AN EVALUATION OF CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP STYLES, STRUCTURE, AND INFLUENCE IN MY CULTURAL/MINISTERIAL CONTEXT

By

Joe Chan

030088509 MUS

Unit IV Assignment

Submitted to Dr. Frank Niles

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

LRD5013

Foundations for Christian Leadership

Global University

June 2007

2

Joe/Chan, 030088509 MUS

LRD5013/Foundations for Christian Leadership

The Predominant Leadership Styles in My Ministry In studying Christian leadership, we may first define a Christian leader as “a person with God-given capacity and with God-given responsibilities to influence a specific group of God’s people toward God’s purposes for the group” (Clinton 1984, 11). In this paper, I am focusing on “Union Gospel Fellowship,” a Christian charitable organization in Hong Kong that preaches to people of emotional disorder and the elderly and organizing bible studies for the neighborhood. Using Downey’s framework of leadership styles, we may discern some of the predominant leadership styles that influence a Christian organization.

In terms of leadership styles, Downey’s first taxonomy is the “directive/non-directive continuum” (Downey 1982, 21-23), which is also referred as the “autocratic-democratic continuum” (Clinton 1984, 26). In this perspective, the Fellowship tends towards democratic as many of the decision, including programs and schedules, are decided by consensus.

The second taxonomy is the “low/high concern for personhood continuum” (Clinton 1984, 26). The Fellowship is observed to have a high concern for personhood. I can recall one incident: the Chairman of the Fellowship invited a leader for “condolence meal” when he (as driver) mistakenly overlooked the leader in driving back home. However, the Chairman realized his error a few minutes later to pick him up. I consider such “meal” unwarranted, but it illustrates the high concern for personhood of the Fellowship.

A third taxonomy is the “task-motivated/relationship-motivated continuum” (Downey

3

Joe/Chan, 030088509 MUS

LRD5013/Foundations for Christian Leadership

1982, 21-23). I observe that the Fellowship maintains a good balance between task and relationship. For instance, the Fellowship has been visiting more centers of the emotionally disordered. In view of the tight timing, it has rented a motor van capable of carrying 28 people and organizes the programs over public holidays to cater for the busy working lives in Hong Kong. Similar to a church setting, this accords with Clinton’s comments that “pastors who are successful in leading their congregation into growth are generally task motivated even though they maintain a high concern for people” (Clinton 1984, 26). This also fits well with Blake and Moulton’s Managerial Grid, whereby the “ideal leadership style is very high in relationship and very high in task. All leaders should strive for this style” (Clinton 1984, 31).

The last taxonomy is the “need for flexibility” (Downey 1982: 21-23), which I observe the changing leadership styles over the past decade. During the founding period in 1994 when the Fellowship was still a small “private club,” the leadership style was more non-directive and relationship-motivated. However, in recent years of growth in the spectrum of programs, the Fellowship’s leadership styles are geared towards task-motivated, although the concern over personhood remains high. In fact, “to be most effective, the leader should be able to adapt his style of leadership to the people and the environment in which he operates” (Kilinski and Wofford 1973, 78). In this respect, the leadership of the Fellowship is “informally” organized into a central committee, whereby the different personalities “interact” to achieve the group objectives: the Chairman tends towards more relationship-motivated with a high concern over personhood while I am more task-motivated and the other core members a mix.

Turning to a biblical model, Clinton’s classification of Paul’s leadership styles is also

4

Joe/Chan, 030088509 MUS

LRD5013/Foundations for Christian Leadership

illustrative in identifying the predominant style of the Fellowship. It is observed that the Fellowship follows a “consensus style,” which refers to “the approach to leadership influence which involves the group itself actively participating in decision making and coming to solutions acceptable to the whole group” (Clinton 1984, 66). In fact, major decisions, such as the drafting of the Articles of Association of the Fellowship, its logos and slogans, are made by consensus. Even minor decisions, such as the number of visit and the centers to be visited, are made in a similar manner. Perhaps as the diversity of programs undertaken by the Fellowship enlarges and the complexity of its task increases, the leadership style may again “evolve” in the future.

The Uniqueness and the Implications of the Organization and Coordination of My Ministry

Covey identifies that “an organization is an ecological system, and the information system must deal with the whole environment to help executives understand what’s going on” (Covey 2003, 225). Gibson Winter also expresses that “organization means a rational ordering of various elements and phases directed toward the effective realization of an anticipated state of affairs” (Gibson Winter 1968, 12). Covey’s statement points to the coordination aspects whilst Gibson Winter’s expression touches on the organization aspects of a structure, which are important for its efficient operation.

However, the Fellowship does not follow the above frameworks in their entirely. In the first place, it is too small to require an “information system” as “directives” have been conveyed via informal and formal meetings conducted continually. Further, as a small

5

Joe/Chan, 030088509 MUS

LRD5013/Foundations for Christian Leadership

“voluntary” unit, the Fellowship is not organized into a “hierarchical” and structured pattern. In fact, its leaders resist such a trend while the Fellowship is “evolving” without a “predetermined” course of action to call it “an anticipated state of affairs.” To be sure, at the outset, the leadership had not foreseen the present tasks of serving the emotional disordered and elderly. In fact, many of its leaders did not have the “prerequisite” professional training to undertake such tasks. Frankly speaking, if a leader (even the Chairman) rose up and said that he/she was going to serve these groups of people during the inception of the Fellowship, the most likely scenario was that the decision would have been voted down. Realizing this, we may probe into how the organization and coordination of the Fellowship be conducted, which carry implications for similar organizations.

Admittedly, the most “fashionable” pattern of organization concluded by researches is the “systems” approach, which has wide applications from geography to economy. The systems view has three subsystems: input, transforming, and output. Under the church’s setting, the “input system is made up of all the resources that come together” (Lee 2003, 160). The “transforming system is what happens to the raw material that comes through the input system–the people and their gifts, needs, and interest” (160). The “output system is the means by which the church ‘exports’a part of its energy and resources (money, people, programs) in order to influence its environment or to support other organizations or causes” (160).

In the case of the Fellowship, there is no planned “input system” as the resources are “gathered’on “voluntary” basis, including finance. Specifically, this makes “budgeting” difficult as we cannot “count on” the amount of money we may gather each month. This means

6

Joe/Chan, 030088509 MUS

LRD5013/Foundations for Christian Leadership

that the Fellowship has to place the trust on God, who supplies abundantly.

The transforming system is also not predetermined as most of the decisions are made by consensus. Therefore, we have to understand the “principles” on which the Fellowship bases to make its decisions, rather than the “group dynamics” running in its operating mechanism.

Although we may say that there is “output system” as determined by the “outreaching” programs being executed. However, this is also uncertain as the range of programs has been expanding over time. Overall speaking, although the “systems” approach may serve as a conceptual tool, it remains insufficient to explain the “operating function” of the Fellowship.

Lee also identifies that there are five principles of coordination, namely, accountability, interdependency, balance, communication and participation (Lee 2003, 158). As the membership of the Fellowship is on “voluntary” basis, there is no “specific” body which the members are answerable (excepting God Himself). One cannot identify the “interdependency” aspect as it is observed that the Fellowship is one of the few Christian entities in Hong Kong to perform similar ministries. The Fellowship may be considered “out of balance” as it aims at the “overlooked and neglected” members of the community, which is only a small minority of the population. The mission of the Fellowship, so far, has not been communicated to the Hong Kong community, which also restricts the participation level.

To sum up, the Fellowship seems to be “running” in “isolated zone”. As such, its “inputs” and “outputs” should have been restrained. However, the facts that they are not requires a new

7

Joe/Chan, 030088509 MUS

LRD5013/Foundations for Christian Leadership

model to understand its working.

An Integrated Model on the Working of My Ministry

The simple model (which I call “GG-pyramid”) is drawn from the courses of history of the Fellowship. “GG” stands for “Glory of God”, which is at the apex of the pyramid, symbolizes its significance and the source of power. The four sides of the base of the pyramid consist of “love,” “experiences,” “human needs” and “results” dimensions: these are the “principles” on which the Fellowship is based.

The model goes like this: the leaders’love and their experiences in the past guide them to see human needs. Upon the guidance of God, they undertake specific actions, which bring results to satisfy human needs, which is for the Glory of God or “GG”. This “GG” principle, in turn, inspires the leaders to initiate the next turn of actions for satisfying human needs and attaining results. Therefore, it is seen that the model is a dynamic one, showing the interaction between divine and human works.

In the context of the Fellowship, its leaders initiate the programs when they have love for others and for God. Also, owing to their personal experiences (some of them have relatives who suffer from emotional disorder and many of them have aged parents), they are able to see the needs of these “neglected” people. The other co-workers participate in the programs and subsequently observe personally the results of the Gospel at work.

8

Joe/Chan, 030088509 MUS

LRD5013/Foundations for Christian Leadership

A recent incident also illustrates this chain of events: we invited a sister to join a half-day program as an observer. After the completion of the program, we asked for her feedback, which she tearfully expressed her emotions towards these neglected groups of people. In another case, a recent “outreaching” program involved a young psychiatrist, who joined a whole-day program and gave valuable advices. The amazing thing being that he felt blessed by the program and this becomes the experiences of the leaders and the participants.

After outlining the overall picture, I now continue on the specifics of the model. In respect of the first aspect of the four-side dimension, it can never be overemphasized that love should be the motive and the cornerstone of leading a Christian entity. Lee upholds it with the statement that “apart from the deepest of motives— the profound affection and commitment of the heart— there would be no lasting mission” (Lee 2003, 180). Love for God as “expressed” in the love for man should be a core value for a Christian leader. This fits in with the biblical assertion that “so now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13 NIV).

The second aspect, experiences, refers to the leaders’personal experiences, which embody their past and present encounters with the world and their skill sets. It also refers to the followers’set of experiences. In fact, the model is a “dynamic” one when the leader’s experiences are “transferred” to the followers’experiences, which becomes the inputs to the leaders through a “feedback loop”. It also assumes that their actions are based on their “skill experiences”, beyond which will exceed their “zone of capabilities.”

9

Joe/Chan, 030088509 MUS

LRD5013/Foundations for Christian Leadership

The third dimension, satisfying human needs, should be the objective of the Christian organizations, without which the Christian entities can hardly justify its existence. This is also the bench-mark for “measuring” the values of the organizations. In a way, this resembles the “marketing” concept of satisfying “human desires” but in the Christian realm, this is to satisfy rightful physical desires and spiritual needs.

Lastly, by result I mean the short-term and long-term effects of the Christian organizations on its environment. Given the dynamic nature of the model, it also crosses on the changes impacted on the participants, not only its target groups. For concrete measurements, it may include the response rate of the target groups, the participation level of the target groups and that of the participants, etc..

Turning to the operating mechanism, the model integrates the concept of power, which Lee defines as “the ability to get things done” (Lee 2003, 73). It defines the leadership of the Fellowship possess authority, which is defined as “a mandate to exercise in a certain sphere” (73). Using Lee’s terminology, the leaders of the Fellowship are exercising “synergistic or shared power, when power is lodged in every member and group. Each person has total control over his piece of power. Control is this power is exercised through attendance and contribution of resources (time, money, ideas, skills) to congregational goals” (76). On a deeper analysis, the “interplay” of power is determined from the human level, while the ultimate source of power is from God.

On a task level, the programs initiated out of the leaders’love and experiences should

10

Joe/Chan, 030088509 MUS

LRD5013/Foundations for Christian Leadership

satisfy human needs, which in our case, are the social and spiritual needs of the emotional disordered and the elderly. Given the good results generated by the programs (when half of the people committed themselves to Jesus), the participants are encouraged, and becoming their own “experiences,” initiate further actions. Therefore, results can be measured not just in terms of the target groups, but also amongst the participants themselves.

On an operating mechanism level, to satisfy “human needs” (and ultimately GG) is the objective of the Fellowship. The structure of the Fellowship, on the other hand, is determined by “results” considerations. This is in terms that the participants are grouped around their “skills” level in order to perform at the optimal level. Therefore, two members of the Fellowship more knowledgeable in the Scripture form the backbone of the “leadership” in the Bible study session. In the “outreaching” programs, the leaders skillful in songs, on-stage performance and message-delivery are formed in various functional units for optimal performance. The leaders “behind the scene” are responsible for logistics, program-drafting and audio-video equipment setting, which are also important for the success of the Fellowship.

It should be noted that the “interplay” of “love,” “experiences,” “human needs” and “results” form the foundation of the Fellowship “at work.” On a spiritual level, the ultimate objective is for the Glory of God or “GG”. In fact, I should have mentioned that God started the Fellowship in the first place by “implanting” love and experiences on the leaders. However, through the interplay of the four core dimensions, GG has been converted from an abstract idea of “high sounding nothing” to a practical reality.

11

Joe/Chan, 030088509 MUS

LRD5013/Foundations for Christian Leadership

To conclude, instead of using a “systems” approach, I have adopted the above model to illustrate the working of the Fellowship. Although it is still sketchy, it demonstrates the core-values of the Fellowship and the ultimate source of power, which is the “Glory of God.” These are also the biblical bases for any Christian organization.

12

Joe/Chan, 030088509 MUS

LRD5013/Foundations for Christian Leadership

REFERENCE LIST

Clinton, J. Robert. 1984. Leadership Emergence Patterns. Altadena: Barnabas Resources

Covey, Stephen R. 2003. Principle-Centered Leadership. New York: Free Press, a division of Simon & Schuster

Downey, Raymur J. 1982. Church Growth and Leadership Styles: Implications for Ministerial Foundation in Zaire. Unpublished Doctoral Tutorial. Pasadena: School of World Mission, Fuller Theological Seminary

Gibson Winter 1968. Religious Identity. New York: Macmillan Co.

Kilinsk, Kennety K. and Wofford, Jerry C. 1973. Organization and Leadership in the Local Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House

Lee, Harris W. 2003. Effective Church Leadership: A Practical Sourcebook. Revised edition. Silver Spring, Maryland: Ministerial Association General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists