Long, but these are all of my discussion posts for the course.
Week 1
As Peter Northouse stated in “Leadership” (p. 8) the fives bases of leadership can be divided into two groups: positional power and personal power. Upon looking at the two groups, it is obvious that both rely on a balance of power and respect. As is evident today in many nations across the globe: positional power can only exist when the followers are willing to subject themselves to the authority of the leader. Similarly, followers of a leader with personal power will only do so when they are willing to subject themselves to the authority of the leader.
This brings about the second question of the week: what influences a follower to follow a particular leadership base? There is an obvious assumption (especially in light of the title of this class) that a person's culture plays a distinct role in how they accept and reject the authority of a particular leader, the issue is to then delineate what aspect of that culture is the influencer and then what is the result of said influence?
“The Warmth of Other Suns” is a book chronicling the great migration of African Americans between 1915-1975. In the selected stories of the migrants, it is obvious that life under Jim Crow laws shaped their willingness to accept (and obligatory adherence to) the leadership around them. For many, obedience to coercive leadership only existed when their fear outweighed their desire for freedom and natural liberties. When many had started to experience the “freedom” connected to migration, they started to experience expert leadership in the form of those who had migrated before them, for obvious reasons of being lost in a new world but also as a result of the culture of love and respect within the communities each came from, whether they had foreknowledge of the “expert leader” or not.
As seen in this example, it was the migrants' previous experiences of coercive leadership which drew them to expert leadership. The small uprising that led up to the migrations of many gives evidence that referent leadership is a more accurate opposite to coercive leadership as the follower chooses the leader based on their own feelings instead of the position of the leader. When looking at the African Americans who were the “bosses” in the orchards, they held legitimate positions of leadership that were generally accepted, as long as coercive leadership was not introduced. Finally, in these instances, reward leadership was skeptically followed as too often either the referent leader or the coercive leader behind the rewards would often result in a coercive leadership experience from the coercive leader (ie. punishment for uprisings or a simple lie to entice a desired outcome.)
"Does this [passage] inform us concerning how we look at each other across cultural boundaries? Does this give us different perspectives concerning what God cares about? What specific activities, based in this text, can change relationships among neighbors?"
This passage is a challenge to the understanding of the people of Judah and Jerusalem to not resist, to not wait in earnest for deliverance, but to accept their situation. It challenges them to not only endur, but to also thrive in the circumstances. In regards to how we look at each other across cultural boundaries, this passage addresses only one aspect of the Christian's response to this world, but does not state a more important command to “... keep oneself unstained from the world.” (James 1:27) What is important to see in this passage is how the Jews are simply called to live in the midst of their captors, in every sense of the word. Their lives are to reflect who they are (build houses, garden, marry and multiply) but are they are not called to interact with their captors outside of seeking its peace, which will become a source of their own peace (a difficult concept that requires more study to unpack the translation of “welfare”). This reflects what is of greater importance to God: His chosen people being pure and undefiled. This concept is exemplified in the narratives in Daniel and the choices he makes to ensure he remains clean while also engaging the Babylonian world.
Week 2
"According to this chapter, what are some of the principal differences and divisions in U.S. society? How are these similar or different to those Paul describes from the first century?"
"The differences described by Paul are very real. How do we both recognize the reality of the differences and also affirm that the gospel transforms those differences?"
The principal divisions and differences in U.S. Society (according to Branson and Martinez) are: Social, Economic, Political and Legal structures (Branson & Martinez, 2011). The similarities between what Paul describes and what is described in the text correlate as such: Economic structures to “slave of free” (Gal. 3:28) and Social Structures to both “Jew or Greek” as well as “Male or female” (v. 28).
In regards to the differences found in today's society, we need to recognize their reality and the impact they have on daily life. In a recent conversation, I wrestled with this concept and posed this question: Should the circumstances of a person impact how the Gospel is preached and is this an implication of their culture or their specific situation? In reality, there are truths of the Gospel that cannot be presented any other way. Beyond these truths comes the mode of the Gospel's presentation, which does vary from person to person and from culture to culture. Ultimately though, the message of redemption and love is the same, transcends these differences and works in the hearts of those who “... are permitted to understand the secret of the Kingdom of God.” (Mk. 4:11)
Select one of the leadership theories examined this week (Trait or Skills) and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. When have you personally experienced the leadership approach being beneficial in a leadership position?
The Skills approach to leadership finds its greatest strength in the fact that it focuses on the leader and “contributes positively to our understanding about leadership.” (Northouse, 2010). As a result, much can be learned about leadership through this approach. Possibly the greatest weakness comes from the lack of direction for application (Northouse, 2010). Not having specific application places this approach in the “That’s Good to Know” field with little that can be taken home to improve leadership.
I connect this leadership approach to the “expert power” noted in ch. 1 of the text (Northouse, 2010). When the leader knows about has the Crystallized Cognitive Abilities, they exhibit expert power and are therefore effective by their sheer knowledge. My current manager is an example of this in that his (learned) knowledge and previous work experience allows him the ability to not only manage but also lead the office.
Contingency theory is a “leader-match theory” (Northouse, 2010) where the leader is rated by a“Least Preferred Coworker” scale which is then correlated to the leadership situation to determine the leader’s potential effectiveness. The strengths of this theory are found in realizing the impact of a situation on the leader, an almost predictive ability in determining effectiveness of leaders and a recognition that not all leaders are effective in all situations. (Northouse, 2010) What this can translate to in a modern example is when a “cleaner” is sent into an organization to turn the (typically dire) situation around to a profitable one. Even though this theory has such strengths, it primarily fails to address the “why” question in looking at the leaders themselves and fails to answer what aspects of a leader with a low, middle or high LPC score are effective in each situation. (Northouse, 2010)
In regards to my personal experiences, I have seen this most notably in the history of my previous Church. After a painful and emotional Church split, a pastor stepped in who was caring and compassionate (a high LPC) but lacked task orientation. The emotional turmoil of the situation created an environment where the leader was very effective in directing the time of healing. After a number of years, the mood of the Church shifted from a time of emotional turmoil to a time of anticipation for the future, which called for the arrival of the next pastor who was very task oriented (a low LPC). As usual, this example does not loan itself to being entirely successful as the late stages and transition time of both leaders has been tumultuous.
Week 3
Select one of the leadership theories examined this week (Style or Situational) and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. When have you personally experienced the leadership approach being beneficial in a leadership position?
The Situational Leadership theory is unique and untested (Northouse, 2010) but has potential. It also seems to be a theory that requires a substantial “buy-in” from the leader as they are required to interact with each group member differently. A strength in this is that each group member will receive individual leadership based on their own needs and development. A weakness in this theory is that it is underdeveloped, having only been in development since 1985 (Northouse, 2010). As it is still in early adulthood, the theory still has room to change its mind at least one more time.
I have seen this approach as beneficial (again) in my current work environment, though admittedly, it is not universally beneficial. A co-worker and myself have very dissimilar personalities and therefore have different perceived needs from our leaders, which we do receive. This has allowed me to adjust and learn in the “S3” zone as I need more support being a relatively new employee with low directive as I have performed many of the tasks before, while my co-worker operates in the “S4” zone as she has been an employee for many years and has established relationships while also knowing her job well.
Read Matthew 5:1-12. Reflect on the Bible Study on pages 124-125 in Churches, Cultures & Leadership. Respond to questions 1, 2, and 3 in this discussion forum.
"What are the principal "languages" defining reality for us today? How do they shape our definitions (our hermeneutics) of what is real and important? What "blessings" do they offer?"
"How does the Sermon on the Mount challenge the blessings offered by our society?"
"In what ways do we see churches living according to the language of our societal context? And what are churches doing that reflect a different hermeneutic, like that of the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount?"
1) The principle language defining American reality in the 21st century is that of greed and envy. (Ramsey, 2011) In the daily news, there is a constant reminder of this language with every report starting with “Occupy...” When looking at this language, it is easy to allow our own definition of what is real and important to at least allude to possessions, portfolios or jobs, which act more as anchors than blessings.
2) The Sermon on the Mount challenges these very blessings by reminding us to not only be content, jealous or envious, but to also seek poverty (Matt. 5:3). This might not be a universal call to poverty, not all are able to follow in the path of St. Francis of Assisi (Robinson, 1909), but it is a call to forsake possessions for the greater blessing of the Kingdom of Heaven.
3) A trip to Zambia has shown me the most regarding how Churches (especially those in the US) are living according to the language of our societal context. When an usher brought a worn out bill back in stating that the money wasn't even good for a prostitute, it made me think about building projects, dressing in my “Sunday best” and other uses of Kingdom resources not accomplishing “Kingdom work.” A sermon I recently heard began with this question: “What would we do if someone just gave us $10,000,000?” Regretfully, my mind immediately went to the Church building, which is only marginally “Kingdom work.”
Click here to read an interesting blog by Dave Ramsey re: Occupy Wall Street.
Week 4
When could you, as a leader, apply one of the theories examined this week in your organizational setting? Provide a specific example.
Looking at the Path-Goal theory, I understand Northouse's assessment of its complexity (2010), and see the lack of full application as a result, but I also see that this theory could be useful in working with the work-study student at my office. Nick's role has been primarily mundane data entry/programming (he is a computer science major at a local university) with a few ringers thrown at him for kicks. Within this, his task characteristics are a combination of the complex and the mundane. His characteristics would resembles a need for affiliation. This would then point to a subtle blend of directive and supportive leadership behavior.
The strength of directive leadership within the situation lies in the mood and pace of the office. There are few who have taken the time to fully instruct Nick in the task at his hand. Adding this to his analytical mind and need to understand his duty, there is a distinct need for direction. The strength of supportive leadership lies more in his personality and situation in life. I has become very apparent that Nick's course load is demanding this semester. He is also more than 300 miles from his home/family and about to turn 21. These are not very trying factors, but combined, they create an opportunity for him to not be certain in every situation, especially when he is the new guy in the office. Therefore, he is in need of supportive leadership.
Read 1 Corinthians 12. Reflect on the Bible Study on pages 156-157 in Churches, Cultures & Leadership. Respond to questions 1,2 and 3 in this discussin forum.
"How might Christians from individualist or collectivist cultures understand the concept of spiritual gifts differently? Why?"
"What are the advantages or disadvantages of reading this passage from an individualist perspective or from a collectivist perspective? What do we learn and what do we lose from each type of reading?"
"How does the concept of body challenge a church in the U.S. individualistic culture? What challenges does this imply in a church that mixes persons from both perspectives?"
When looking at this passage, I feel the internal conflict Paul speaks of in Romans 7 (I do not do what I wish to do, I do the very thing that I hate). I see that the gifts are obviously for the edification and service of the entire body, yet as a person fighting my individualistic worldview, I want to be the eye or I want to be the hand that either directs or does the work. In truth, I can almost feel justified as Paul commends the Church in Corinth to earnestly pursue the greater gifts. The conflict comes in humility. I need that, it needs to be more of me as being in a place of humility breeds an ability to be in a better place of servanthood. Reading this from a collectivist perspective would allow me a better opportunity to see that the situation is not about gaining glory, nor is it about making sure the task is accomplished for me, but that the group honors God and that the collective benefits from the completion of the task.
If a person were to look at the Churches in today's culture, it would become obvious that there is in fact little mixing of collectivist and individualist perspectives. One “Church” prominent in particular emphasizes the importance of the individual in the weekly sermons, podcasts and books written by the pastor. In reality, the body holds no individual members, it is a collective (resistance is futile...). If I stub my toe, my brain receives and translates the message and sends it back as a throbbing pain in most of my foot. If a Church experiences the pain of one member's negative attitude, the message is carried beyond just that person. Similarly, if a Church experiences the pleasure of a Spirit-filled Bible study and time of prayer, the entire body receives the message.
Week 5
What role does intercultural communication have in the LMX Theory of leadership and the Transformational approach to leadership? Please provide a specific example to support your response.
Communication is the most important form of interaction between people, especially since communication is interaction between people. The monotony of this statement is designed to illustrate the inability to remove communication from every aspect of life, which makes it so much more important to know and understand as a leader. Both the LMX theory and Transformational approach to leadership are entirely reliant upon effective communication from the leader. When this is the case, an accurate knowledge and respect for the follower (including their culture) is essential. In fact, the intercultural communication is the basis upon which the LMX theory and the Transformational approach live.
In the LMX theory, the emphasis is placed on an “in crowd” and an “out crowd.” As Northouse (2010) states, this theory does not enforce keeping these crowds separate, but it does recognize their existence. He even states the danger of this theory in the criticisms: “Our culture is replete with examples of people of different genders, ages, cultures, and abilities who have been discriminated against.” (2010) When positive intercultural communication is not the foundation on which the LMX Theory is placed, there is a high probability for the “out crowd” to be further alienated based not on the follower's response to the organization, but on the leader's response to the follower.
In the Transformational approach, the same foundation is required as there can be a greater risk of the leader's charisma influencing the organization in a negative way. Northouse uses Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein as examples of transformational leadership taken in a very negative direction, citing the term: “pseudotransformational leadership.” In this approach, the experiences and interests of the leader have a great tendency to clash with those of the follower, potentially as a result of differences in cultures.
"Jesus introduces a matter of objective reality (the barriers of culture biases) that will shift the communication concerning both subjective and social worlds. Discuss how this opens the opportunity for 'communicative competence'."
"Jesus told a parable to change the conversation. What role does this play in the overall pursuit of good communication?"
The paradigm shift Jesus introduces in Luke 10 is centered around the goals of the lawyer (and Jewish society at the time). It takes more than looking at the requirements for inheriting eternal life and assessing one's own competency (a morphed version of objective reality that more closely resembles subjective reality), but translates into selfless action (addressing the need for social reality). When the Samaritan is offered as an example, his objective reality has been subjectively translated by the Jewish audience as inferior and dirty while his social reality is what speaks and therefore translates the subjective reality. The risk here following the logic in a round without recognizing that communicative competence is seen in the people of the parable and their reactions: those whose objective and subjective realities are similar respond socially in an obviously improper way while the one whose realities should be dissimilar responds in a way that exhibits communicative competence and therefore challenges the lawyer and Jewish audience to pursue it themselves.
The parable Jesus tells is similar to a modern-day illustration one might hear in a sermon or speech. When a particular topic is somewhat confusing or there is a simple need for an opportunity to “wake up” the audience, an illustration is a common tool utilized. As Jesus was answering the lawyer's question, there was an obvious need within the lawyer to justify himself (10:29) within the context. This shows the need for Jesus' parable to illustrate what the Shema looks like. He drew upon common knowledge within the Jewish culture to communicate what love looks like.
Week 6
What are some challenges that the leader will face in both Authentic Leadership and Team Leadership? Provide specific examples to support your response.
When looking at Authentic leadership, it is easy to find excitement and allure, not only to be an authentic leader, but also to have an authentic leader to guide one's organization. This is a worthy goal, but regretfully one that might be akin to grasping water or (possibly worse) creating synergy in a work environment. More on synergy will be discussed later, but it is important to realize that an authentic leader is difficult to foster, especially within oneself. The definitions Northouse (2010) provides for the authentic leader all point to the leader having high morals, being self-aware, and having positive psychological qualities. Being a fallen man myself, I know I do not fit this standard, no matter how hard I try, for I do not do the things I want to do, but I do the very things that I hate.
As alluded to previously, the Team Leadership approach will experience a similar difficult as it seems to attempt to create the elusive synergistic work environment. The factors limiting this approach are similar to those limiting Authentic Leadership, but multiplied as it is not just the leader who is fallible, but also the work force or “team” themselves as they are at a minimum a part of the monitoring process. Aside from this, there is also the sense that the leader takes on more of a role of managing the people and situation than a role of developing vision, mission, etc. This limits the leader and therefore could hinder the team.
"This awareness, understanding and evaluation eventually spread from some group of Hellenists to the ears of the Twelve. Their own understanding and awareness led to an experiment. Describe major elements of their approach and discuss what you believe was important as well as the basis for your views. (Note what the Twelve valued and discuss the power dynamics of the story.)"
The major elements of the disciples' approach contain an obvious awareness as the disciples learned of the problem, with an immediate understanding as well as evaluation as the twelve said: “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.” (6:2) This level of understanding betrays perhaps a root of the greater problem of Hellenistic widows not receiving food: the twelve did not see it a worthy of their time. Perhaps I am reading into this, but the language does lend itself to such an interpretation. In addition to this aspect of the evaluation, there is also wisdom in seeing a need for and setting forth requirements for men to lead this ministry. Their greatest strength lies in these requirements, which resemble those Paul relates to Timothy. As for experimenting, this step seems to be neglected to move straight to commitment. This commitment did reshape the Church and was directed towards the people and their ways of life.
Week 7
In pursuing leadership opportunities, what challenges do women often experience as a result of their gender? Refer to the Leadership Labyrinth. How can women successfully navigated these challenges? (Ladies if you feel comfortable please share personal examples and ways that you have navigated those challenges.)
Leardship Labyrinth- Human Capital Differences: The reason women face challenges in pursuing leadership opportunities might be explained in the very words Northouse (2010) uses in attempting to debunk the Human Capital concept. After stating that: “... a common explanation... is that women are more likely than men to quit their jobs, [though] there is no consistent research evidence to that effect”, he immediately states that: “... there is evidence that women are more likely to quit for family-related reasons.” In my very limited experience, I would agree with the latter statement. Two of the women in my office have done just that and have returned to positions where they “... self-select themselves out of leadership tracks by choosing 'mommy track' positions.” Both have stated their accepting the positions because they receive summers off without being teachers. My own wife has chosen to leave her career at a university in order be a homemaker.
Leadership Labyrinth- Gender Differences/Prejudice: Perhaps the greatest hindrances related to gender differences is stereotypes and biases held by the general public. In this sense, there is a fight against the previous millennia. Women's liberation and rights have come to the forefront within the last 150 years (admittedly this was obviously not the start). Even now, there are still many nations and cultures who do not hold women with the same esteem that even the US does, especially since 1913 and women's suffrage. Paul might have the best advice for women to successfully navigate these challenges: “Let no one despise you for your [gender], but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.” Though great liberty has been taken with this verse, I believe the principle is relevant.
Conclusion: There is a difficult balance between understanding the Biblical stance on women in leadership and its application beyond the pulpit. The question stands: Should women be in any leadership role but the pulpit? I believe the Bible is clear about women in ministry, but serve under a female director, executive director and superintendent within my school district. I know that my personal experiences and conservative upbringing have negatively shaped my initial reaction to women in leadership, but I also know that God has used women placed in leadership roles over me to greatly shape me.
Read Revelation 7:9-10. Reflect on the Bible Study on page 234 in Churches, Cultures & Leadership. Respond to questions 1 and 3 in this discussion forum.
"How do we envision what God is doing in the world in relation to human diversity? How does this perspective affect what I want the church to look like?"
"How does this vision affect my understanding of what intercultural church life should look like?"
Here is where I will show my true colors and disagree with Branson and Martinez (2011). I do believe that the diversity in this world is beautiful and that God has created all to be equal. I do believe that each culture reflects the rich and beautiful history of its ancestors and they play a significant role in shaping beliefs, customs and practices which need to be acknowledged, respected and embraced.
I do not believe the Church will be diverse. I previously related one of the most profound moments of my life as a believer standing on the side of a Hungarian highway picking up trash with a man I could not understand, nor was I understood. What we did understand was that we both worshiped the One True God and that was more than enough. If “when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven,” (Mark 12:25) then why would there be Jew or Greek, Caucasian or Hispanic? When this truth is realized on earth, diversity within the brick and mortar Churches will arrive naturally.
0 comments:
Post a Comment