Upload
titus-shem-makuma
View
547
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN IMPACTING CHANGE IN
MANAGEMENT STYLES AND PRACTICE IN PENTECOSTAL CHURCHES. A
CASE OF FORT PORTAL-UGANDA
by
TITUS S. MAKUMA
B.A.Bible/Theo., Glad Tidings Bible College, 2005
A MAJOR PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN LEADERSHIP
in the
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
We accept this major project as conforming
To the required standard
___________________________________________________
Dr Minja David, Advisor
___________________________________________________
Dr Kirk Kauffeldt, Vice Chancellor
PAN AFRICA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
© July, 2009
Titus S. Makuma
Servant Leadership
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Role of Servant Leadership in Impacting Change in Management Styles and Practices
in Pentecostal churches. A Case of Fort Portal-Uganda
by Titus S. Makuma
This study is a descriptive research involving the analysis of servant leadership
practice and its application in the target population under study. It examines the question; Is
servant leadership practice evident in the way churches are led and is it impacting change on
management styles and practices in Pentecostal churches in Uganda.
The research findings have highlighted seven key outstanding issues and/or servant
leadership principles intended for service improvement: Influence, Relationships, Service,
Vision sharing, Mentoring, Community involvement, and Empowerment.
The research looks at influence as a key factor in ensuring sustainable change in the
Pentecostal churches in Uganda. Maxwell (1993) defines leadership as „influence.‟ Influence
is core to servant leadership. Leadership is not about control and acquiring more power.
Positive influence will create room for higher performance levels and relational building.
A relational leader looks at people as a valuable asset-in fact the greatest resource for
every organization is human resource. People need to understand that their contribution
towards service improvement is an asset. They need to be loved and cared for otherwise; the
style of leadership may appear to be transactional, based on the „give and take‟ principle other
than offering service to the community.
Service is embedded at the heart of true servant leadership. Service is considered to be
a useful tool for impacting change and practice in the management styles in Pentecostal
churches in Uganda. Greenleaf (1995) argues that service must precede leadership. He says
that, the servant leader is a servant first, and then conscious choice brings one to aspire to
lead. The rule of the game is actually service and vision sharing.
Servant Leadership
iii
The research shows that vision sharing plays a leading role in the change
implementation process. It creates an environment of teamwork and effective communication.
Church organizations should learn to place their vision statements on the table for all the
stakeholders to study and make valuable contributions. Without clarity in vision, there will be
less and half hearted involvement of other stakeholders in initiating change. A visionary
leader-these leaders have crystal clear picture in their minds of what they want to happen.
They cast visions powerfully and possess indefatigable enthusiasm to pursue the mission.
Visionary leaders are not easily discouraged or deterred (Hybels, (1998).
Effective visionary leaders are those who have embraced the principle of mentoring.
Mentoring is the process of identifying, teaching, sharing values, and impacting another
leader for excellent leadership. The role of mentoring is a Herculean task which calls for
dedication and focus on both parties. Effective leaders carry a sense of balance and respect
both in church and community. Sharing expectations and a periodic review and evaluation
will give strength to application and facilitate empowerment (Stanley & Clinton, 1992).
In the light of preaching the gospel, the church should also embark on community
based projects such as education, healthcare, feeding street children and orphanage in support
and enhancement of government programs. This will bring life and hope in communities
especially among the low income earners. Community based projects paint a picture that the
church organizations are accountable in their service improvement operations. These projects
must reflect the church constitution other than being individual based, for the purpose of
accountability and responsiveness.
The research has noted that, the future of effective servant leadership in Uganda is
highly dependent on the principle of empowerment. Leaders need to be motivated and
empowered through bible training opportunities, leadership seminars, workshops, and other
capacity building programmes. Focus develops as you begin to understand the priorities of
Servant Leadership
iv
Christ and personalize them (Stanley & Clinton, 1992). This will create a healthy working
environment leading to service improvement in Pentecostal churches in Uganda.
This project is the result of research in diverse areas related to different leadership
concepts namely; understanding leadership, leadership defined, the practice of servant
leadership, the leadership of Jesus, the leadership challenge, and the authentic leader.
The main focus is to inform the potential stakeholders about the significant role played
by the practice of servant leadership in impacting the change process.
Titus S. Makuma
Servant Leadership
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The completion of this project has been the result of positive contributions made by
many individuals to whom I am highly indebted. To my advisor, Dr Minja David, thank you
so much for your wise, timely, skillful, and fatherly advise. You made yourself available for
me in all avenues including short text messages late in the night to which responded eagerly
and calmly. My sincere thanks to Rev Lenny and Glenda Meyer for your dedication to
prayers, material (laptop) and financial support towards the entire MAL program. You never
got tired or complained at any one moment. You always spoke words of love, hope, and faith
into my spirit. May God bless and continue to use your leadership potential for His kingdom
purposes.
To my wife, Rose Grace Makuma and children, Timothy, Tabitha, and Titus Jr, I do
appreciate your co-operation, patience, and encouragement during my busy travel and reading
schedules. My success is the result of your love and constant prayers.
To my vice chancellor, Kirk Kauffeldt and all instructors in MAL program, thanks for
your guidance, mentorship, information, and transforming servant leadership principles.
These principles have had a great impact on my life, family, and ministry. Special mention
must be made of the program coordinator, Shelley Kauffeldt, and MAL program director,
Benson Katulwa-thanks for your hard work, wise counsel, effective feedback, and clear
direction. Shelley, I respect your firm leadership position, when you said, “we will follow you
up even at midnight, we will make sure that nobody is left behind, everybody must graduate.”
To my colleagues in MAL program, thank you for your demonstration of teamwork spirit,
love, and care for one another. I greatly value my meeting, learning, and interacting with all
of you.
Servant Leadership
vi
Special thanks go to all the stakeholders in this great project-the Pentecostal church
leaders, respondents, and all those individuals who made it possible for me to compile this
project. Without them, the success of this project would never have been possible.
Finally, my sincere appreciation to God for His relentless mercies, provision, and
divine protection throughout my studies at Pan Africa Christian University (PACU).
Titus S. Makuma.
Servant Leadership
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary………………………………………………………..............ii
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………...v
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………vii
List of Tables………………………………………………………………............ix
CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND…………………………………………….....1
Introduction [Illustration]…………………………………………………..1
Description of Project……………………………………………………...1
Purpose of Project………………………………………………………….1
The Research Question…………………………………………………….2
Limitations of Project……………………………………………………...2
Delimitations……………………………………………………………….3
Definition of terms………………………………………………………....3
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………...4
Understanding Leadership………………………………………………....5
Leadership Defined………………………………………………………...6
Servant Leadership………………………………………………...............7
The Leadership of Jesus…………………………………………………..17
The Leadership Challenge………………………………………………...20
The Authentic Leader……………………………………………………..21
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY………………………………………...24
Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………...24
Research Design…………………………………………………………..24
Sample Size……………………………………………………………….25
Sampling Procedures……………………………………………………...25
Servant Leadership
viii
Research Instruments……………………………………………………...25
Ethical Considerations…………………………………………………….26
Reliability and Validity……………………………………………………26
CHAPTER FOUR: THE FINDINGS……………………………………………..27
Introduction………………………………………………………………..27
Profile of the Respondents………………………………………………....27
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSIONS………………………………………………..49
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS… ……………………………………………………..55
Outstanding Issues on Change Process………………………………….....55
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….58
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………..60
1: Checklist/Survey Instrument……………………………………………60
2: Letter of informed consent……………………………………………...64
3: Letter of introduction……………………………………………………66
Servant Leadership
ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 The Study Design………………………………………………………….24
TABLE 2 Sex Distribution…………………………………………………………...26
TABLE 3 Age Distribution…………………………………………………………...27
TABLE 4 Level of Education Distribution…………………………………………...28
TABLE 5 Marital Distribution………………………………………………………..28
TABLE 6 Number of Children Distribution…………………………………………..29
TABLE 7 Duration in church Distribution……………………………………………30
TABLE 8 Understanding of leadership Distribution………………………………….30
TABLE 9 Years of experience in leadership held Distribution……………………….31
TABLE 10 Preferred style of leadership Distribution………………………………….32
TABLE 11 Understanding of servant leadership Distribution…………………………32
TABLE 12 Assessment of change Distribution………………………………………..33
TABLE 13 Role played by women Distribution……………………………………….34
TABLE 14 Male leaders versus female leaders Distribution…………………………..34
TABLE 15 Leadership development core values Distribution………………………...35
TABLE 16 Attitude about competition Distribution…………………………………...36
TABLE 17 Attitude about criticism Distribution………………………………………36
TABLE 18 Denominational position in government Distribution……………………..37
TABLE 19 Relationship with other church leaders Distribution………………………38
TABLE 20 Procedure for leadership appointment Distribution……………………….38
TABLE 21 Effectiveness of mentoring program Distribution…………………………39
TABLE 22 Effectiveness of church programs in community Distribution…………….40
TABLE 23 Specific motivation framework Distribution………………………………40
TABLE 24 Delegation of responsibilities Distribution………………………………...41
Servant Leadership
x
TABLE 25 Tools used in performance assessment Distribution………………………42
TABLE 26 The practice of feedback Distribution……………………………………..42
TABLE 27 Succession plan Distribution………………………………………………43
TABLE 28 Provision of leadership Distribution………………………………………44
TABLE 29 Meetings for decision-making Distribution……………………………….45
TABLE 30 Promotion of accountability Distribution…………………………………45
TABLE 31 Leadership retirement plan Distribution…………………………………..46
TABLE 32 Future plan for leadership development Distribution……………………..47
Servant Leadership
1
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND
Introduction [Illustration]
The study was conducted in the Pentecostal church organizations around Fort Portal
town within the municipality, which has about fifteen Pentecostal churches. Fort Portal town
is situated 300 km west of the capital Kampala. Historically, Fort Portal (fondly known as
Toro Kingdom) was the first kingdom in Uganda to experience Pentecostal revival movement,
which eventually affected other parts of the country.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project briefly illustrates the nature and style of leadership principles applied by
the Pentecostal churches in Fort Portal. It indicates the results areas being examined, and
provides detailed areas of possible service improvement, focusing on the Christ centered
servant leadership model.
PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The researcher intends to assess the extent servant leadership is practiced by churches
in the target population following servant leadership model formulated by Greenleaf (1995),
“The servant leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve,
to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply
different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual
power drive or to acquire material possessions.” The researcher will seek to answer the
question: What role if any does servant leadership play in realizing change in the Pentecostal
church leadership structure?
In particular, the researcher will focus on different leadership styles and practices
applied by the Pentecostal churches, which evidently may impact either positively or
negatively on the change process. The researcher will also analyze the extent to which the
Servant Leadership
2
current leadership practices contribute to the church‟s physical and spiritual growth. The
research findings will definitely set a strong servant- based leadership foundation which will
focus among other issues on: team work, accountability, relationship building, double loop
feedback, change initiative, effective mentoring, focus on Jesus, sharing the spotlight with
others, motivation, communication, vision sharing, empowerment, delegation, diversity, and
community involvement.
These characteristics are important for organizations that seek to promote and sustain
the process of service improvement.
THE RESEARCH QUESTION
The focus of the study was to answer the following questions:
1- Is servant leadership practice evident in the way churches are led?
2-If evident, is it impacting change on management styles and practices in the Pentecostal
Churches in Fort Portal-Uganda?
LIMITATIONS OF PROJECT
The project is likely to be constrained in four areas of study in the course of data
Collection.
1-To gather required information and data, the researcher will rely on the responses of the
selected pastors, elders, and departmental heads of different Pentecostal church organizations.
The challenge remains that some of respondents may not be in position to access the
necessary information as provided by the organizations‟ constitutions due to leadership gap.
Though, they can to some extent tell whether servant leadership is being practiced.
2 -There is also a likelihood that respondents will be guarded to ensure that they do not reveal
sensitive information especially to someone from a different denomination.
3-Time may be a constraint due to the researcher‟s busy schedules at home, office, and
church, which will impact on the effectiveness of data collection.
Servant Leadership
3
4 -Unreliable weather conditions may slow down the process of information gathering. The
method of observing the group‟s character and behavior may also bias the researcher‟s
conclusions.
Delimitations
The researcher avoided the use of multiple teams and/or focus groups and instead
concentrated on the selected respondents to be able to extract in-depth information. The
researcher will also avoid the temptation of sitting together with the respondents while they
fill in the questionnaires, to avoid respondents being biased.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
The researcher has defined some key concepts in the project such as „servant
leadership‟, „transactional leadership‟, and transforming leadership.‟
The servant leader is servant first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead,
(Greenleaf, 1995). Transactional leadership- occurs when one person takes the initiative in
making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things. The exchange
could be economic, political, and psychological in nature, (Burns, 1995). Lastly, transforming
leadership- occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders
and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality, (Burns, 1995).
Servant Leadership
4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Kotter, (1996, p.3-15) has noted that to date, major change efforts have helped some
organizations adapt significantly to shifting conditions, have improved the competitive
standing of others, and have positioned a few for a far better future. But in too many situations
the improvements have been disappointing and the carnage has been appalling, with wasted
resources and burned-out, scared, or frustrated employees.
To some degree, the downside of change is inevitable. Whenever human communities
are forced to adjust to shifting conditions, pain is very present. But a significant amount of the
waste and anguish we‟ve witnessed in the past decade is avoidable (Kotter, 1996). We‟ve
made a lot of errors, the most common of which are: Allowing too much complacency-
transformations always fail to achieve their objectives when complacency levels are high.
Secondly, failing to create sufficiently powerful guiding coalition-in successful
transformations, people need to pull together as a team. Thirdly, underestimating the power of
vision- in many failed transformations, you find plans and programs trying to play the role of
vision, (Kotter, 1996, p.8). Fourthly, under communicating the vision by a factor of 10 or 100-
without credible communication, and a lot of it, employee‟s hearts and minds are never
captured.
More leadership errors as noted by Kotter (1996): Permitting obstacles to block the
new vision-sometimes the obstacle is the organizational structure. Failing to create short-term
wins- creating short-term wins is different from hoping for short-term wins. The latter is
passive, the former active. Declaring victory too soon-until changes sink down deeply into the
culture, which for an entire company can take three to ten years, new approaches are fragile
and subject to regression. Interestingly Kotter (1996) has noted that, declaring victory too
soon is like stumbling into a sinkhole on the road to meaningful change. And for a variety of
Servant Leadership
5
reasons, even smart people don‟t just stumble into that hole. Sometimes they jump in with
both feet. Lastly, neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the corporate culture-smart people
miss the mark here when they are insensitive to cultural issues (Kotter, 1996).
The ultimate test of practical leadership is the realization of intended, real change that
meets people‟s enduring needs (Kouzes, & Posner, 1990, p.37). Change is a fact of life for
leaders and yet many are uncertain about whether change is a good thing or a necessary evil
(Kadalie, 2006, p.225). To be a leader is to be a change agent. To lead people in a church or
organization is asking them to change something (Kadalie, 2006, p.228).
However, in relation to these schools of thought, church organizations are visibly
affected by their ineffective management styles and practices where change is inevitably a
compelling factor in the 21st century. Lack of effective elements and/or instruments of change
initiative in the organizational leadership structure, are a reflection of ineffective practice of
servant leadership in such an organization.
UNDERSTANDING LEADERSHIP
Kadalie, (2006), states that, the term „leadership‟ is a difficult term to define. For
every leadership theory, and there are a lot out there, there is a unique understanding of what
the term describes. While achieving consensus about the definition of leadership may be
impossible, leadership is an important part of our human experience that we all relate to. Most
people can distinguish between a good leader and a bad leader without having done any study
on leadership. However, for those who are leaders it is unacceptable to simply exercise one‟s
leadership out of the intuitive sense one has about leadership. According to Kadalie (2006),
leaders ought to examine their leadership and become increasingly intentional about doing
whatever needs to be done to become a good leader, or an effective leader. For the Christian
leader the evaluation of one‟s leadership must be critically informed by the revealed truth of
God‟s word. Therefore, it is in this perspective that, the practice of servant leadership in the
Servant Leadership
6
Pentecostal churches in Fort Portal has become an area of concern and worth of study. Ethical
conclusions may be drawn basing on different ethical approaches by some schools of thought,
which uniquely present the definitions of leadership from different forums of experience and
practice.
Leadership Defined
Leadership has risen above normal workday usage as a conveyor of meaning. There
seems to be a feeling that if we invoke it often enough with sufficient ardor we can ease our
sense of having lost our way, our sense of things unaccomplished, of duties unfulfilled,
(Gardner, 1990). Leadership relates to the process of persuasion or example by which an
individual (or leadership team) induces a group to pursue objectives held by the leader or
shared by the leader and his or her followers. Leaders are integral parts of the system, subject
to the forces that affect the system. They perform (or cause to be performed) certain tasks or
functions that are essential if the group is to accomplish its purposes (Gardner, 1990).
Clinton, (1993) on the other hand, has stated that, Leadership is a dynamic process in
which a man or woman with God-given capacity influences a specific group of God‟s people
toward His purposes for the group. It is therefore, important for every church organization to
develop a perspective, which looks at leadership with a lens of diversity and inclusiveness in
all leadership structures.
Maxwell, (1993), has defined leadership as influence. Nothing more, nothing less. “He
who thinketh he leadeth and hath no one following him is only taking a walk” (Maxwell,
1993).
Maxwell (1993) has identified FIVE levels of leadership influence as: Position
(Rights)-people follow because they have to. People are simply coerced into following the
leader. Secondly, permission (Relationships)-People follow because they want to. They show
willingness to co-operate in carrying out certain organizational tasks. Thirdly, production
Servant Leadership
7
(Results)-people follow because of what you have done for the organization. They feel they
are part of the change process. Fourthly, personnel development (Reproduction)-people follow
because of what you have done for them. They demonstrate a sense of leadership
transformation and career development, which in the long run benefits the organization.
Lastly, personhood (Respect)-people follow because of who you are and what you represent.
Your sense of character and leadership attitude evidently impacts their management styles and
practices. It is at this level that, the value of integrity and a true sense of servant leadership are
clearly portrayed in a leader‟s life.
Maxwell (1993) has drawn a conclusion that, everyone is a leader because everyone
influences someone. Not everyone will become a great leader, but everyone can become a
better leader. Will you unleash your leadership potential? And will you use your leadership
skills to better mankind?
Servant Leadership
The servant leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to
serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply
different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual
power drive or to acquire material possessions (Greenleaf, 1995).
Burns, (1995), says the genius of leadership lies in the manner in which leaders see
and act on their own and their followers‟ values and motivations. Leadership, unlike naked
power wielding, is thus inseparable from followers‟ needs and goals. The interaction takes
two fundamentally different forms-namely, transactional leadership, which occurs when one
person takes the initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of
valued things. The exchange could be economic, political, and psychological in nature. In my
view, this kind of leadership relationship is temporary and unbinding in nature.
Servant Leadership
8
Burns (1995) also mentions transforming leadership, which occurs when one or more
persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to
higher levels of motivation and morality. Their purpose, which might have started out as
separate but related, as in the case of transactional leadership become fused. Indeed, the
principle of servant leadership is at the core of this fundamental form of relationship, which
naturally is more binding and focused. Burns (1995) has identified Gandhi as one of the
morally upright modern leaders who aroused and elevated the hopes and demands of millions
of Indians and whose life and personality were enhanced in the process. Evidently Gandhi
embraced the right principles of servant leadership.
Leadership principles are timeless, while, the models that examine those principles
may change (Homrig, 2001). The transformational model offers one of many good ways to
examine leadership and the type of leader, and follower, who are ideally suited for today‟s and
tomorrow‟s strategic environment (Homrig, 2001).
The life of Jesus and His involvement with followers demonstrates the intensity to
which the leader/follower relationship can grow; it doesn‟t replace family relationships, but it
can become just as strong (Brinner & Pritchard, 1998). Obviously the nature of the enterprise
will dictate the intensity of the relationship. For instance, coaching a youth soccer team is
considerably different from leading troops into battle during wartime. Good leaders have a
vision; better leaders share a vision; the best leaders invite others to join them in spreading
this vision (Brinner & Pritchard, 1998). In this way the best leaders create a sense of intimacy
with hundreds, thousands, and even millions of followers, which explains why some feel that
they know great world leaders even though they have never met.
There is no more powerful engine driving an organization toward excellence and long-
range success than an attractive, worthwhile, and achievable vision of the future, widely
shared (Nanus,1992). On the other hand, Saffold, (2005) says, strategic planning is about
Servant Leadership
9
leadership; leadership is about the future; and the future is about vision. It is the privilege and
responsibility of leaders to move people and organizations from where they are today to
where they need to be tomorrow.
The process of developing an organizational vision may be called goal setting, long-
range planning, vision casting, or some other name. Regardless of the term, developing an
organizational vision is an attempt to think carefully about the future (Saffold, 2005). It is a
pity that many leaders today especially those from the mushrooming churches (churches
without root and clear foundation) tend to think more about the present survival tricks than
setting a strong organizational base for the future. This kind of attitude and mindset seem to
have given room to competition, strife, and complacency. Self-centeredness seems to be
taking the center stage hence, overshadowing the widely accepted concepts of servant
leadership.
Saffold (2005), in his analysis on „vision as a preferred future‟ has said that, just as
architects make drawings and engineers build models, effective leaders find ways of giving
expression to their hopes for the future. A vision is an image of a possible and desirable
future. Leaders must take care not to rule out possibilities prematurely just because they seem
impossible. Practical leadership demands action to move toward reasonable goals. Notably,
leaders will want to develop a description of a preferred future, a depiction of what they
would like the organization to be if it could realize most fully the potential that God has
placed within it or could develop through it.
Saffold (2005) has reaffirmed the need for good vision statement, which need not be
long. This should supply details for shorter-term achievements with declining detail as the
number of years increase Leadership through vision is a companion philosophy to
management by mission. Mission is concerned with core purposes and results, and the goal of
management by mission is for every activity to be shaped by the organization‟s fundamental
Servant Leadership
10
purposes. Genuine Christian leadership demands that both leaders and followers allow their
wants, needs, aspirations, and expectations to be guided, shaped, and ruled by God. In
adopting a philosophy of leadership through vision, we are not “buying into” a secular model
of leadership (Saffold, 2005). God led Abraham away from Ur with visions of a land and a
great nation (Genesis 12:1-4). Moses moved the Israelites toward a promised land that would
flow with milk and honey (Exodus 3:7-10). David was captivated with a vision to build a
house for God, and his people “gave willingly” (1 Chronicles 19:6). Lastly, Nehemiah‟s
vision for a city wall attracted a work crew that completed the job in fifty-two days
(Nehemiah 6:15).
Hybels, (1998), has looked at ten different ways or styles of leadership that are
suitable to leading God‟s people. First and foremost he lays emphasis on a visionary leader-
these leaders have crystal clear picture in their minds of what they want to happen. They cast
visions powerfully and possess indefatigable enthusiasm to pursue the mission. Visionary
leaders are not easily discouraged or deterred. In the case of directional leader-this style
doesn‟t get much press, but it is exceedingly important. The directional leader has the un
canny, God-given ability to choose the right path at those critical intersections where an
organization starts asking hard questions: “Is it time for a wholesale change or should we stay
the course? Do we focus on growth or consolidation? Should we start new ministries or
deepen and improve the existing ones? Should we add facilities or relocate? Is it time for
some fresh staff, or do we dance with those who brought us here? The idea here is what
strategic should be recommended?
Strategic leader-a strategic leader forms a game plan every one can understand and
participate in, one that will eventually lead to the achievement of the vision. A strategic leader
challenges the organization to work the plan. She says, “Don‟t get distracted. Do what needs
to be done to achieve the next step, then the next, and we shall achieve the vision together”
Servant Leadership
11
(Hybels, 1998). Turning to managing leader-they often aren‟t as popular as the leader who
can give the big vision talk or make the big decision around the boardroom table or put the big
plan in place. But in the day-to-day world, someone has to manage the process to make sure
we get where we want to go. On the other hand, motivational leader- possesses insight into
who needs a fresh challenge or additional training. They can sense who needs public
recognition, an encouraging word, or a day off. They know when a pay increase, office
change, title change, or sabbatical is needed. Motivational leaders know that teammates get
tired, lose focus, and experience mission drift. Workers wonder if what they‟re doing really
matters to any one-or to God. Motivational leaders don‟t get bitter or vengeful when morale
sinks. They instead see it as an opportunity to inspire and lift the spirits of every one on the
team.
Hybels (1998) identifies Jesus as being a consistent motivator of the disciples. He
changed Peter‟s name. He promised His followers a hundred-fold reward in this life and in the
next. Often, Jesus would take the disciples away and say, “let‟s not take a hill. Let‟s sleep at
the bottom of one. Let‟s go fishing, eat, and hang out.” In away Jesus portrayed the true
character of a good Shepherd. The Shepherding leader- loves team members so deeply,
nurtures them so gently, supports them so consistently, listens to them so patiently, and prays
for them so diligently that the mission of the team gets achieved.
Team-building leader- these leaders have supernatural insight into people. They find
or develop leaders with the right abilities, character, and chemistry with other team members.
They place people in the right positions for the right reasons who will then produce the right
results. Hybels (1998) stresses that, when the team-building leader gets everyone in place, he
or she then says to the team, “You know what we‟re trying to do. You know what part of the
mission you‟re responsible for. You know what part of the mission the rest of us are
Servant Leadership
12
responsible for. So head out. Work hard. Achieve your objectives. Communicate with your
co-laborers, but lead. This is a call for innovation and entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurial leader- these leaders possess vision, boundless energy, and a risk-
taking spirit. Their distinguishing characteristic is, they function best in a start-up operation.
They love being told it cannot be done. Entrepreneurs on the other hand, feel guilty at the
thought of leaving something they gave birth to. These leaders thrive while swimming in the
troubled waters where they can produce their potential leadership skills. Furthermore, re-
engineering leader- they thrive in a situation that has lost vision or focus, or one that has been
staffed inappropriately. This kind of leader says, “Oh boy, I get to re-engineer this whole
situation.” They find out what the mission was and what it needs to be now. They decide how
progress and success will be measured. They love to tune up, heal, and revitalize hurting
organizations (Hybels, 1998). Notably, this is a good factor of servant leadership, which
focuses on rebranding organizations that seem to have lost shape and fervor.
Lastly, Hybels (1998) has analyzed the concept of a bridge building leader-This leader
brings a wide variety of constituencies together under a single umbrella of leadership so that a
complex organization can achieve its mission. This feat requires enormous flexibility in a
leader-the ability to compromise and negotiate, to listen, understand, and think outside of the
box. It requires not only the ability to be diplomatic; it requires also the gift of being able to
relate to diverse people. This may require a leader to put on right lenses for cultural diversity,
and inclusiveness other than being elusive and exclusive in the organizational leadership
structure.
Williams, (2001), emphatically looks at FIVE lenses as being appropriate to the
practice of servant leadership in an organization. He says, the colorblind leaders have the
ability to see people as individuals and ignore race, color, ethnicity, and other external cultural
factors. They want to look at a person‟s individual qualities and character. They believe that
Servant Leadership
13
ignoring race and color will have an equalizing effect. Their motto: “When I see you, I see a
person, not your color.”
In the similar manner the integrationist- supports breaking down all barriers between
racial groups by merging people of different cultures together in communities and in the work
place. They believe that we can replace our ignorance of each other‟s culture with a greater
understanding and knowledge if we live and work together. They want the national laws to
reinforce this idea.
The idea is strengthened by the meritocratist leaders, who according to Williams
(2001) believe in individualist credo of America: If you have the abilities and work hard
enough, you can compete with anyone to make your dreams come true. Meritocratists
disapprove of programs that use race, culture, ethnicity, class, or any cultural attributes as
criteria for opportunity, believing instead in personal merit. Their motto: “Cream rises to the
top.”
More emphasis is laid on multiculturalist leaders who celebrate the diversity of
cultures in the United States and the contributions they make to our national character and
history. This leader wants to retain the customs, languages, and ideas of people originating in
other cultures. The Multiculturalist believes these retained characteristics combine to create an
appealing and colorful mixed salad, a metaphor often used to describe this perspective. Their
motto: “The more cultural diversity, the better.”
Lastly, Williams (2001), identifies transcendent leader who focuses on the human
spirit, our universal connection, and our shared humanity. The transcendent elevates our belief
in each soul in relation to the divine and to one another. Race, ethnicity, and nationality are a
part of God/the Universe‟s plan and contribute to the richness of humanity. Their motto:
“There‟s really one race-the human race.” However, the purpose of these lenses is to ascertain
Servant Leadership
14
cohesion and teamwork spirit in an organization regardless of cultural diversity. Leaders begin
to demonstrate the true qualities of servant leadership as in the biblical sense.
Warren, (1997), has observed that, dynamic leaders possess some distinguishing
personality traits that give them the power and passion to succeed. For instance, self-
knowledge-there is no greater teacher than responsibility, especially at an early age. With
responsibility and accountability, you gain self-insight through some hall of mirrors, some
prismatic way of seeing yourself in a variety of circumstances.
Effective leaders develop valued and varied sources of feedback on their behavior and
performance. And one of the best sources for many executives is a spouse. According to
Warren (1997), there is something to say about finding any valued source of feedback. The
trick is getting the best feedback possible, being open to it, and changing for the better
because of it. It is really important to encourage a double-loop feedback, which is more
effective and productive.
Furthermore, effective leaders are great askers and listeners. When it has to do with
their work, their job, their company, they are wide-awake. They know what they are good at
doing, and they nurture and develop those skills and talents extraordinarily. They want to get
better. In some cases, they are more eager to learn and more open than I would have thought
possible.
On the other hand, most leaders are adventurous, risk takers, curious-amazingly
curious. They seem to walk through life with their eyebrows raised. And they seem to be
capable of taking great risks-always getting involved in situations that they did not realize
until later were dangerous.
Warren (1997) has observed that, whereas some leaders have very few interpersonal
skills, they do have a concentration that is almost alarming-their caliper eyes focused
primarily on their work, on the company, on the goals, on the mission.
Servant Leadership
15
Surprisingly, great leaders have had a significant setback, crisis, or failure in their
lives. For instance, many of the leaders Warren (1997) studied faced adversity early in their
lives. Four of them had chronic illnesses. Three others were raised as orphans. However,
servant leaders do rise from obscurity to greater heights in organizational change initiative.
Warren (1997) has looked at open style as an important component of leadership in
that it sets an extremely reflective atmosphere as well as openness and vulnerability to
criticism. Open forum is a good platform for the change process in an organization. Church
leaders should be encouraged to widely open their offices for the purpose of openness and
interaction. They should openly respond to questions and concerns from a variety of
constituents and stakeholders in the organization.
It is important for every leader to realize that he or she can‟t handle every problem,
that he or she can‟t handle all things one-on-one, that he or she has to rely heavily on staff and
work with systems if things are going to get better.
Lastly, many leaders take great pride in serving as models and mentors. In Warren‟s
case-from his days as a university president, he takes the most pride from the fact that, ten of
his associates-two women and eight men-later became extremely successful university or
college presidents. Church leaders should take pride in the new guard of young leaders
passionately referred to as “Joshua generation.” The church needs leaders who are focused,
self-driven, and morally upright. Leaders who are willing to learn.
Society today is rediscovering that the process of learning and maturing needs time
and many kinds of relationships such as mentoring- a relational experience in which one
person empowers another by sharing God-given resources. For instance, Barnabas was a
people influencer. He saw potential in Saul (later the Apostle Paul) when others kept their
distance (Stanley & Clinton, 1992).
Servant Leadership
16
Barnabas illustrates a number of the specific ways that mentors help the mentorees:
Mentors give to mentorees-timely advice, letters, articles, books, or other literally information
that offers perspective; freedom to emerge as a leader even beyond the level of a mentor.
Mentors risk their own reputation in order to sponsor a mentoree. They also model various
aspects of leadership functions so as to challenge the mentorees to move toward them.
Mentors on the other hand, direct the mentorees to needed resources that will further develop
them. Lastly, mentors co-minister with mentorees in order to increase their confidence, status,
and credibility.
Mentoring is indeed an empowering experience that requires a connection between
two people…the mentor and the mentoree (Stanley & Clinton, 1992). Three dynamics are
vital to a mentoring relationship: Attraction-it is the necessary starting point in the mentoring
relationship. The mentoree is drawn to the mentor for various reasons-perspective, certain
skills, experience, values, and commitments modeled, perceived wisdom, position, character,
knowledge, and influence. The mentor is attracted to the mentoree‟s attitude, potential, and
opportunity for influence. However, as attraction increases, trust, confidence, and mentoring
subjects develop that will strengthen the mentoring relationship and ensure empowerment
(Stanley & Clinton, 1992).
On the issue of responsiveness-the mentoree must be willing and ready to learn from
the mentor. Attitude is crucial for the mentoree. A responsive, receiving spirit on the part of
the mentoree and attentiveness on the part of the mentor directly speed up and enhance the
empowerment (Stanley & Clinton, 1992).
Sharing expectations and a periodic review and evaluation will give strength to
application and facilitate empowerment. The mentor should therefore take responsibility for
initiating and maintaining accountability with the mentoree (Stanley & Clinton, 1992).
Servant Leadership
17
The more deliberate and intense the mentoring relationship, the more important these
dynamics are. This is because, mutual commitment is necessary for change and growth to take
place. These dynamics are the ingredients that produce this commitment. The commitment
may also be looked at in the light of perspective and focus-notably the Apostle Paul
demonstrates the mutual effect that perspective and focus have on one another. You develop
perspective as you gain experience and reflect on that experience in the presence of God. On
the other hand, focus develops as you begin to understand the priorities of Christ and
personalize them (Stanley & Clinton, 1992).
Intimacy with Christ forms the core of your inner being. Solomon, the King of Israel,
wrote in Proverbs, “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the well-spring of life” (4:23).
The power to lead and minister comes from the inner life. This was the focus area of the
Apostle Paul‟s life: to know Christ intimately (Philippians 3:10). He saw this as a lifelong
pursuit that needed multiple inputs (Stanley & Clinton, 1992).
THE LEADERSHIP OF JESUS
Kadalie (2006, p.124) has looked at the exemplary leadership of Jesus Christ as the
best model we can look at. He has identified nine different ways in which Jesus demonstrated
His leadership abilities:
Leadership development begins with a call. Jesus found His future leaders fishing by a
lake and in other everyday activities. He picked them just as they were. When we call
someone in Jesus‟ Name, it is a ministry of powerful affirmation (p.124).
Jesus went a step to name them. He looked at Peter and said, „You are Simon, you are
going to be Peter‟. When we develop leaders we need to know their names, we need to know
what their names stand for-that is we need to know them well. Understand their strengths and
weaknesses and call them by the new vision of what they will become in Christ (p.124).
Servant Leadership
18
Besides naming, Jesus believed in teams. He sent them out two by two. Teams
accompanied Him. Leadership developers need to know the power of teams. It is important to
work with individuals but also to bring them into a group, where strengths and weaknesses
can be balanced and vision shared (p.124).
Jesus trusted them despite their shortcomings. He told them to follow Him, then taught
them by letting them live with Him and watch Him. He sent them out to go and do, entrusting
them with a task. However, leaders are made not just by telling them what to do, but also by
trusting them to do it (p.124).
Trusting in some cases is strengthened by testing. For instance, when a big storm came
upon them on the lake while they were sleeping on the boat, Jesus asked them, „where is your
faith?‟ He pushed them beyond their safe depths. Leaders grow when they are in situations
beyond their own control and strengths, where they will learn that they will fail unless they
trust in God (p.124).
For the purpose of effectiveness, Jesus employed the strategy of inclusion-from the
crowds He picked seventy, and from the seventy He selected twelve, and out of the twelve,
three. He often took Peter, James and John with Him. To make leaders, we have to focus on
the few who have potential, as well as some who may not seem to have it. Sometimes these
are risks we must take if we want to grow leaders in depth (Kadalie, 2006, p.125).
Jesus‟ leadership program was not a formal, hierarchical structure, but a community
of friends, and the Friend was the center. The night He left them, He said to them, „I no longer
call you servants…I have called you friends‟. Leaders-in-the-making need to sense they are
persons, not projects-persons who, in the best sense of the word, are friends (p.125).
As a friend, Jesus warned His disciples of dangers ahead. In Peter‟s case He warned
him that he would betray Him and let Him down. Although Peter denied Jesus three times
something turned him around. Jesus gave him a chance and an opportunity to reaffirm his love
Servant Leadership
19
and his commitment to feed Jesus‟ sheep. In developing leaders we need to know they will
fail. When that happens, they need correction, encouragement and a chance to start again
(p.125). My observation here is that, only friendly and servant leaders can avail one a chance
and an opportunity to test the waters of change all over again.
We need to make people understand they are chosen as Jesus did. Jesus‟ disciples
realized He had chosen them, prayed for them, died for them and now He trusted them. He
had put Himself in them. Now He was sending them to find His sheep and care for His sheep.
Jesus helped them become the leaders He called them to be (p.125).
Under these circumstances, Jesus was inevitably releasing leaders as change agents in
the changing world. Kadalie (2006, p.127) has commented that, leaders who are effective are
those who adapt to change. Those who are not just efficient but who effectively grab hold of
the opportunities staring them in the face. The scriptures are full of examples of forward
thinking leaders-God chose Moses to deal with the Egyptian crisis, Joshua for the demanding
journey into the promised land, John the Baptist to prepare the way for our Lord, Peter to help
usher in the church in a Jewish environment, and Paul and his team for the gentile challenge.
We certainly need new leaders who are relevant in the prevailing climate. Kadalie (2006)
takes note of former Kenyan President Moi‟s timely statement, “If I must go, then all those
belonging to the old guard must leave with me.”
In leadership change is inevitable. It is a pity that the church is operating in an era
where leaders have adopted the slogan of „no change.‟ The old guard of leaders find it hard
and challenging to willingly pass on the baton to the new guard of leaders for they feel
uncertain about tomorrow. It is important for leaders with a servant heart to model values that
demonstrate the attitude of change for the good of the organization.
Servant Leadership
20
Wallace Erickson in his article, „Transition in Leadership‟ remarked, “One of the best
tests of leadership is the willingness to pass the baton to a successor and let him carry it across
the finish line.”(Kadalie, 2006, p.128).
The Leadership Challenge
Leaders should learn the importance of challenging people. This involves urging
individuals to reach their full potential and not settle for anything less than God‟s best
(Kadalie, 2006, p.16). In fact there are so many opportunities staring us in the face and needs
that we must address. We must prompt others we can influence to take action (Kadalie, 2006).
The leadership challenge is probably one of the greatest facing us today. In our leadership we
will face immense difficulties that may seem insurmountable, but this is what leadership is all
about (Kadalie, 2006).
However, leaders need to take up the following challenges: The challenge to be value
driven; the challenge to lead in a world that has turned into a global village; the challenge to
build a client-centered organization; the challenge to respond innovatively to accelerated
change; the challenge of leveraging technology; the challenge to think strategically, and the
challenge to become a learning organization (Kadalie, 2006, p.16).
These challenges depict leadership values that must be employed to model
organizational change for service improvement. Leaders should be challenged and encouraged
to measure up to the structures of change that affect organizations at different levels.
Our individual responses to many of these challenges differ: Some are over cautious
with millions of reasons why not to do anything; some are gripped by fear and go into some
form of paralysis (Kadalie, 2006, p.16); some find every excuse in the book to run away from
the challenges (Kadalie, 2006, p.17); some will quickly suggest another‟s name to avoid
taking personal risk and responsibility; some just choose to ignore the realities and challenges
of today and find immense comfort in the status quo; interestingly some moan, complain and
Servant Leadership
21
make constant negative remarks, unaware of the incredible challenges staring them in the
face; some without much thought, get excited and grab these challenges with both hands,
while some prayerfully take a step of faith and respond in obedience to the challenges they
face.
In the midst of all this dynamic activity associated with leadership it is important to
remember the essential functions of leading. By appropriately giving priority to the essentials
we will exercise leadership that is grounded in principles (Kadalie, 2006).
The Authentic Leader
People may not say it but they want authenticity in leadership (Kadalie, 2006, p.56).
Do we tell people we had a tough week? Do we tell them we had difficulty with a piece of
scripture? Do we share about our struggles at home? Are we willing to take off the leadership
masks and share our humanity with our followers? In fact by doing this we are not becoming
less human but, rather acknowledging Paul‟s position, “we loved you so much that we were
delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well” (1Thess.2:8).
The Old and New Testaments reveal a pattern that leaders ought to be open about their
weaknesses and struggles (Kadalie, 2006). For instance, Moses was exhausted before Jethro,
David expresses his struggles in the Psalms, Job had doubts and fears, and Jeremiah cried.
Paul admits to the Corinthians that he comes to them in weakness and fear with much
trembling (1 Cor.2: 1-3). Jesus modeled transparency by crying at Lazarus‟ funeral and
showing His fear before crucifixion. African leaders should learn to model the life of Jesus.
The life of brokenness instead of holding on the traditional assumptions that, „men never shed
a tear in public.‟
People often award us with a high level of spirituality when they have no idea whether
we have had a quite time with God in weeks, have marriage difficulties, or struggling with
addictions. A commitment to authenticity helps us refuse the false image some project onto us
Servant Leadership
22
and lowers the mask of hypocrisy (Kadalie, 2006). The researcher has noted that, leaders need
to stand out and lead by example. Leaders should exercise Godly wisdom and also utilize the
teachable moments to build the level of credibility.
Many of us were taught to withhold our true selves from those we serve for fear of
losing moral influence and ability to provide spiritual leadership. In reality, you gain
credibility when you share where you have struggled (Kadalie, 2006, p.57).
When we are honest about our struggles, those to whom we minister grow more
comfortable with being honest about their struggles (Kadalie, 2006). Ministry begins when
leaders create a context in which people can say, “My name is John, and I lost my job”. “My
name is Sheila and my marriage is falling apart”. We take off our masks so others will take off
theirs (Kadalie, 2006). This is an important lesson for leaders in church organizations who
tend to hide away from reality. Leaders should endeavor to model the attitude of humility in
order to impact and influence the congregations, which have been entrusted to them.
The practice of servant leadership is an incredible tool, which must be employed in
order to effect structural change and service improvement in church organizations. Hence,
significantly transforming community. The challenge facing the church today is that leaders
want to lead before they can think of serving their people. In other wards they want to put
food on their tables before they can consider the hungry neighbor. In a nutshell they are more
concerned about their personal/family fairly tales and identities than offering true service to
the community.
The scenario may look natural and normal but true servant leadership calls for
„service‟ first then „leadership‟ later. In the event where there is lack of purpose, value-driven,
and innovation, the end result is evidently ineffective practices of servant leadership principles
necessary for service improvement.
Servant Leadership
23
Nonetheless, the exemplary leadership of Jesus is designed to provide a springboard
for effective servant leadership. Diverse schools of thought such as Burns (1995), Homrig
(2001), Nanus (1992), Saffold (2005), Hybels (1998), Williams (2001), Warren (1997),
Stanley & Clinton (1992), have skillfully presented different concepts of servant leadership
but none of them can measure up to the style and leadership of Jesus Christ. Referring to
Jesus, Kadalie (2006) has drawn a clear path of leadership development which portrays
among other leadership values; positive attitude, teamwork, trust, empowerment, inclusion,
mentoring, and delegation.
Furthermore, Greenleaf (1995) has looked at the principle of servant leadership as
being a service at heart-one should think of service first then leadership later. It is more
fulfilling for a leader to intentionally embrace these essential tools for the purpose of change
and service improvement.
Servant Leadership
24
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This section will look at the methods of investigation and procedures that were used in
data collection process.
Theoretical Framework
The researcher was guided mostly by the interpretive perspective, and specifically by
Greenleaf‟s (1995) perspective of a servant leader. However, the interpretive perspective will
place focus on interpreting the meanings and perspectives of different leadership styles as
practiced by the selected Pentecostal churches in Fort Portal. The researcher used the
meanings related to different management styles and practices embraced by the leaders to be
able to assess the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of the leadership framework. This
approach together with Greenleaf‟s approach helped the researcher to determine and
recommend the role of servant leadership in the process of service improvement.
The researcher observed different behaviors and character traits exhibited by the
church leaders through interaction, which evidently pointed to their childhood upbringing. For
instance, leaders who are greedy for power, materialistic (possessing many pairs of shoes,
flashy life style), self centeredness, insecurity, and defensive in nature, have one thing in
common-childhood tendencies which need to be corrected by right, impacting, and
transforming leadership principles.
RESEARCH DESIGN
The researcher mainly used a descriptive design to establish the evidence and practice
of servant leadership in the way churches are led and if at all it is impacting change in
management styles and practice in Pentecostal churches in Fort Portal-Uganda.
The researcher‟s population of study was 6 key Pentecostal churches in the region and
the target population being 60 people-10 respondents from each church.
Servant Leadership
25
Table No.1: The Study Design.
The Research
Question Information to be collected
Source of
information
Method of
collection
Question:
Is servant leadership
practice evident in
the way churches
are led and is it
impacting change on
management styles
and practices in the
Pentecostal churches
in Fort Portal-
Uganda?
If servant leadership
practice is evident and
how significant it is in the
change process?
If servant leadership
practice is evident and
how effective it is in the
change process?
Pastors,
Elders &
Departmental
heads
Questionnaire
Sample Size
The total number of people interviewed was 57 respondents whose questionnaires
were filled and returned for data analysis.
Sampling Procedures
The research was carried out in Fort Portal town. The researcher used the purposive
sampling technique (Mugenda, O.M. & Mugenda, A.G. 2003, p.50) to determine the target
sample of 60 leaders from 6 Pentecostal churches. The ratio used was 2 pastors, 3 elders, 5
departmental heads (2:3:5) from each church. The departmental heads represented the
congregation.
Research Instruments
The researcher used mainly structured questionnaire instrument to obtain data. A list
of clearly structured questions both open ended and closed format were used to allow free
expression of the interviewees as well as provide room for effective interpretation of data
analysis. They were also structured in such a way that they do not embarrass or harm the
personality of the interviewee and more so the credibility of the organization. The researcher
Servant Leadership
26
handed the questionnaire to the respondents, explained the questions and requested the
respondents to fill them. The respondents were not allowed to fill in their names for the
purpose of confidentiality and enhancing the quality of information.
The researcher also used the method of observation of leadership behavior and character traits
through interaction for data collection.
Data was analyzed using relevant statistics available in the SPSS computer software.
Before the actual analysis was done, the researcher coded and collated information and data to
make the analysis possible.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The letters of informed consent, permission to research, and introduction were
obtained from the university‟s „Ethical Review Committee‟ (ERC) to be presented to the
leadership of the selected Pentecostal churches in Fort Portal. The researcher requested the
church leadership to identify capable and potential leaders to fill in the questionnaires.
RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
Care was taken by the researcher to ensure that inaccurate coding did not
happen, biased information avoided, and fatigue minimized to ensure a clear demonstration
and address to the research questions.
Servant Leadership
27
CHAPTER 4
THE FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter gives the results of data collection, which were got from six Pentecostal
Churches in Fort Portal-Uganda.
The objective of the study was to obtain data relating to the „Extent to which Servant
Leadership practice is applied by Pentecostal Churches in Uganda.‟
Data was obtained from Pastors, elders, and departmental heads of the selected
Pentecostal Churches in Uganda.
The researcher used one structured/standardized questionnaire to carry out an
interview with the respondents.
In the presentation of the results, tables and figures have been used. Frequencies
and/or percentages have been used to describe the results.
PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS
Distribution of respondents by sex
The respondents were asked what sex they were and the results are shown in the table
No.2 below.
Table No.2 Sex Distribution
Sex
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Male
Female
Total
37
20
57
64.9
35.1
100.0
64.9
35.1
100.0
64.9
100.0
Servant Leadership
28
Sixty five percent of the respondents were males while thirty five percent were
females. Culture plays a leading role in this analysis in the sense that women in Uganda are
mostly looked at as household properties other than potential change agents.
Distribution of respondents by age
The respondents were asked how old they were and the results are given in the table
No.3 below.
Table No 3 Age Distribution
Age (years)
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
25-30
31-35
36 and above
Total
10
15
32
57
18.0
26.0
56.0
100.0
18.0
26.0
56.0
100.0
18.0
44.0
100.0
Fifty six percent of the respondents were 36 years and above while twenty six percent
were 31-35 years and eighteen percent indicated 25-30 years. The above analysis shows that
most of the leaders are more mature (36 and above) as compared to others who are still in
their youthful stages and need more time to mature into future potential leaders.
Distribution of respondents by education status
The respondents were asked what level of education they had attained and the results
are reflected in the table No.4 below.
Servant Leadership
29
Table No.4 Level of Education Distribution
Education Status
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Primary
Secondary
Higher Institution
University
Total
4
12
29
12
57
7.0
21.0
51.0
21.0
100.0
7.0
21.0
51.0
21.0
100.0
7.0
28.0
79.0
100.0
Fifty one percent of the respondents indicated that they had attained higher institution
of learning while twenty one percent separately indicated both university and secondary,
seven percent had attained primary level. From this analysis the conclusion can be drawn that
most of the church organizations in Uganda do not look at the advancement of education as a
prerequisite for leadership development. They believe in the anointing as the ultimate measure
for ministry.
Distribution of respondents by marital status
The respondents were asked what marital status they were and the results are analyzed
in the table No.5 below.
Table No. 5 Marital Distribution
Marital Status
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Married
Single
Total
44
13
57
77.2
22.8
100.0
77.2
22.8
100.0
77.2
100.0
Servant Leadership
30
Seventy seven percent of the respondents indicated that they were married while
twenty three percent were single. This demonstrates the emphasis of marriage requirement
among the church leaders who in most cases serve as models. However, to some extent the
singles are also encouraged to serve depending on the definition of single hood.
Response to the number of children each respondent had
The respondents were asked how many children they had and the results are measured
in the table No.6 below.
Table No. 6 Number of Children Distribution
Children
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
0-3
4-7
8-11
12 and above
Total
37
15
4
1
57
64.9
26.3
7.0
1.8
100.0
64.9
26.3
7.0
1.8
100.0
64.9
91.2
98.2
100.0
Sixty five percent of the respondents had less number of children while twenty six
percent had slightly more as compared to seven percent who indicated 8-11 and two percent
had 12 and above. The above analysis demonstrates the negative attitude most leaders may
have towards having a big number of children. Besides, there could be other factors at play
such as single hood, barrenness, discordant couples, and poor conditions of living. It was also
noted that those with big number of children do adopt besides the biological ones.
Response to how long respondents had spent in the organization
The respondents were asked their time of duration and the results are reflected in the
table No.7 below.
Servant Leadership
31
Table No. 7 Duration in church Distribution
Duration (years)
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1-5 years
6-10 years
11 and above
Total
6
20
31
57
10.5
35.1
54.4
100.0
10.5
35.1
54.4
100.0
10.5
45.6
100.0
Fifty four percent indicated that they had been in the organization for 11 years and
above while thirty five percent indicated 6-10 years and eleven percent mentioned 1-5 years.
The analysis shows that the prerequisite for leadership appointment is total commitment to
church vision and activities. Leaders are given time to acclimatize with the policies.
Response to the understanding of the term ‘leadership’
The respondents were asked to define „leadership‟ and the results are analyzed in the
table No.8 below.
Table No.8 Understanding of leadership Distribution
Leadership
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Control
Power
No Idea
Influence
Total
8
13
16
20
57
14.0
22.8
28.1
35.1
100.0
14.0
22.8
28.1
35.1
100.0
14.0
36.8
64.9
100.0
Servant Leadership
32
Thirty five percent of the respondents defined leadership as influence while twenty
eight percent had no idea, twenty three percent looked at leadership as power and fourteen
percent indicated control. To some people leadership is simply position and power. However,
Influence is an effective tool that defines and fosters the right concept of leadership (Maxwell,
1993).
Response to years of leadership experience in the organization
The respondents were asked how experienced they were and the results are given in
the table No.9 below.
Table No.9 Years of experience in leadership held Distribution
Experience (years)
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1-3
4-6
7 and above
Total
7
19
31
57
12.3
33.3
54.4
100.0
12.3
33.3
54.4
100.0
12.3
45.6
100.0
Fifty four percent indicated that they had been in leadership positions for seven years
and above while thirty three percent mentioned 4-6 years and twelve percent had the
experience of 1-3 years. The analysis shows the organizations‟ believe in the practice of
maturity that presents a better crop of respected leaders (Maxwell, 1993).
Response to the preferred style of leadership
The respondents were asked their preferred style of leadership and the results are
shown in the table No.10 below.
Servant Leadership
33
Table No.10 Preferred style of leadership Distribution
Style of Leadership
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Transactional
Controlling
Maintaining
Relational
Total
1
5
1
50
57
1.8
8.7
1.8
87.7
100.0
1.8
8.7
1.8
87.7
100.0
1.8
10.5
12.3
100.0
Eighty seven percent of the respondents preferred relational style of leadership while
nine percent indicated the controlling style and two percent separately indicated both
transactional and maintaining. The study shows that most church leaders in Uganda have a
good working relationship which promotes service improvement (Burns, 1995). Though,
some people take on leadership with selfish motives.
Response to the understanding of the term ‘servant leadership’
The respondents were asked to define servant leadership and the results are measured
in the table No.11 below.
Table No.11 Understanding of servant leadership Distribution
Servant Leadership
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Directing
Shining
Service
Total
3
1
53
57
5.3
1.8
92.9
100.0
5.3
1.8
92.9
100.0
5.3
7.1
100.0
Servant Leadership
34
Ninety three percent of the respondents indicated that leadership is service while five
percent mentioned directing and two percent understood servant leadership in the context of
being in the spotlight. The above analysis highlights the spirit of humility and commitment as
demonstrated by the church leaders aimed at service improvement (Greenleaf, 1995), (Burns,
1995).
Response to the assessment of the respondents’ change initiative
The respondents were asked to assess their role in causing change in the organization‟s
leadership structure and the results are analyzed in the table No.12 below.
Table No.12 Assessment of change Distribution
Change Initiative
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Lone Ranger
Transactional
Maintaining
Sharing Vision
Total
13
1
26
17
57
22.8
1.8
45.6
29.8
100.0
22.8
1.8
45.6
29.8
100.0
22.8
24.6
70.2
100.0
Forty five percent viewed their role in the concept of maintenance while thirty percent
indicated vision sharing, twenty three percent fell in the realm of lone ranger and two percent
being transactional. The analysis reveals that majority of the leaders are not change initiators
in a sense that they are incapable of risk taking (Warren, 1997). Vision sharing is effectively
demonstrated by a small number of leaders who believe in change initiative.
Response to the role of women in the organization
The respondents were asked to reflect on the role played by women in their
organizations and the results are indicated in the table No.13 below.
Servant Leadership
35
Table No.13 Role played by women Distribution
Women involvement
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
None
Passive followers
Active followers
Change Initiative
Total
4
11
17
25
57
7.0
19.3
29.8
43.9
100.0
7.0
19.3
29.8
43.9
100.0
7.0
26.3
56.1
100.0
Forty four percent indicated change initiative while thirty percent were active
followers, nineteen percent were seen as passive and seven percent had no role to play. The
analysis shows that to some extent women are engaged in the process of change though
cultural beliefs hamper their leadership potential, hence, need for diversity and inclusiveness
(Clinton, 1993). Some women are culturally bound to follow male leaders.
Response to the ratio of male leaders as compared to female leaders
The corresponding results are shown in the table No.14 below.
Table No.14 Male leaders versus female leaders Distribution
Ratio
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1:1
2:1
3:1
Other (specify)
Total
5
15
34
3
57
8.7
26.3
59.7
5.3
100.0
8.7
26.3
59.7
5.3
100.0
8.7
35
94.7
100.0
Servant Leadership
36
Sixty percent of the respondents indicated that the number of male leaders exceeded
that of female leaders while twenty six percent put the ratio at 2:1, nine percent indicated even
distribution in leadership positions and five percent mentioned that the number of male
leaders is abnormally higher (5:1) than female leaders. Culturally men are looked at as
potential leaders as compared to women. They are considered to be strong and bread earners
for their families, hence, need for change in organizational culture (Kadalie, 2006).
Response to the leadership development core values
The respondents were asked to state some of the organization‟s core values in relation
to leadership development and the results are reflected in the table No.15 below.
Table No.15 Leadership development core values Distribution
Core Values
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
None
Results
Commitment
Discipleship
Total
21
5
18
13
57
36.8
8.8
31.6
22.8
100.0
36.8
8.8
31.6
22.8
100.0
36.8
45.6
77.2
100.0
Thirty seven percent of the respondents indicated that the organizations had no core
values that guided leadership development while thirty one percent mentioned commitment,
twenty three percent indicated discipleship and nine percent were for results. Evidently the
organizations lack a strong guiding vision framework (Nanus, 1992). Lack of core values
mean ineffectiveness in leadership development structures.
Response to the attitude about competition from other denominations
Servant Leadership
37
The respondents were asked their attitude about competition from other denominations
and the results are indicated in the table No.16 below.
Table No.16 Attitude about competition Distribution
Attitude
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Bad
Fair
Good
Very Good
Total
15
6
29
7
57
26.3
10.5
50.9
12.3
100.0
26.3
10.5
50.9
12.3
100.0
26.3
36.8
87.7
100.0
Fifty one percent expressed that competition is good while twenty six percent hated
competition, twelve percent indicated that it is very good and eleven percent mentioned fair.
Naturally leaders in Uganda look at competition as a fair play- it sets a platform of innovation
and entrepreneurialship (Hybels, 1998), (Kotter, 1996). Though some feel bad and insecure.
Response to the attitude about criticism
The corresponding results are reflected in the table No.17 below.
Table No.17 Attitude about criticism Distribution
Criticism
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Bad
Fair
Good
Very Good
Total
13
12
29
3
57
22.8
21.1
50.8
5.3
100.0
22.8
21.1
50.8
5.3
100.0
22.8
43.9
94.7
100.0
Servant Leadership
38
Fifty one percent of the respondents indicated that criticism is good while twenty three
percent disliked it, twenty one percent mentioned fair and five percent were very positive
about it. Leaders consider criticism a learning process leading to openness and vulnerability
(Warren, 1997). Though some have no room for criticism.
Response to the denominational image before the authorities
The respondents were asked to describe their denominational image in the eyes of the
government and the results are shown in the table No.18 below.
Table No.18 Denominational position in government Distribution
Reputation
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Separation
Spiritual
Supportive
Total
3
37
17
57
5.3
64.9
29.8
100.0
5.3
64.9
29.8
100.0
5.3
70.2
100.0
Sixty five percent indicated that the government looks at them as being more spiritual
while thirty percent have caught the government‟s eye due to their support programs and five
percent mentioned the state of separation. The results show that the church is more focused on
spiritual things than support programs. There is need to readjust for the purposes of
accountability (Warren, 1997).
Response to relationship with other church leaders
The respondents were asked their relationship with other church leaders and the results
are analyzed in the table No.19 below.
Servant Leadership
39
Table No.19 Relationship with other church leaders Distribution
Relationship
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Fair
Good
Very Good
Excellent
Total
10
37
7
3
57
17.5
64.9
12.3
5.3
100.0
17.5
64.9
12.3
5.3
100.0
17.5
82.4
94.7
100.0
Sixty five percent had a good working relationship with other leaders while eighteen
percent were moderate, twelve percent said it is very good and five percent indicated
excellent. The interpretation here is that, the leaders are relational and practice teamwork
(Hybels, 1998), (Williams, 2001). Though some relationships are unpredictable.
Response to leadership appointment procedure
The respondents were asked the procedure for appointing leaders in their organizations
and the results are indicated in the table No.20 below.
Table No.20 Procedure for leadership appointment Distribution
Procedure
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
By ballot
By show of hand
Other (specify)
Total
19
15
23
57
33.3
26.3
40.4
100.0
33.3
26.3
40.4
100.0
33.3
59.6
100.0
Servant Leadership
40
Forty percent of the respondents indicated that leadership is done on doctrinal
appointment while thirty three percent indicated ballot and twenty six percent mentioned
show of hand. The interpretation here is that pastors follow the biblical principles of
appointing leaders in their churches. A leader must be called first (Kadalie, 2006).
Appointment based on ballot and show of hand is mostly self-centered and ineffective.
Response to the effectiveness of the mentoring program
The respondents were asked how effective their mentoring programs were and the
results are measured in the table No.21 below.
Table No.21 Effectiveness of mentoring program Distribution
Effectiveness
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Non-existent
Less effective
More effective
Total
32
17
8
57
56.0
30.0
14.0
100.0
56.0
30.0
14.0
100.0
56.0
86.0
100.0
Fifty six percent of the respondents indicated that the mentoring programs were none
existent while thirty percent said they are less effective and only fourteen percent were
positive about their effectiveness. The analysis shows that most leaders in Uganda are self
centered in the way they conduct the church business. They lack innovation and people
development skills (Maxwell, 1993), (Stanley & Clinton, 1992). Some leaders consider
mentoring as a secular practice which has nothing to do with church.
Response to the effectiveness of church programs in the community
The respondents were asked how effective the church programs were in the
community and the results are reflected in the table No.22 below.
Servant Leadership
41
Table No.22 Effectiveness of church programs in community Distribution
Effectiveness
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Non-existent
Less effective
More effective
Total
12
17
28
57
21.0
30.0
49.0
100.0
21.0
30.0
49.0
100.0
21.0
51.0
100.0
Forty nine percent indicated that the church programs were more effective while thirty
percent doubted their effectiveness and twenty one percent said no community program
existed. The analysis indicates that some churches engage in community programs such as
healthcare, education, sanitation, and orphanage for service improvement (Kadalie, 2006).
Though some leaders feel it is wasteful and outside their calling.
Response to a specific motivation framework
The respondents were asked whether the organizations had specific motivation
framework for leaders and the results are given in the table No.23 below.
Table No.23 Specific motivation framework Distribution
Framework
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Not Quite
No
Yes
Total
13
19
25
57
22.8
33.3
43.9
100.0
22.8
33.3
43.9
100.0
22.8
56.1
100.0
Servant Leadership
42
Forty four percent indicated that the motivation framework is put in place while thirty
three percent said no and twenty three percent were not sure. To some extent, some church
organizations have a motivation framework which involves monthly financial upkeep
(Hybels, 1998). Some leaders believe that church workers should always exercise faith.
Response to delegation of responsibilities
The respondents were asked to state how often they delegated responsibilities to their
associates and the results are shown in the table No.24 below
Table No.24 Delegation of responsibilities Distribution
Delegation
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Everyday or more
2-6 times a week
About once a week
About once a month
Never
Total
12
11
27
7
-
57
21.0
19.3
47.4
12.3
-
100.0
21.0
19.3
47.4
12.3
-
100.0
21.0
40.3
87.7
100.0
Forty seven percent of the respondents delegated responsibilities to their associates
once a week while twenty one percent did it on a daily basis, nineteen percent indicated 2-6
times a week and twelve percent mentioned once a month. Most leaders practice delegation of
responsibility which is essential for change and service improvement (Kouzes, & Posner,
1990). Though it is done only once a week possibly due to insecurity and lack of confidence.
Response to tools used to assess performance
The respondents were asked the kind of tools the organizations used to assess
performance and the results are mentioned in the table No.25 below.
Servant Leadership
43
Table No.25 Tools used in performance assessment Distribution
Tools
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
None
Hire and Fire
Critique
Feedback
Total
12
6
13
26
57
21.1
10.5
22.8
45.6
100.0
21.1
10.5
22.8
45.6
100.0
21.1
31.6
54.4
100.0
Forty six percent of the respondents mentioned feedback as the assessment tool while
twenty three percent indicated critique, twenty one percent expressed ignorance about the
tools used and ten percent settled for the principle of hire and fire. The results reveal that most
leaders do listen to stakeholders for the purpose of assessing performance levels (Warren,
1997). Some leaders lack effective assessment abilities and skill.
Response to whether the organizations encouraged feedback
The corresponding results are analyzed in the table No.26 below.
Table No.26 The practice of feedback Distribution
Feedback
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Totally Agree
Partially Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Totally Disagree
Total
54
3
-
-
57
94.7
5.3
100.0
94.7
5.3
-
-
100.0
94.7
100.0
Servant Leadership
44
Ninety five percent of the respondents indicated that they totally agree with the
practice of effective feedback in the leadership structure while five percent partially agreed.
According to the analysis, feedback plays a leading role in bringing about change and
organizational growth, as long as it is done through right channels of communication (Warren,
1997). Though some organizations seem not to embrace the practice.
Response to whether the organization had a succession plan
The respondents were asked whether their organizations had a specific succession plan
and the results are indicated in the table No.27 below.
Table No.27 Succession plan Distribution
Succession Plan
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Totally Agree
Partially Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Totally Disagree
Total
39
7
4
7
57
68.4
12.3
7.0
12.3
100.0
68.4
12.3
7.0
12.3
100.0
68.4
80.7
87.7
100.0
Sixty eight percent totally agreed that the succession plan existed while twelve percent
indicated partial agreement, more twelve percent totally disagreed and seven percent neither
agreed nor disagreed. The results show that to some extent existing leaders under some
circumstances do hand over office to other potential leaders for change and vision sharing
(Nanus, 1992). Some leaders detest the practice of succession, they would rather hold on their
leadership responsibilities till the end.
Servant Leadership
45
Response to who provided leadership in absence of a leader
The respondents were asked the provision of leadership in case the leader was away
and the results are stated in the table No.28 below.
Table No.28 Provision of leadership Distribution
Leadership
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
None
Controlling
Monitoring
Delegation
Total
5
13
8
31
57
8.8
22.8
14.0
54.4
100.0
8.8
22.8
14.0
54.4
100.0
8.8
31.6
45.6
100.0
Fifty four percent of the respondents indicated the process of delegation while twenty
three percent mentioned the controlling factor, fourteen percent stated monitoring and nine
percent were of the view that no provision was in place. Most leaders delegate responsibilities
to their associates whenever they are out of office. It is a sign of trust and teamwork (Hybels,
1998). Though some leaders do delegate half heartedly, others detest the practice.
Response to how often meetings were conducted for decision-making
The respondents were asked how often meetings were conducted for the process of
decision-making and the results are cited in the table No.29 below.
Servant Leadership
46
Table No.29 Meetings for decision-making Distribution
Meetings
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Every week or more
About once a month
About once a year
Never
Total
11
40
5
1
57
19.3
70.2
8.8
1.7
100.0
19.3
70.2
8.8
1.7
100.0
19.3
89.5
98.3
100.0
Seventy percent indicated that meetings were conducted about once a month while
nineteen percent mentioned every week or more, nine percent cited once a year and two
percent said no meetings were conducted. The analysis shows that decision making process is
made out of consensus and/or mutual consultations which are healthy for the change process.
Regular meetings provide a sense of belonging and accountability among the stakeholders
(Kadalie, 2006).
Response to how accountability was promoted in church
The corresponding results are stated in the table No.30 below.
Table No.30 Promotion of accountability Distribution
Accountability
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Enforcement
Camera meetings
Team work
Feedback
Total
14
9
8
26
57
24.6
15.8
14.0
45.6
100.0
24.6
15.8
14.0
45.6
100.0
24.6
40.4
54.4
100.0
Servant Leadership
47
Forty five percent cited the feedback as a tool used in the promotion of accountability
while twenty five percent indicated enforcement, sixteen mentioned camera meetings and
fourteen thought team work was used for accountability process. Double loop feedback is a
continuous exercise for the realization of higher performance levels. Openness creates an
atmosphere of trust and vulnerability, integral parts of service improvement (Warren, 1997).
Response to a specific retirement plan for leaders
The respondents were asked whether their organizations had a specific retirement plan
for the leaders and the results are recorded in the table No.31 below.
Table No.31 Leadership retirement plan Distribution
Retirement Plan
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Totally Agree
Partially Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Partially Disagree
Totally Disagree
Total
27
6
9
4
11
57
47.4
10.5
15.8
7.0
19.3
100.0
47.4
10.5
15.8
7.0
19.3
100.0
47.4
57.4
73.2
80.2
100.0
Forty seven percent totally agreed that the organizations had a leadership retirement
plan while nineteen percent totally disagreed, sixteen percent neither agreed nor disagreed,
eleven percent partially agreed and seven percent indicated partial disagreement with the
retirement plan. The results show that leaders are strategically focused and do not hold onto
Servant Leadership
48
leadership positions in church (Saffold, 2005). Though some may retire unwillingly and
conditionally, typical African mindset.
Response to what must be done in future for effective leadership development
The respondents were asked their views about the future effective leadership
development plan and the results are reflected in the table No.32 below.
Table No.32 Future plan for leadership development Distribution
Future Plan
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
No Idea
Hard work
Cultural Bias
Empowerment
Total
5
3
1
48
57
8.7
5.3
1.8
84.2
100.0
8.7
5.3
1.8
84.2
100.0
8.7
14.0
15.8
100.0
Eighty four percent of the respondents indicated that empowerment was key to future
effective leadership development while nine percent had no idea, five percent settled for hard
work and two percent thought cultural bias was the solution. The analysis above indicates that
the future of an effective and value driven organization should be reflected through the
practice of empowering potential leaders. The organizations must put in place capacity
building programs which are flexible and manageable (Stanley & Clinton, 1992), (Hybels,
1998).
Servant Leadership
49
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSIONS
This chapter provides a balanced discussion on the major findings of the study. It
underlines the main leadership concepts that identify with the practice of servant leadership in
impacting organizational change.
It is understandably that a small percentage of leaders in Pentecostal churches have a
clear understanding of leadership as being influence. Leadership is influence. Nothing more,
nothing less (Maxwell, 1993). There is no doubt that these leaders given good exposure and
skill, they can effectively cause change in the organization. The focus of leadership should be
put on quality other than quantity.
The church in Uganda should focus on leaders who are mature and respected by other
stakeholders. Maxwell (1993) has noted that, people will follow you because of who you are
and what you represent. Your sense of character and attitude evidently impacts their
management styles and practices. Experience on the other hand, should measure up with
excellent performance levels in the organization.
Furthermore, experience should compliment the concept of positive relationships as
demonstrated by the majority of leaders in the region. Transforming leadership occurs when
one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one
another to higher levels of motivation and morality (Burns, 1995).This attitude speaks a lot
about culture in Uganda which prefers friendship to hostility. However, the concept of servant
leadership is a condition of a transformed heart that puts the love of Christ above culture.
Greenleaf (1995) says that, a servant leader is a servant first. It begins with the
natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to
aspire to lead. Given proper training, guidance, and motivation, these leaders can impact
service improvement in their respective organizations.
Servant Leadership
50
Warren (1997) has observed that, whereas some leaders have very few interpersonal
skills, they do have a concentration that is almost alarming-their caliper eyes focused
primarily on their work, on the company, on the goals, on the mission. The church needs
leaders who are focused on the goals and mission oriented. Leaders who are tasked to initiate
change other than simply maintaining the status quo. The church should also design structures
which will appreciate the role of women as potential change agents regardless of cultural
setbacks. There is need for diversity and inclusion for the purpose of service improvement.
Clinton, (1993) has stated that, Leadership is a dynamic process in which a man or
woman with God-given capacity influences a specific group of God‟s people toward His
purposes for the group. Women need to rise to the occasion to take on more imposing tasks
like any other leader in the organization. Women are potential leaders whose self esteem must
be boosted by a well structured leadership environment.
Sadly the results present the varying ratios where the majority in leadership positions
are males. Even where the ratio is 1:1, women are closely monitored and supervised by men, a
demonstration of cultural bias. Do women have the potential and a call for leadership? Yes.
To make leaders, we have to focus on the few who have potential, as well as some who may
not seem to have it. Sometimes these are risks we must take if we want to grow leaders in
depth (Kadalie, 2006).
Interestingly, most church organizations in Uganda lack core values for leadership
development. This affirms the need for competent trained leaders at the helm of
organizational leadership. People who can take the initiative to push the organizations to
higher levels of achievement. There is no more powerful engine driving an organization
toward excellence and long-range success than an attractive, worthwhile, and achievable
vision of the future, widely shared, (Nanus,1992). On the other hand, Saffold, (2005) says,
Servant Leadership
51
strategic planning is about leadership; leadership is about the future; and the future is about
vision.
Kotter, (1996,) has noted that to date, major change efforts have helped some
organizations adapt significantly to shifting conditions, have improved the competitive
standing of others, and have positioned a few for a far better future. It is one thing for leaders
to embrace competition as a good factor of life but yet another to endeavor to have a
competitive advantage vital for service improvement.
However, the inter-church relationship is considerably good. Most Pentecostal leaders
in Uganda pray and support one another on the basis of agape love and unity in the body of
Christ. It is true disagreements do exist in some leadership circles but leaders in most cases
apply the principle of agreeing to disagree for the purpose of kingdom relationship. It is
beneficial for the church when the leaders start putting on the right lenses of culture. More
emphasis should be laid on multiculturalist leaders who celebrate the diversity of cultures and
the contributions they make to our national character and history. This leader wants to retain
the customs, languages, and ideas of people originating in other cultures. Their motto: “The
more cultural diversity, the better” (Williams, 2001).
The same attitude should reflect the appointment of leaders which must be effected
through right procedure to avoid the creation of family dynasties in church leadership
positions which will bear a negative impact on the change process. Leadership development
begins with a call. When we call someone in Jesus‟ Name, it is a ministry of powerful
affirmation (Kadalie, 2006).
This should be accompanied by a well structured mentoring program. Mentoring is
indeed an empowering experience that requires a connection between two people…the mentor
and the mentoree (Stanley & Clinton, 1992). Personnel development is an integral part of the
organizational vision. People follow because of what you have done for them. They
Servant Leadership
52
demonstrate a sense of leadership transformation and career development, which in the long
run benefits the organization (Maxwell, 1993).
A look at the church community impact, it is evident that the relatively majority
church organizations have practical programs like orphanages, health care, and education
projects for reaching out to communities. This shows that the church is alive and relevant to
the community need which is the true essence of the gospel. In fact there are so many
opportunities staring us in the face and needs that we must address. We must prompt others
we can influence to take action (Kadalie, 2006).
Besides reaching out to the community, the church needs to have a motivation
framework in place. The analysis reveals that most church organizations have a motivation
framework though relatively below average. The reasons could be that most church leaders
take faith as the standard measure of motivation. They simply don‟t want to commit
themselves to financial and material support. They consistently tell their leaders that serving
God is an act of faith regardless of one‟s personal and/or family needs. A motivational leader-
possesses insight into who needs a fresh challenge or additional training. They can sense who
needs public recognition, an encouraging word, or a day off. They know when a pay increase,
office change, title change, or sabbatical is needed. Motivational leaders know that teammates
get tired, lose focus, and experience mission drift. Workers wonder if what they‟re doing
really matters to any one-or to God. Motivational leaders don‟t get bitter or vengeful when
morale sinks. They instead see it as an opportunity to inspire and lift the spirits of every one
on the team (Hybels, 1998). It is very possible that these leaders are also open to the principle
of delegation of responsibility.
Delegation of responsibility must be practiced without fear or favor for the good of the
organization and personnel development. The ultimate test of practical leadership is the
realization of intended, real change that meets people‟s enduring needs (Kouzes, & Posner,
Servant Leadership
53
1990). In this case job insecurity and self-centeredness should be put out of question. On the
other hand, feedback has been sighted as an important assessment tool for service
improvement. Effective leaders develop valued and varied sources of feedback on their
behavior and performance. And one of the best sources for many executives is a spouse.
According to Warren (1997), there is something to say about finding any valued source of
feedback. The trick is getting the best feedback possible, being open to it, and changing for
the better because of it. It is true in recent times church organizations are beginning to involve
other stakeholders in the decision making process for better service delivery.
The results have also shown that some Pentecostal churches have a succession plan for
their leaders. They demonstrate effectiveness, accountability and teamwork spirit. There is
no more powerful engine driving an organization toward excellence and long-range success
than an attractive, worthwhile, and achievable vision of the future, widely shared,
(Nanus,1992). The negative impact could arise in the event where the leaders may decide to
delegate responsibilities and/or pass on the succession mantle to their spouses, family
members, and close confidants. This will evidently affect the decision-making process.
Leadership developers need to know the power of teams. It is important to work with
individuals but also to bring them into a group, where strengths and weaknesses can be
balanced and vision shared (Kadalie, 2006).
Furthermore, Warren (1997) has looked at open style as an important
component of leadership in that it sets an extremely reflective atmosphere as well as openness
and vulnerability to criticism. Today‟s church in Uganda seems to have overcome the
assumption that meetings are a waste of time, energy, and resources. In fact meetings create a
positive environment of accountability hence, effective change process.
In the final analysis, the church should focus on strategic leadership preferably having
a clear retirement plan. Saffold, (2005) says, strategic planning is about leadership; leadership
Servant Leadership
54
is about the future; and the future is about vision. Leaders must responsibly embrace the
philosophy of moving people and organizations from where they are today to where they need
to be tomorrow. People should be empowered through training and other capacity building
avenues which strategically point them to the co-operate organizational future.
A strategic leader forms a game plan every one can understand and participate in, one
that will eventually lead to the achievement of the vision. A strategic leader challenges the
organization to work the plan. She says, “Don‟t get distracted. Do what needs to be done to
achieve the next step, then the next, and we shall achieve the vision together” (Hybels, 1998).
Servant Leadership
55
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter focuses on the outstanding issues necessary for change process which are
central to the research questions: Is servant leadership practice evident in the way churches
are led?
If evident, is it impacting change on management styles and practices in the Pentecostal
Churches in Fort Portal-Uganda? These questions have been addressed in the sense that, the
leadership challenges and/or setbacks facing the church in Uganda have been identified and
refocused for the change initiative. For instance, the role of women, leadership appointment,
and church image in government, delegation, and motivation among others have been
reviewed and put into right context for leadership development.
Outstanding Issues on Change Process
The research has highlighted seven key outstanding issues and/or servant leadership
principles intended for service improvement: Influence, Relationships, and Service, Vision
sharing, Mentoring, Community involvement, and Empowerment.
The research looks at influence as a key factor in ensuring sustainable change process
in the Pentecostal churches in Uganda. Maxwell (1993) defines leadership as „influence.‟
Influence is the core of servant leadership. Leadership is not about control and acquiring more
power. Indeed power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Leaders ought to learn
the habit of looking back to see if someone is following them or not. Otherwise they may
simply be taking a walk. Positive influence will create room for higher performance levels and
relational building.
However, a relational leader looks at people as a valuable asset-in fact the greatest
resource for every organization is human resource. People need to understand that their
contribution towards service improvement is an asset. They need to be loved and cared for
Servant Leadership
56
otherwise; the style of leadership may appear to be transactional, based on the „give and take‟
principle other than offering service to the community.
Service is embedded at the heart of true servant leadership. Service is considered to be
a useful tool for impacting change and practice in the management styles in Pentecostal
churches in Uganda. Greenleaf (1995) argues that service must precede leadership. He says
that, the servant leader is a servant first, and then conscious choice brings one to aspire to
lead. The rule of the game is actually service and vision sharing.
The research identifies that vision sharing plays a leading role in the change
implementation process. It creates an environment of teamwork and effective communication.
Church organizations should learn to place their vision statements on the table for all the
stakeholders to study and make valuable contributions. Without clarity in vision, there will be
less and half hearted involvement of other stakeholders in initiating change. A visionary
leader-these leaders have crystal clear picture in their minds of what they want to happen.
They cast visions powerfully and possess indefatigable enthusiasm to pursue the mission.
Visionary leaders are not easily discouraged or deterred (Hybels, (1998).
Effective visionary leaders are those who have embraced the principle of mentoring.
Mentoring is the process of identifying, teaching, sharing values, and impacting another leader
for excellent leadership. The role of mentoring is a Herculean task which calls for dedication
and focus on both parties. Effective leaders carry a sense of balance and respect both in
church and community. Sharing expectations and a periodic review and evaluation will give
strength to application and facilitate empowerment (Stanley & Clinton, 1992).
In the light of preaching the gospel, the church should also embark on community
based projects such as education, healthcare, feeding street children and orphanage in support
and enhancement of government programs. This will bring life and hope in communities
especially among the low income earners. Community based projects paint a picture that the
Servant Leadership
57
church organizations are accountable in their service improvement operations. These projects
must reflect the church constitution other than being individual based, for the purpose of
accountability and responsiveness.
The research has noted that, the future of effective servant leadership in Uganda is
highly dependent on the principle of empowerment. Leaders need to be motivated and
empowered through bible training opportunities, leadership seminars, workshops, and other
capacity building programs. Focus develops as you begin to understand the priorities of Christ
and personalize them (Stanley & Clinton, 1992). This will create a healthy working
environment leading to service improvement in Pentecostal churches in Uganda.
The main focus is to inform the potential stakeholders about the significant role played
by the practice of servant leadership in impacting the change process.
Before giving your recommendations, say whether your research questions have been
answered.
Servant Leadership
58
REFERENCES
Briner, B., & Pritchard, R. (1998). Leadership lessons of Jesus. Timeless lessons for
leaders in today‟s world, Random House, New York & Broadman and Holman
Publishers, pp.89-91.
Burns, M. (1995). “Transactional and transforming leadership.” The leader‟s
Companion: Insights on leadership through the ages. J Thomas Wren, ed. New
York, NY: © Free Press, pp.100-101.
Clinton, J.R. (1993). The making of a leader: Recognizing the lessons and stages of
leadership development, NavPress, A ministry of the Navigators, Colorado
Springs, CO 80935, USA, p.14.
Gardner, J.W. (1990). “The nature of leadership.” On leadership, New York, NY: © Free
Press, p.1
Greenleaf, R.K. (1995). “Servant leadership.” The leader‟s companion:
Insights on leadership through the ages. J Thomas Wren, ed. New York, NY: © Free
Press.
Homrig, M. A. (2001). “Transformational leadership.” Retrieved on January 8, 2009 from
http://www.leadership.au.af.mil/documents/homrig.htm
Hybels, B. (1988). “Finding your leadership style: Ten different ways to lead God‟s
people,” Winter, pp.84-89.
Kadalie, D. (2006). Leader‟s resource kit: Tools and techniques to develop your leadership,
Evangel Publishing House, Nairobi, Kenya, pp.13, 16-17, 56-57, 124-125, 127-128,
225, 228.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
Massachusetts, USA, pp.3-15.
Servant Leadership
59
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1990). The leadership challenge, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass
Publishers, p.37.
Maxwell, J.C. (1993). In developing the leader within you. Milton Keyes, G B: © Word
Publishing, pp.15, and 21, 32.
Mugenda, O.M. & Mugenda, A.G. (2003). Research methods: Quantitative and qualitative
approaches. Acts Press, P.O BOX 45917, Nairobi-Kenya, p.50.
Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership: Creating a compelling sense of direction in your
organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p.3.
Saffold, G.S. (2005), Strategic planning: Leadership through vision, Evangel Publishing
House, Nairobi, Kenya, pp.137, 149-150, 153-154.
Stanley, P. D., & Clinton, J. R. (1992). Connecting: The mentoring relationships you
need to succeed in life, NavPress, Colorado Springs, CO 80935, USA, pp.18, 38-40,
42-44, 216-217.
Warren, B. (1997). “Ten traits of dynamic leaders.” Managing people is like herding cats,
Provo, UT: © Executive Excellence Publishing, pp.89-93.
Williams, M. A. (2001). The 10 lenses: Your guide to living and working in a
multicultural world, Capital Books, Inc. Herndon, Virginia 20172-0605, USA,
pp.15, 21, 23, 25, 29.
Servant Leadership
60
APPENDIX 1
Checklist/Survey Instrument.
Section 1: Personal Data.
1.1 Name: ________________________ Telephone: ___________________
Box: _________________________ Mobile: _____________________
Town: ________________________ Office: ______________________
Fax: ________________________
E-mail:______________________
1.2 What is your gender?
____ Male
____ Female
1.3 What is your age bracket?
____ 25-30
____ 31-35
____ 36 and above
1.4 What is your education status?
____ Primary
____ Secondary
____ Higher Institution (post secondary)
____ University
1.5 Marital Status:
____ Married
____ Single
1.6 How many children do you have?
____ 0-3
Servant Leadership
61
____ 4-7
____ 8-11
____ 12 and above
1.7 How long have you been in this organization?
____ 1-5 years
____ 6-10 years
____ 11 and above
1.8 What do you understand by the term „leadership‟?
1.9 What is your level of experience and practice in leadership?
____ 1-3 years
____ 4-6 years
____ 7 and above
1.10 What is your preferred style of leadership?
____ Relational
____ Transactional
____ Controlling
____ Maintaining
[NB: Relational-looking at people as a valuable asset; Transactional-leadership based on „give
and take‟ principle on both parties; Controlling- putting yourself in a place of a hero, you are
„Mr. right;‟ Maintaining-possessing no slight urge for change.]
Section 2: The role of servant leadership.
2.1 What do you understand by the term „servant leadership‟?
2.2 Can you briefly assess your role in causing change in the organization‟s leadership
structure?
2.3 What role do women play in your organization?
Servant Leadership
62
2.4 What is the ratio of male leaders as compared to female leaders in your organization?
____ 1:1
____ 2:1
____ 3:1
____ Other (specify).
2.5 What are some of your core values in relation to leadership development?
2.6 What is your attitude about competition from other denominations?
2.7 What is your attitude about criticism?
2.8 How is your denominational image in the eyes of government?
2.9 How is your relationship with other church leaders?
2.10 What is the procedure for appointing leaders in your organization?
____ by ballot
____ by show of hand
____ Other (specify).
2.11 How effective is your mentoring program, if any?
2.12 How effective are your church programs in the community?
Section 3: The effectiveness of servant leadership.
3.1 Do you have a specific motivation framework for your leaders?
3.2 How often do you delegate responsibilities to your associates?
____ Every Day or more
____ 2-6 Times a week
____ About once a week
____ About once a month
____ Never
3.3 What tools do you use to assess performance?
Servant Leadership
63
3.4 Do you encourage feedback in your leadership structure?
____ Totally Agree
____ Partially Agree
____ Neither Agree nor Disagree
____ Totally Disagree
3.5 Do you have a specific succession plan for your organization?
____ Totally Agree
____ Partially Agree
____ Neither Agree nor Disagree
____ Totally Disagree
3.6 Who provides leadership when you are away?
3.7 How often do you conduct meetings for decision-making process?
____ Every week or more
____ About once a month
____ About once a year
____ Never
3.8 How do you promote accountability in your church?
3.9 Do you have a specific retirement plan for your leaders?
____ Totally Agree
____ Partially Agree
____ Neither Agree nor Disagree
____ Partially Disagree
____ Totally Disagree
3.10 What do you think must be done in future to develop effective leadership in your
organization?
Servant Leadership
64
APPENDIX 2
Letter of informed consent.
Dear
Thank you for indicating interest in participating in a research project that will examine The
Role of Servant Leadership in churches in Fort Portal- Uganda. I will carry out all research as
part of the requirements for completing a Master of Arts degree in Leadership at Pan Africa
Christian University. The following outlines the study itself and information about your
participation.
Title of Project
The Role of Servant Leadership in Impacting Change in Management Styles and Practice in
Pentecostal churches in Fort Portal- Uganda
Introduction to the Project
The research involves the careful analysis of servant leadership practices. This interaction will
take place in the form of a survey.
The purpose of this research is to provide a working document for implementation of servant
leadership practices in the Uganda churches.
Overview of Your Involvement
Your voluntary involvement in the process will require you to do the following:
Fill out the attached survey, and return it to the researcher anonymously.
There are no external risks to participating in the study. Only you and the researcher will be
privy to the data that is collected. All the raw data will be kept in confidence and you will not
be named in the study, nor will your position or role be identified. The data will not be
available to any outside persons unrelated to this research. All the raw data collected during
the study will be destroyed following the completion of the research project. Your
participation in this research project requires a commitment of no more than 30 minutes. You
may at any time withdraw from the study by simply indicating to the researcher your intention
to withdraw. No evaluative judgment will be made about you if you choose to withdraw from
the study. All raw data will be immediately destroyed.
It is anticipated that the study will benefit the leadership of the Fort Portal churches in
Uganda.
The Survey will be circulated and is to be returned no later than
_______________
Contacts
Thank you for your participation. If you require further information or explanation please
contact me or the MA in Leadership, Head of Department Mr. Benson Katulwa.
Titus Makuma Mr. Benson Katulwa
Candidate, MA Degree MA in Leadership, Head of Department
Pan Africa Christian University Pan Africa Christian University
Servant Leadership
65
Research Consent
I have read and understood the conditions under which I will participate in this study and give
my consent to be a participant.
Name: _________________________________ Date: ____________________
Signature _______________________________
Please initial if you would like to have a summary of the findings upon completion _____
Note: A copy of this form will be retained by the participant for future reference.
Servant Leadership
66
APPENDIX 3
Letter of introduction
January, 30 2009
To whom it may concern
I am inviting you to participate in a research project to Study the Extent to which Servant
Leadership practice is applied by Pentecostal Churches in Uganda. Mr. S.Titus Makuma,
who is carrying out this research, is enrolled in the Master of Arts in Leadership degree
program at Pan Africa Christian University.
To help the students apply what they have learnt in this program, they are required to identify a
service improvement issue in their work related environment, or in the community in which they
live. They are then required to narrow the focus of their topic to a very specific issue that can be
further illuminated by interviewing, or surveying, experienced participants from the identified
organization. Based on the specific question they wish to address, students develop a detailed
interview, or survey procedure.
Enclosed with this letter is a brief description of the project, and an Informed Consent document
that will address any concerns you may have in participating in this research.
Your participation is voluntary and there is no penalty if you do not participate. We are simply
asking for any consideration you may be able to give to further this research. Thank you for your
willingness to share of your expertise, and help our MA students to apply the learning they have
participated in over the last two years.
Each project has been reviewed by, and received ethics clearance from, the Ethics Review
Committee at Pan Africa Christian University. Any comments or concerns resulting from your
participation in the Questionnaire, can be directed to Mr. Benson Katulwa, Head of M.A in
Leadership program, through +254 725 000 260 or, [email protected]
Sincerely,
Benson Katulwa, MA. PhD Candidate
Head of Department, MA in Leadership
Pan Africa Christian University
Servant Leadership
67