of members.  Such traits are thought of as instruments of impressions about productivity, social acceptance, employee turnover, etc.  Favorable and unfavorable characteristics are subjectively considered.  However, two predictable elements of leader’s assumptions of quality relations are 1) member’s skills; and 2) leader’s personal favoring of the of members (Day, & Crain, 1992).

Emotions

    Studies by Glasø and Einarsen (2008) observe the expression of emotions within the context of LMX environments.  They report that leadership is a highly involved process of emotional exchanges –many of which are not genuinely felt.  Notably, a large number of leaders make a distinction between “suppressed” and “faked” emotions.  Suppression is regarded as a quality to the application of LMX; whereas faking is perceived as dishonest.  More than 97% of surveyed leaders report that they suppress emotions, and in spite of the dishonest opinion, more than 94% report faking them.  The most common suppressed emotions are described as negative (frustration, disappointment, etc.), while the most common faked are described as positive (interest, enthusiasm, etc.).  It follows that members selected for leadership positions also share a commonality for natural emotional regulation abilities above those not selected as leadership penitential.  Contrastingly, once appointed to higher levels of status, leaders are then afforded more room for negative emotional expression, which ironically is often perceived by members as competence (Glasø, & Einarsen, 2008).  This obviously leads to perceptions of unjust or unequal circumstances in the work environment.

Organizational Justice

    Piccolo, Bardes, and Judge (2008) report that employees’ attitudes about job satisfaction, commitment, fatigue, and intentions regarding separation are all affected by perceptions of fairness in matters of procedure, distributions, and treatment.  Organizational justice is typically viewed through the lenses of procedural and interpersonal transactions with leaders.  Procedural judgments are formed around perceived fairness in the enforcement of policies, and interpersonal judgments are formed by interpretations of direct interactions with leaders.  It follows that productive outcomes flourish in environments of equability.  The key component is that leadership holds the trust of their high quality members.  Where trust is low, studies show that even fair conditions have little or no affect on employee cooperation.  However when trusted, employees are more likely to dismiss, justify, or at least minimize perceived negative circumstances because of their relationships with leadership.  “Exceptional leaders—in terms of their confidence, charisma, and leadership style—motivate followers to focus on aspects of procedural and interpersonal fairness…thus enhancing the utility of organizational justice” (Piccolo, Bardes, & Judge, p. 280, 2008).

Trust

    Deluga (1994) identifies trust as the essential element of employee satisfaction, productivity, and leadership effectiveness.  Of course it follows that perceptions of an unfair professional climate is the leading cause of suspicion and loss of trust in leadership. This outcome aligns with equity theory which predicts that employees will give back to organizations the proportion that they believe they are rewarded.  Low quality leadership exchanges are directly related to losses of morale and declined productivity.  However, high quality relationships result in employees feeling an obligation to return high quality labor.  Therefore, in spite of LMX outcomes of in and out crowds, leadership should do everything possible to sell the idea that all employees are treated equally.  Additional trust building actions

Are “supervisor availability, competence, consistency, discreetness, fairness, integrity, loyalty, openness, promise fulfillment, receptivity and overall trust” (Deluga, p. 317, 1994).

Leader’s Perspective

    Wilson, Sin, and Conlon (2010) provide research to the LMX school of thought considering the perspective of leaders’ transactions that result in their benefit from member resources.  They demonstrate that managers establish relationships with members through the allocation and reception of resources.  Leaders control resources valuable to members in the ability to assign preferred assignments, supply information, favorable recommendations, friendship, etc.  Members have resources valuable to leaders in greater commitment to organizational goals, personal loyalty to leaders, volunteering of time, etc.  In turn, a more concrete list shows that both leaders and members can reward each other with status, affiliation (love), service, information, goods, and money. (While money is a reasonable reward, it seems to be one of the least useful because the amount exchanged sends the message of also being the value of the recipient.)  Status comes from leadership in the form of preferred parking, unofficial authority, etc. and members provide it in terms of admiration and validation.  Affiliation is typically expressed by leadership in the form of encouraging words, while members express it through loyalty.  Leaders provide service by special favors and members by citizenship.  Information is a resource when leadership develops mentoring relationships, and members allocate “grapevine” talk upward.  Goods are typically office furnishings controlled by leadership, and members also provide them with personal gifts.  Lastly, money is supplied to members in the form of bonuses and raises, while it is supplied by members in the form of productivity that impacts leaders pay.  The essence of LMX is the proper utilization of these rewards to facilitate high quality relationships that produce high quality exchanges and results in the work environment (Wilson, Sin, & Conlon, 2010).

The Chosen

    The members who demonstrate attitudes favorable to leaders are generally selected for greater tasks –and are thereby transferred into the high quality class.  The process of their development follows a rather predictable three stage path.  In the first stage leaders interact with members on the level of rules and psychological contracts.  During this time roles are scripted and rooted in self interest.  At this point the only direction of influence is from leaders to members.  In the second stage testing begins between the two parties to determine trust, rapport, and personality.  At this point influence begins to flow upward from members to leaders.  In the third stage high exchanges occur regularly and both leaders and members have their focus on the interest of the organization’s goals (Northouse, 2010).  It is truly in this stage that members are negotiating and enjoying a sense of ownership over their personal situations.  This is a level of high quality because studies show “the relationship between locus of control and intrinsic/extrinsic job satisfaction, work-related well-being, and organizational commitment, was mediated by perceptions of LMX relations” (Martin, Charles, & McNamara, p.144, 2005).

Area of Further Study

    LMX seems to be a well established concept of leadership.  Yet, in the new 21st Century the workplace is changing rapidly.  More and more people are working in decentralized, and boundaryless organizations. Outsourcing, telecommuting, and virtual offices are all ways in which the contemporary work environment is rapidly changing.  More studies need to be conducted to discover the present perceptions of interpersonal transactions, as well as how to implement and LMX model in a world were leaders and members may rarely (if ever) interact in person.

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

Service Mark: National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Ordination, Personal & Leadership Development

References

Betts, S C (Jan 2004). Resolving a paradox between mentoring, LMX and charisma: a process approach to leadership development.(leader-member exchange)(Report).  Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 8, 1. p.111(15). Retrieved June 30, 2010, from Academic OneFile via Gale

Chung-Kai, L., & Chia-Hung, H. (2009). The Influence of Transformational Leadership on the Workplace Relationships and Job Performance. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 37(8), 1129-1142. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete  database.

Day, D V, & Crain, E C (Dec 1992). The role of affect and ability in initial exchange quality perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 17, n4. p.380(18). Retrieved June 30, 2010, from Academic OneFile via Gale

Deluga, R. (1994). Supervision trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational itizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 67(4), 315-326. Retrieved from Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection database.

Deluga, R J, & Perry, J (March 1994). The role of subordinate performance and ingratiation in leader-member exchanges.  Group & Organization Management, 19, n1. p.67(20). Retrieved June 30, 2010, from Academic   OneFile via Gale

Glasø, L., & Einarsen, S. (2008). Emotion regulation in leader-follower relationships. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 17(4), 482-500. doi:10.1080/13594320801994960.

Martin, R, Thomas, G, Charles, K, Epitropaki, O, & McNamara, R (March 2005). The role of leader-member exchanges in mediating the relationship between locus of control and     work reactions.  Journal of Occupational and Organizational  Psychology, 78, 1. p.141(7). Retrieved June 30, 2010, from Academic OneFile via Gale:

Mayfield, J., & Mayfield, M. (Wntr 1998). Increasing Worker Outcomes by Improving Leader Follower Relations.  Journal of Leadership Studies, 5, 1. p.72. Retrieved June 30, 2010, from Academic OneFile via Gale

Northouse, P. G.  (2010).  Leadership: Theory and Practice (5th ed.).  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.  ISBN: 978-1-4129-7488-2.

Piccolo, R., Bardes, M., Mayer, D., & Judge, T. (2008). Does high quality leader-member exchange accentuate the effects of organizational justice?. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 17(2), 273-298. doi:10.1080/13594320701743517.

Wilson, K., Sin, H., & Conlon, D. (2010). What About the Leader In the Leader Member Exchange? The Impact of Resource Exchanges and Substitutability on the Leader. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 358-372. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Ordination, Personal & Leadership Development

Jesus on Management

More is More

In Mathew 25:14-29, and Luke 16:1-2, Jesus tells two different parables that both have the same meaning.  In Matthew 25 He speaks of an investor who diversified his wealth among several account managers.  In the end the investor audited his venture and found capital gains with all of his brokers but one.  His response was that of any sensible businessman, he plowed back into the profitable account managers and fired (literally) the unprofitable one.  Jesus ended the story with this financial principal:

“For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will abound. But from him who has not, even that which he has shall be taken away from him” (Mat 25:29, MKJV).

Little is a Lot

In Luke 16 Jesus tells of a man who managed an investment for a wealthy tycoon.  After a while of carless management of resources, the owner called into account his property. Before the official audit the incompetent manager made arrangements with those who owed the owner money permitting them to pay off their debts at substantially reduced amounts.  While still disappointed, this impressed the owner who congratulated the manager for his craftiness.  Jesus ended this story with this financial principal:

“Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with a lot. Whoever is dishonest with very little is dishonest with a lot” (Luk 16:10 GW).

Principal(s)

The story from Luke 16 ends with a perspective of good management.  Those who are honest can be trusted with more responsibility, and the dishonest will lose in areas of trust, positions, and opportunities.  The story in Matthew 25 finalizes this rationale with a spiritual law; more comes to those who have, and those who do not will eventually lose that which they have.

There are a few observations to make here.  In both stories the object is that of managers who did not properly care for the investments that were entrusted to their care.  The manger in Matthew was fearful and lazy.  The manager in Luke was wasteful and implied as dishonest.  Jesus demonstrates that that the fearful manager was too afraid to invest.  As should be expected, “there is no wealth without risk” (old saying). The investor was rightfully unhappy, for he could have invested that money elsewhere and made a profit, but instead the original investment decreased in value with inflation.  Contrastingly, the squandering manager was not afraid to use his shareholder’s recourses, but instead wasted them.  In spite of the possible profits that he could have generated, they were needlessly wasted by a lack of concern for entrusted resources.

Management Perspective

Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that a Biblical perspective of management is good stewardship.  This is seemingly defined in terms of a balanced utilization of resources.  There should be no fear that prohibits their use, but they also should not be carelessly wasted.  Managers who are hired to manage investments are expected to frugally assume a level of risk with the intentions of a profitable return.  Risk is necessary to the growth of wealth, but so also is the proper allocation of resources.  Therefore, managers who do not profitably handle their resources will not remain in their positions.

Additional Thoughts

“Therefore, if you can't be trusted with wealth that is often used dishonestly, who will trust you with wealth that is real?  If you can't be trusted with someone else's wealth, who will give you your own?” (Luk 16:11-12 GW).

Believers should not overlook the small tests of their abilities to maintain quality control and proper levels of risk.  Such tests of value come at times when carelessness or fear could result in missing opportunities to be profitable (physically and spiritually).  We should not assume that these “small moments” are somehow insignificant.  Such could be the deciding factor of whether or not we will ever be entrusted with greater opportunities.

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

Service Mark: National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Ordination, Personal & Leadership Development

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Ordination, Personal & Leadership Development

When witnessing to others, every minister is bound to encounter “the Bible has contradictions” argument.  Regarding such, my experience with people who use this line of argumentation is that they are usually uninformed.  Therefore, such rebuttals to the efforts of evangelism are merely excuses for not having taken responsibility for the condition of their souls.  

Contrary to common thinking, it seems that the best way to deal with people like this is to ignore the proposed contradiction(s), and focus on the person claiming unbelief.  In other words, if you start to argue the meanings of Biblical paradoxes it will only lead to further denials by the unbeliever.  This is because they really are not concerned about contradictions. They are merely using such as an excuse to avoid the truth.  Here is how you may help them to realize this:

"Sir, I can appreciate your concern.  Who in their right mind would want to believe something that is full of inconsistent reasoning?  Now I imagine since you are really concerned with truth, you must have spent quite I great deal of time searching the scriptures to notice these apparent inconsistencies."

Note at this point you will discover that 9 out of 10 have not really studied the scriptures that intently -but they are not likely to admit it.  However, you are reinforcing a doubt of their own ability to interpret scripture because of their lack of study.

Continued:

"Sir, since you have done this, surely you also noticed some very good insights about how to make good decisions in life, right?"

Note now you are redirecting their attention to the truths of scripture.

Continued:

"After really embracing the truths that you found, I imagine that you began to live your life by them.  I would like to ask you two things here:

1) What was the outcome of living according to these truths in scripture?

2) How did it make you feel when you realized that you had been following the Bible, but discovered that it had contradictions?"

Note the point here is to help them realize in a subtle way that they really have not been taking their search for truth very seriously.

Continued:

"Sir, since you have discovered these contradictions, what have you done to find truth elsewhere in other religions, etc.?"

Note, again here you will find that most have not explored other alternatives to truth because they really are not interested in finding it.

From here you can begin to point out how contradictions can be found in almost any area of life, yet we go on living it...

Example:

Why go on living life, it has no purpose?  In the end we all die.

Why bother being nice to people if we feel negative feelings for them, is this not a contradictory behavior?

Moral of the story, we can find contradictions in anything we wish as long as it is our perspective to do so.  However, those who really are interested in truth will pursue it, and many will find it.

And I say to you, Ask and it shall be given you. Seek and you shall find. Knock and it shall be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives. And he who seeks finds. And to him who knocks it shall be opened. (Luk 11:9-10 MKJV).

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Ordination, Personal & Leadership Development

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Ordination, Personal & Leadership Development

A new (old) perspective on the church and culture

By Michael Mooney

"I am made all things to all men, so that I might by all means save some" (1Co 9:22 MKJV).

This is a powerful statement from the Apostle Paul, yet also the source of quite a bit of confusion.  In this passage he says that he became a  servant to all, a Jew to Jews, under the law for keepers of Moses’ law,  outside the Moses’ law for those who do not observe it (under the Law to Christ), weak to the weak, and all things to all men.

What he did not mean:

Sometimes it is easier to find the meaning of a passage by ruling out what that did not mean.  It seems reasonable to assume that Paul was not saying that he was a chameleon who went about pretending to be like every person he encountered.   Most people have met others like this and it is usually jugged as a frustrating and insincere encounter.  Many times people who do act this way, do so because the really don’t know who they are as individuals.  Contrarily, Paul did not struggle with his identity.

Neither did Paul imply that Christians act like the world.  He made it clear that he was free, but that he always kept the law of Christ in his encounters.

What he must have intended:

Paul must have been speaking of culture and personal preferences.  After all, the “law of Christ” makes no solid connection with culture being a matter of holiness.  Lets now consider culture.  Culture is an interesting word. Its mere utterance is sure to fill the imagination with all sorts of images, and none of them are likely to be the same from person to person. For this reason defining it proves to be quite problematic. Kroeber and Kluckhohn once collected more than 160 definitions for this term. Their findings show extensive perspectives ranging from heritage to protocols, and goods to behaviors. These elements are more specifically visible in ideals, ethnicity, thought patterns, ethical norms, social environments, religiosity, and ambitions. Therefore, culture has a general definition that alludes to various elements of societies, yet there seems to be no concrete thing that can be identified as culture (Cohen, 2009).  Rather, it seems that culture is indeed an abstract concept consisting of the manifestation of harmonized ideological elements.  These characteristics are what unites and or separates groups of people.  In Paul’s time such separations were that of races, tribes, and tongues.  In our modern times we now recognize these categories as societies.  Societies are made up of cultures, even sub-cultures within organizations (such as churches).

(Stay with me, we are going somewhere with this)

Communicating with and within cultures:

Globally speaking, there are two major communicatory types of cultures: high-context and low-context. Robbins and Judge (2009) define high-context cultures as relying “heavily on nonverbal and subtle situational cues in communicating with others” and low-context cultures as relying “essentially on words to convey meaning” (p. 374). High-context cultures are indigenous of communities with long-term relations that have developed customs with regard to everyday activities. People in these cultures are very close to one another within their villages and towns. Many of the hold very traditional values like respecting the elderly, etc.  In contrast, low-contxt cultures tend to be legalistic, with more short term relations that rely heavily upon verbal exchange (Satterlee & Robinson, 2008, p. 44-45).  Generally speaking, America is a low-context culture that prefers verbal communication. Businesses are operated under written contracts, and attorneys are employed to uphold them. Clearly, verbal communication is paramount to the American audience; whereas body language may say more in a Japanese culture.

Organizational Culture

Cultures within organizations (like churches) hold close connections to their structures. Although cultures are usually unique to the organizations where they exist, there is a common similarity in that they represent expectations in organizational behavior, protocols, and goals.  Cultures influence attitudes, ethics, quality, and performance; all of which ultimately determines turnover (parishioners leaving their churches).  Therefore, culture is essential to parishioners roles and their motivation toward organizational goals. (Mahal, 2009).  

What is the point in all of this?

All people fit into some category of culture.  Example secular categories are food and music preferences, etc., religious categories are Buddhist, Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, etc.  Paul became all things to all people in cultural categories that did not violate the law of Christ. Buddhism would probably be a violation.  However, denominational preferences, music preferences (jazz, classical, etc.), food preferences, style preferences, etc. are not likely to be such violations.  Paul was emphasizing that cultural “preferences” separate humanity, but he was willing to put his preferences aside so that he might win people to Christ.  Did he become a fan of these new cultural specifics (like rap music), who knows, but if he did not, he also did not let the people of that culture know his disregard for their customs.

In fact in Acts 17, when preaching on Mars Hill Paul quoted a poem written to Zeus as a means to connect with his audience:

“For in Him we live and move and have our being, as also certain of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring” (Act 17:28 MKJV).

“Zeus…It is right for mortals to call upon you, since from you we have our being, we whose lot it is to be God's image…” - Cleanthes (331-232 B.C.) a disciple of Zeno the Stoic.

“They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one— The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!  But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,  For in thee we live and move and have our being.” - Epimenides’ poem to Zeus.

There is a powerful lesson to be learned here.  Paul used the poetry of the culture around him to communicate the truth of the Gospel to the lost.  Even more interesting is that we are reading a poem to Zeus as now being the “inspired word of God” because Paul used it in his sermon.

The point here is this:

When God calls his church to be separate from the world, it does not seem that this has much to do with “culture”, BUT everything to do with “love, joy, peace, etc. –the fruit of the Spirit vs. the flesh (complete list in Galatians 5).  Unfortunately Christians have a tendency to attribute our cultural “tastes” and “preferences” to God. The things we like, we seem to think that God also likes, and the things that we abhor, well they must also be an abomination to Him.

Looking back at church history,  there seems to be a pattern from generation to generation of preaching against, or banning certain activities, clothing styles, subjects, substances etc. Strangely enough what was evil to one church generation later becomes acceptable to the next. For example, not too many years ago it was evil or “worldly” for women to wear pants, or work outside the home, and for men to wear earrings and or long hair. Yet today for the most part (with the exception of some small church sects) this is how people dress for church! Did somehow God’s standard of holiness change? Of course not! If we will be honest with ourselves and everyone else, we as Christians have a tendency to make God the object of reason to justify our excuses for our own personal preferences. If we do not like a particular music style, haircut, way of thinking, or popular trend, it becomes all too tempting to declare that God does not approve of it. After all, if we can demonstrate that God does not approve of it, then we have a reason to persuade everyone else to our particular preferences.

It was not so with Paul! He used the culture around him to bring people to Christ.  Paul said "I am made all things to all men, so that I might by all means save some" (1Co 9:22 MKJV).  What if churches actually did this?  What if churches actually stopped telling people to come be like their predominate cultural preferences (within their organizations), and instead began embracing the cultures where their churches are planted?  Church growth is something that would likely follow such an attitude.  Paul did this and he also said, “Therefore I beseech you, be imitators of me (1Co 4:16 MKJV).

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Ordination, Personal & Leadership Development

References 

Cohen, A. (2009, April). Many forms of culture. AmericanPsychologist, 64(3), 194-204.

Cultures

Mahal, P. (2009). Organizational Culture and OrganizationalClimate as a Determinant of

Motivation. IUP Journal of Management Research, 8(10), 38-51. Retrieved fromBusiness Source Complete database.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Organizationalbehavior (Liberty University ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

From the book: Lead like Jesus

"Think for a moment on the depth of character and the love Jesus displayed in that intense moment for His disciples, who writhing hours would abandon and deny Him. He did not give in to the temptation to despair over their slowness to grasp the essence of what He had repeatedly taught then about how they should lead. As the ultimate servant leader, Jesus demonstrated His willingness to provide what the disciples needed most to grow and develop in their ability to fulfill their mission, which was to be taught one more time" (Blanchard, 2006, p. 109).

Reference

Blanchard, Ken, & Hodges, Phil. (2006). Lead like Jesus: Lessons from the greatest leadership

role model of all time. United States: W. Publishing Group. 

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

Whether you are a pastor, minister, or in any other form of leadership there always seems to be disconnects between leadership wants and the desires of those they serve.  In retail settings the age-old philosophy of service is expressed in the saying, "the customer is always right".  This of course is not entirely true –not even with parishioners (pun intended).  Obviously the customer is not always right, for they would quickly be "wrong" if they decided that everything should be 90% off the asking price.  Maintaining a proper balance here, and making sure employees (and even volunteers) understand it can be quite challenging.  "When there is a conflict between what the customer wants and what the boss wants, the boss wins" (Blanchard & Hodges , 2006, p. 101).  In retail settings this too often goes the wrong way.  Employees tell customers " no" to unreasonable requests, then managers tell them "yes" after complaints.  This might send a servant leadership message to customers, but not to the employees who are actually supposed to follow the managers. 

In like manner, if laity does not understand their church’s overall policies, they will make decisions when asked by parishioners.  If the parishioners are unpleased, leadership will usually be the first notified.  At that point, it will send a poor message of leadership to overrule the previous decision of the laity in an attempt to satisfy the unhappy party.  While there are times that overruling situations like these may be necessary, when at all possible it is better to support the previous decision.  The best way to do this is to make sure that the laity understands the way leadership makes decisions and the policies that surround them.

And the LORD answered me: "Write the vision; make it plain on tablets, so he may run who reads it.

(Hab 2:2 ESV)

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

References

Blanchard, Ken, & Hodges, Phil. (2006). Lead like Jesus: Lessons from the greatest leadership

role model of all time. United States: W. Publishing Group. 

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

Robert Neuschel utilized his understanding of the Judéo-Christian heritage to establish a theory of several key qualities that accompany servant leaders.  He believes that such leaders should facilitate their people to perform at their highest levels of competence by helping them to find significance in their duties. This is in conjunction with leadership’s efforts to develop the whole persons (mind and soul) of others through continual growth processes.  The attitude that leads this way does not see their positions of leadership as social advantages, but rather as a means of personal growth that raises everyone around them.  Neuschel’s concept is that knowledge is not enough to lead others because people will not follow leaders who do not personally grow themselves.  Therefore, knowledge must translate into actions that water the seeds of growth (Tellerman, 1999).

For to whomever much is given, of him much shall be required. And to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more" (Luk 12:48, MKJV).

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

Reference

Tellerman, J. (1999, February). The Editor's Perspective. The Group Psychologist, p. 2. Retrieved

from PsycEXTRA database. 

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

Summary

Ordained ministers find themselves in situations where they must speak before audiences on regular occasions.  Yet many find themselves horrified at the idea of public speaking.  This paper is a consideration of the problem of speech apprehension. The problem itself, along with some of the most common causes of anxiety that are associated with public speaking will be explored. In addition, thought is given to steps that may reduce these fears and increase competence.

The Problem

Surveys indicate that one of the greatest fears Americans face is the issue of public speaking (Cunningham, Lefkoe, & Sechrest, 2006). This phobia can hinder quality of life, result in health issues, and prohibit promotions and career paths. In addition , most colleges in America require students to pass a public speaking class (or expect the equivalent) in order to graduate (Pearson, DeWitt, Child, Kahl, & Dandamudi, 2007). This fear is not like other phobias. Many may fear spiders (arachnophobia), small spaces (claustrophobia), firearms, and heights (acrophobia), but these things can realistically be avoided. Contrarily, whether leading an interest related small group, project managing, or being honored with an award, public speaking is bound to be encountered throughout the course of life. Therefore, finding ways to overcome, or at least cope with this phobia is paramount to not hindering success.

Definition

Glossophobia, the fear of public speaking, is typically known as stage fright, speech anxiety, or communication apprehension (CA). Pearson et al. (2007) reports CA as “an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with real or anticipated communication with another person or persons” (p. 160). This definition covers fear on the levels of interpersonal relations (such as one-on-one personal interaction), as well as public addresses. Experienced stage fright is described as causing profound discomfort, loss of thought, weakness in knees, increased heart rate, profuse sweating, and physical chills. In addition, researchers measure the symptoms of speech anxiety in two classes: high-speech-anxious, and low-speech-anxious. High-speech-anxious people are more threatened by the notion of public speaking, expect to perform negatively, and experience greater frustration than low-speech-anxious people (Witt, Brown, Roberts, Weisel, Sawyer, & Behnke, 2006).                              

Trait or State

There is much debate over the question of whether CA is a state of being, or an inherited trait. Those who hold the state position believe that personal perceptions of external stimuli results in the behavior of the CA condition. The emphasis of this position is upon external factors. In contrast, proponents of the trait perspective believe that CA is a biologically inherited characteristic. This position is highly controversial. At best, research has shown an association between genetics and CA (Pearson et al. 2007). Much of the disagreement seems to come from the implications of the two position’s fundamental arguments. State proponents are inclined to believe that this phobia can be overcome. They argue that CA is less susceptible to therapeutic conditioning if it is a trait. From a theoretical perspective, researchers may have discovered a common ground for both positions. Witt et al. (2006) reports, “trait anxiety measures how people generally feel across situations and time periods, and state anxiety is defined as the anxiety people feel in a particular situation and at a particular time” (p. 88).

Causes of Speech Apprehension

Next it seems appropriate to consider the causes of CA. Pribyl, Keaten, and Sakamoto (2001) report a developed list of situations that often result in anxiety: “novelty, unfamiliarity, formality, subordinate status, conspicuousness, degree of attention from others, and dissimilarity” (p. 149). In the context of speech apprehension, novelty is defined as a lack of association with speech material. Unfamiliarity speaks of a lack of acquaintance with the audience. Formality is the measure of order and rules present during the presentation. Subordinate status brings attention to the potentiality of unfavorable evaluations by superiors. Conspicuousness refers to the solitary efforts of the speaker during speech delivery. Like subordinate status, degree of attention from others deals with the fear of unfavorable evaluations by the audience in general. Dissimilarity refers to the uncertainty of the audience’s position toward the topic of the presentation (Pribyl et al. 2001).

The What if Question

Each of the before listed seem to be regular issues of concern for people suffering with public speaking anxiety (whether they are aware of them or not). Additionally, each of the listed have one dominate theme; they manifest fear through the “what if” question. The afflicted are plagued by the question of what if during a speech: they mispronounce a word, are disliked by the audience, face resistance by opposing opinions etc. Cunningham et al. (2006) reports:                                                        

The fear of public speaking is typically caused by (a) specific beliefs, such as ‘Mistakes     and failure are bad’ and ‘If I make a mistake, I’ll be rejected’ and (b) conditioning, such     as automatically experiencing fear whenever one is, or perceives oneself to be, in a     position to be criticized or judged (183).

Therefore, it seems that CA is rooted in the fear of rejection (generally speaking). People ultimately want to be accepted and appreciated. The concept of perfection (the lack of mistakes) seems to be associated with acceptance. Therefore, the reasoning is that all perfect people will be accepted, and that people who make mistakes are unacceptable. This seems to be the framework of “specific beliefs” in the above referenced Cunningham (2006) report.

Treatment

He has said, "Not at all will I leave you, not at all will I forsake you, never!" so that we may boldly say, "The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear..." (Heb 13:5-6 MKJV)

Four Stages of Competence

There are a number of steps that can be taken to eliminate CA, or at lease alleviate some of the anxiety associated with it. From a state perspective of CA, the solution to the problem is to acknowledge it, then modify behavior to a position of competence. As referenced by White (2007), there are four stages of competence: “Stage 1: Unconscious Incompetence Stage 2: Conscious Incompetence Stage 3: Conscious Competence Stage 4: Unconscious Competence” (p. 180). People desiring to overcome CA should realize their present state. Stage one is not likely a cause of anxiety because it is a place of ignorance. Stage two seems to be the most acknowledged because generally the anxiety causing fear is a result of the desire to avoid conscious incompetence. The goal from this point is to move to stage three where the speaker can consciously control the projection of their competence. In time this level will transition to unconscious competence; the most natural state of being (Decker, n.d.) Achieving this level will require some forethought.

Preparation

Preparing for a public oration is essential to the projection of competence. By preparing, orators can organize their material, and be more in control of what it is they intend to say. Occasionally, there are situations where people are urged to present impromptu presentations. Even then, the speakers who have anticipated an invitation to speak has somewhat prepared; thereby, reducing nervousness and increasing persuasiveness (Penrose, Rasberry, & Myers, 2008).

Practice

The idea of practicing may seem obvious, yet it is often overlooked. Practicing will overcome the unfamiliarity element that causes CA, referenced earlier by Pribyl et al. (2001). There are several ways to rehearse speeches: alone with notes, in front of a mirror, in front of a friend or small group. The benefits of using a mirror are invaluable. This technique provides instant feedback and makes the speakers aware of their nonverbal cues and body language. Research indicates that students who practiced their speeches before a mirror scored higher on evaluations, and those who practiced before an audience scored even higher (Smith and Frymier, 2006).

Jesus said to him, If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes. (Mar 9:23 MKJV)

Think Positive

There is an old Hebrew proverb that says, a person is as they think in their heart (Pro 23:7). If people are feeling inadequate or frightened, entertaining these thoughts will only result in self-fulfilling prophecies. When people are feeling anxious about giving a speech, they should counter these thoughts with positive thoughts of affirmation. They should remember that their self worth is not measured by their ability to deliver a speech, and that mistakes are permissible because everyone makes them. Witt et al. (2006) reports:

Hu and Romans-Kroll (1995) found that trait-anxious students who practiced a positive thinking exercise before delivering speeches experienced less anxiety and a lower heart rate than those using negative or neutral thinking statements. Perhaps positive-thinking exercises before delivering a speech could decrease the occurrence or intensity of gastrointestinal sensations in trait-anxious speakers and, thereby, lead to a more favorable speaking experience. Prespeaking exercises, therefore, actually may offer the greatest  promise for reducing anxiety symptoms during the speech performance itself (p. 98).

Visualization of Achievement

It is amazing what people can achieve if they see themselves do it first in their mind’s eye. Visualization is the process of a speaker positively thinking their way through the entire event that they anticipate. It is a proven method in reducing speech anxiety and is as effective as many other common approaches such as emotive therapy and systematic desensitization (Ayres, 1988). In doing so, it is helpful to note that there are four landmarks in the process of a speech presentation. The first is the time just before the speech when the speaker is filled with expectation. Next there is the moment of engagement that takes place with the speaker opening words. Third, there is the summary stage in the closing remarks of the presentation. Lastly there is the dismissal when everyone is free to move about and socialize (Witt, et al. 2006). People suffering from CA should carefully visualize themselves acting out each of these steps successfully. They should see the anticipation stage, feel the intensity of the moment, then see themselves relaxing as they take a sip of water. Then they should see themselves addressing the audience with confidence, and take a breath of relief as they have passed this milestone. Next, they should see themselves charismatically calling the audience to action as they give their well rehearsed closing remarks. Finally, they should see the audience applauding the good job that they did in giving the presentation, along with people wanting to congratulate them afterwards.

This process is designed to replace the negative visions that the speakers have already rehearsed in their minds. People suffering from CA have come to believe that they are not good at giving speeches. They have accepted this position as the truth, instead of potentially a truth. The problem is that people’s supposed evidence for believing negativity about themselves is usually inconsistent with the real reasons for which they believe it. Many claim that they are failures at public oration because of their negative interpretations of the circumstances of previous experiences. However, this is a subjective perceptual effect, and not necessarily the cause. As they continue to believe these things about themselves, they are bound to manifest their own self-expectations of failure (Cunningham et al. 2006).

Summary

People can fear public speaking so much so that it is debilitating to their lives. This fear is generally referred to as stage fright, speech anxiety, or communication apprehension (CA). Many still debate over whether CA is a state of being, or a trait of birth. There are a number of factors that manifest CA, and all of them have fear as a common theme. This fear can be overcome by the increase of competence. Steps that may be taken to generate this increase are: preparation, practice, positive thinking, and visualization.

Above all, “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. (Php 4:13 MKJV)

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

References

Ayres, J. (1988, October). Coping with Speech Anxiety: The Power of Positive Thinking.     Communication Education, 37(4), 289. Retrieved April 18, 2009, from     Communication & Mass Media Complete database.

Bert , Decker. (Speaker). (n.d.). Speak to Win (Cassette Recording No. 122-2). Chicago IL:     Nightingale-Conant Corporation.

Cunningham, V., Lefkoe, M., & Sechrest, L. (2006, May). Eliminating fears: an intervention that     permanently eliminates the fear of public speaking. Clinical Psychology &     Psychotherapy, 13(3), 183-193. Retrieved April 14, 2009, doi:10.1002/cpp.487

Pearson, J., DeWitt, L., Child, J., Kahl, D., & Dandamudi, V. (2007, May). Facing the Fear: An     Analysis of Speech-Anxiety Content in Public-Speaking Textbooks. Communication     Research Reports, 24(2), 159-168. Retrieved April 14, 2009,     doi:10.1080/08824090701304923

Penrose, J. M., Rasberry, R. W., & Myers, R. J. (2008). Business communication for managers:    An advanced approach. In J. M. Penrose, R. W. Rasberry, R. J. Myers, & R. W.    Rasberry, Liberty MBA effective executive communication (2nd ed.). United States: Thompson.

Pribyl, C., Keaten, J., & Sakamoto, M. (2001, September). The effectiveness of a skills-based     program in reducing public speaking anxiety. Japanese Psychological Research, 43(3),     148. Retrieved April 14, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database.

Smith, T., & Frymier, A. (2006, February). Get ‘Real’: Does Practicing Speeches Before an     Audience Improve Performance?. Communication Quarterly, 54(1), 111-125. Retrieved     April 17, 2009, doi:10.1080/01463370500270538

White, C. (2007, September). Team learning and the role of expert knowledge. Practice     Development in Health Care, 6(3), 177-185. Retrieved April 17, 2009, doi:10.1002/pdh.230

Witt, P., Brown, K., Roberts, J., Weisel, J., Sawyer, C., & Behnke, R. (2006, March). Somatic     Anxiety Patterns Before, During, and After Giving a Public Speech. Southern  Communication Journal, 71(1), 87-100. Retrieved April 14, 2009,     doi:10.1080/10417940500503555

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

It is not uncommon that ordained ministers find themselves in situations where they must speak before audiences –especially if they pastor churches.  Something that should be considered in any situation where they must communicate (before audiences, interpersonally, email, etc.) is:

What are our words communicating?  Are they conveying the messages that we intend our audiences to receive?

"Words are the best medium of exchange of thoughts and ideas between people." –William Ross

Compare the above quote to this one:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Joh 1:1 ESV)

The conclusion is that Jesus was the message of God. The word for "word" in the above verse is Logos, which was understood in John's day as "the divine mind". What it seems that John is telling us is that Jesus is the full expression of God's thoughts and reasoning. Notice especially that God chose to have Jesus called "The Word".  This demonstrates that God's plan for communication with humans is through the use of words; therefore, words are of extreme importance.

"Words are one of our chief means of adjusting to all the situations of life. The better control we have over words, the more successful our adjustment is likely to be." –Bergen Evans

We are left asking the question of the meaning of words. We have dictionaries to help us with these meanings, but dictionaries are really nothing more than an attempt to produce a standard for the "meanings" that words have in the minds of people.

Consider this loaded phrase:

The gay man had intercourse with several others at a party.

Definitions:

Gay, "cheery: bright and pleasant".

Intercourse, "communication between individuals".

Party, "an occasion on which people can assemble for social interaction and entertainment".

The dictionary definitions above are quite different than what most would have expected the statement.  Yet by the dictionary’s definition, there is nothing strange about the statement.  If ministers were to use such terms during the discourse of their messages it would likely prove very distracting to their audiences.

Example:  A minister closes a sermon saying, “let us pray.  Our Father we want to thank you for this time we have enjoyed today having intercourse with one another…”

It seems safe to say that there would be some in the audience whose mind would wander from prayer and reverence to something less appropriate.  However, this could all be avoided if the minister were more selective of their words.  A good way to be ever careful about this issue is to consider this question before every speaking engagement:

How can a communicator benefit by using words according to the way in which they think the receiver will interpret their meaning, rather than their definition?

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

Jesus, Greenleaf, and Servant Leadership

By Michael Mooney

Summary

Robert Greenleaf is at the forefront of servant leadership theory in the world today.  This brief post examines Greenleaf’s highlights in conjunction with a Biblical perspective.  Additionally, servant leadership is defined as a model in terms of the life of Jesus Christ.

Leadership Theory of Robert Greenleaf

Robert Greenleaf is recognized for popularizing the term “servant leader”, a cliché originating from his private writings of professional enlargement. From these, Larry Spears categorizes ten fundamental attributes of servant leadership: “listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth of people, and building community” (Greenleaf, 1996, p. 4).  At the heart of this list is strength, a word which Greenleaf conceptualizes into a quintessential virtue of leadership.  Strength to him is an abstract power of persuasive ability to set goals, and approach them while accepting responsibility for individual and social outcomes in the process.  It should be noted that this definition is quite removed from any standard meaning of strength (Professor, 2010).

The Source of Strength 

Equally as eccentric, Greenleaf claims that strength is not gained or increased by resistance, endurance, calculated methods or even religious observance.  Yet somehow in spite of these things he encourages leaders to question themselves for preparedness to increase their strength (as if they could take steps to attain it).  Empowered by entheos, leaders are encouraged to search within themselves for greater insight and wisdom that accompanies human experiences and reflection (Greenleaf, 1996, p. 4). 

Christianity Contrasted.  With a focus upon an Eastern like energy, this approach to inner strength carries strong innuendos of Buddhism.  Greenleaf’s heavy emphasis upon the spirit of man as the source of power leaves little room for the Spirit of God.  This statement might come as a surprise even to some Christians, but mature believers understand that “God resists the proud, but He gives grace to the humble” (Jas 4:6, MKJV).  In this humility is the understanding that even if there were foolishness with God, it would still be wiser than the zenith of mankind’s intellectual faculties (I Cor. 1:25).  For Christians strength comes in recognizing human weakness; thereby placing all confidence in God (II Cor. 12:9-11).  Christian strength is expressed in the quote: “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me” (Php 4:13, MKJV).

Man vs. God-centered Service.  Greenleaf teaches social responsibility as an ethic by which mankind becomes the object of service in his theory of leadership.  This can be a compelling conviction, while also confusing to Christians (Duby, 2009).  Greenleaf’s premise sounds as if it is an extension of Christian theology; however, there is a subtle difference between the two ideologies in the object of service.  Greenleaf places mankind as the object while the teachings of scripture reserve this place for God alone (Mat. 4:10).  Ironically, God commands believers to serve Him by serving others (Mat. 12:31; Gal. 5:13; Col. 3:22-24).  The clear distinction is in both the extrinsic and intrinsic motivations to serve God in all activities (Col. 3:23).  A Biblical worldview places God before all (Duby, 2009). 

Jesus’ Model of Servant Leadership

Greenleaf’s ideology is similar to the parable of the wheat and the tares in that both good and bad concepts arise from it (Professor, 2010).  “To have a Christian perspective on servant leadership we must acknowledge the source, Jesus Christ” (Fischer, 2010, lecture).  He is the epitome of service through leadership (Mar. 10:45; John 1:1-3).  Therefore, it follows that His life provides a model, one that is not contractual, but rather relational (Fischer, 2010).   Blanchard & Hodges (2006) classify four key qualities of Jesus’ life that are important to leadership: heart, head, hands, habits.  The heart is descriptive of the attitude of loving like Jesus with a “heart” of service.  The head is descriptive of the action of studying and regularly evaluating personal intentions and beliefs regarding leadership.  The hands are descriptive of the application of servant beliefs.  Habits are descriptive of the regular practice prayer, solitude, reflection, and rest.  These four qualities are visible in a comparison of Jesus’ model and Larry Spears’ attributes:

•    Jesus listened to His people (Mat. 8:10)

•    Jesus was aware (Luke 11:44)

•    Jesus conceptualized big ideas (John 10:10)

•    Jesus had empathy (John 11:35)

•    Jesus healed His people (Mat. 14:14)

•    Jesus mentored others with a commitment to their growth (Mat. 10:1)

•    Jesus utilized others to build community (Luke 10:1)

•    Jesus practiced stewardship with all that He had (Mat. 22:21)

•    Jesus had foresight (Mat. 12:25; John 6:64, 13:11)

Additionally:

•    Jesus was persuasive (Mat. 2:14)

•    Jesus taught His people (Mat. 13:54)

•    Jesus took responsibility for His people’s failures (2 Cor. 2:21)

•    Jesus sacrificed Himself for His people (John 15:13)

•    Jesus humbled Himself to personal growth and development (Php. 2:7; Luke 2:40)

•    Jesus humbled Himself to remedial duties for His people (John 13:14)

Conclusion

Therefore, the conclusion is that “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecc 1:9, MKJV).  Jesus modeled servant leadership long before Greenleaf ever existed.

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

References

Blanchard, Ken, & Hodges, Phil. (2006). Lead like Jesus: Lessons from the greatest leadership

role model of all time. United States: W. Publishing Group. 

Collins, James C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap … and others don't.

New York: HarperCollins. 

Duby, David G. (2009). The Greatest Commandment: The Foundation for Biblical Servant

Leadership. Liberty University, Lynchburg Virginia.

Fischer, K. (2010, April). Biblical Leadership. Lecture conducted from Liberty University,

Lynchburg, VA.

Greenleaf, Robert. K. (1996). On becoming a servant leader. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Professor. (2010, April). Untitled BUSI 502 Lectures: Professor’s Notes. Lecture conducted

from Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA.

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

Time is a very interesting aspect of the human experience.  The best we can know, it began with the earth because the Bible says “in the beginning God created…” Therefore, it seems to follow that this beginning included time.  Since then, humankind has been racing around the globe to measure the hours, days, years, etc. –our modern world now measures minutes and seconds.  Yet somehow in the hustle of things, and with the advancements of time measurements abilities, we seem to act like we have less time than ever.

Consider this powerful thought:

The one thing that every person has in common with Jesus, Paul, Peter, Moses, George Washington, Bill Gates, even the world’s richest, attractive, most powerful, most popular, etc. is this: Every person has the same amount of time everyday (24 hours) that these people had and those living still have. All of us have 24 hours a day.  God has not given some of these great people 36 or even simply 25.  Therefore, some people may have financial and influential benefits over others, but no one has the benefit over another of even one more minute out of 24 hours a day. What does this mean?  It means that we are all stewards of our time and the successful learn how to make the most of it.  Paul sad:

Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time.  (Col 4:5 ESV)

Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil.  (Eph 5:15-16 ESV)

Let’s consider these things, who knows what may be accomplished in the time we have!

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

References

How to maximize your time for the greatest profit, Guthy-Ranker 1990.

The Minister’s Fear of Success -impostor phenomenon

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

“With every success, neurotic impostors think, ‘I was lucky this time, fooling everyone, but will my luck hold? When will people discover that I'm not up to the job?’” (Kets de Vries).

The reality is that at overwhelming number of successful people in the world believe that their success is just luck and that they are somehow just a fake who will be discovered as a failure.  People around them see them as very capable, intelligent, and talented while they believe just the opposite of themselves.  This is known as impostor phenomenon, or imposter syndrome. While it plagues both men and women, the ladies seem to struggle with it the most.  Psychologists believe the reason for this is because of social expectations and guilt feelings associated with working outside of the home, etc. Often the unfortunate outcome of the impostor phenomenon is one’s own sabotage of their success believing that they are unworthy of having such status (Kets de Vries).

More extreme examples of self handicapping included binge drinking, using drugs, failing to live up to commitments, withdrawing from relations with people, etc. The idea is that by acting out in these ways they can demonstrate that they never should have been successful in the first place.  The irony is that in some cases, none of these destructive behaviors are a real reflection if their character.  For example, the one who fails to meet commitments might really be a person who believes that being on time is very important.  One who indulges in binge drinking, may not like alcohol in the first place.

Strangely enough, some 70% of successful adults report having had this problem.  Common personality patterns associated are perfectionism and procrastination.  Perfectionism comes from insisting on unrealistic excellence (for fear of being exposed as an imposter), then feeling guilty upon realizing this goal is unattainable.  Procrastination because of the urge to delay tasks for fear of not living up to expectations and being judged as incompetent.  Other more subtle symptoms of the impostor phenomenon are: * dismissing success as luck or following someone’s good advice * discounting praise offered to them by others * failure to see the big picture * disinclined to ask for help * ridiculously humble * uninterested in team work * complicates simple tasks * never expects to be good at anything.  Seemingly contrary to all of these things, psychologists suggest that people with these problems should keep a record of their achievements and review it regularly to build confidence (Hirschfeld).

We love Him because He first loved us (1Jn 4:19 MKJV).

As the old saying goes, “we should believe in ourselves because God believes in us and He cannot be wrong!”

The writer of Hebrews tells us, “without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (Heb 11:6 MKJV).

From this scripture we can conclude a few things:

1) Faith is essential to pleasing God

2) A portion of that faith should be in believing that He rewards those who seek Him

THEREFORE, a certain amount of success should be expected to follow those who follow the Lord (in ministry, etc.  This should be embraced and never sabotaged, or avoided, or even downplayed…

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

References

Hirschfeld, M. (1985). Is There an Impostor in Your Office? Management Review, 74(9), 44. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Kets de Vries, M. (2005). The Dangers of Feeling Like a Fake. Harvard Business Review, 83(9), 108-116. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

Expectations are key in this area.  It seems inevitable that advancement results in greater responsibilities.  Such follows that more things will compete for the leader’s time and attention.   Therefore, like a chain reaction stress levels increase and attitudes become all the more difficult to monitor.  Eventually it becomes all too easy to hide behind the “I’m too busy” excuse, and expect that everyone should understand his or her absence of attention, time, etc.  Therefore, phone calls, emails, memos, personal letters and the like go without responses and “thank yous” are lessened.

Unfortunately, the above description fails to consider the truth that people generally do what they want.  When a person says that they do not have time, what they are really saying is that something else is more important for their time than that for which they have none.  Many people consider this rejection, which results in all sorts of unproductive behaviors.  When enough of these such encounters arise (coupled with stress), ministers and leaders begin to wonder why they are leaders in the first place –and service is lost.

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

Have you ever heard someone (especially at church) say, “don’t compliment them or they might get a big head?”  Somehow there is the notion among many Christians that encouraging someone for their abilities will result in the person becoming prideful. Strangely such a concept that is so prevalent among Christians seems to be unbiblical:

Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing. (1Th 5:11 ESV)

“Finally, my brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are honest, whatever things are right, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report; if there is any virtue and if there is any praise, think on these things” (Php 4:8, MKJV).

People Perspective

Fellow recognition is not necessarily a bad thing.  Studies show that “employees who feel appreciated are more positive with their selves and their ability to contribute to the success of the company” (Remarkable Recognition, p. 56).  In fact, one employee recognition program was used as a study to monitor attendance at work.  The results show that the program was associated with a 28% decrease in employee sick leave.  When the recognition stopped, sick leave perpetually increased over the next 3 years (Werner, 1992).

How might we be stifling ministers, laity, and Brothers and Sisters in the faith by withholding the recognition and encouragement that they need?  Even when Jesus addressed the churches in Revelation chapters 2-3, He opened His statements with praise (with the exception of Laodicea).

Ordained Minister's/Leadership Perspective

Contrarily, “one of the most difficult challenges a leader faces is not to pay too much attention to criticism or praise” (Blanchard & Hodges, 2006, p.157). Ordained ministers, pastors, leaders etc. need to think hard about their needs to be praised and appreciated.  The need for recognition is probably more apparent to followers than the leaders that need it.  Such can quickly result in blind spots that hinder the influence of leadership and ministry.  From a servant minister’s perspective, James says “God resists the proud, but He gives grace to the humble” (Jas 4:6, MKJV).  Any leadership that is being resisted by God is headed for failure.

Bottom line

1) Any person who seeks to encourage others and strengthen them with praise is ministering to fundamental human needs.   Such a person will gain influence with these people that will not quickly be shaken; thereby positioning them as a leader in the lives of others.

2) Ordained ministers and leaders should regularly evaluate their own needs for recognition so that they are not blinded in their decisions to lead effectively.

All rights reserved.  Blog authored by Michael Mooney for:

National Association of Christian Ministers (NACM) www.nacministers.com

Ordained Minister's Free Online Guide to Mentorship, Pastoring, Personal & Leadership Development

References

Blanchard, Ken, & Hodges, Phil. (2006). Lead like Jesus: Lessons from the greatest leadership role model of all time. United States: W. Publishing Group.  

Remarkable Recognition (2008). Professional Safety, 53(8), 56. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Werner, G. (1992). Employee Recognition: A Procedure to Reinforce Work Attendance. Behavioral Residential Treatment, 7(3), 199-204. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.