Spiritual Leadership Theory - Personal Statement Example

Personal ment; Spiritual Personal Leadership Theory Personal ment; Spiritual Personal Leadership TheoryIntroduction The saying that change is inevitable has been most applicable in the current century as almost every aspect of humanity has been transformed by emerging trends in one way or another. These changes have been orchestrated mainly by technology and changing lifestyles to mention but a few. This means that leadership has not been spared either; the current leader has been overwhelmed by the emergences of the new century, such that the all-round leadership which constituted of heart, spirit, mind, and body essences is fading fast. That therefore calls for a change in the ways of leadership so that it is restructured to fit these four important contexts of human well-being. This is where spiritual leadership comes into play. In the light of this, the following text addresses a personalized spiritual leadership theory at a personal level, highlighting the roles that both leaders and followers play, in addition to how it relates to other leadership theories. Personal Leadership Understanding Personally, I would define leadership as a process which should be based on pure positivity, and enclosed within ethics. Again, leadership is more of an influence, process, and influence than it is a role or authority. In short, leadership is simply a collective term for the relationship between leaders and followers, and this is at the very same level. In application, a leader should be a servant to the followers, and the followers should reciprocate this to their leader. The only reason why a leader is necessary within a collective setting is that the followers need to have a central point from where they can channel or access collective guidelines, or the necessary equipment required to achieve excellence. A leader should be a self-construct and not as some perceptions state that leadership is inborn. This is overly supported by the fact that of the overall persons graded as great leaders, the larger portion of them is made up of people who had to overcome hurdles and challenges to emerge above the ground and live normal lives (Clawson, 2009). This is as compared to those who had smooth foundations for life. Concisely, one can construct themselves to become a great leader, and that is determined by the traits, beliefs and perceptions through which they view the world. Why Spiritual Leadership? Spirituality is most of the time confused with religion. The fact is that both of these are different terms representing totally different elements. By definition, religion would point at matters related directly, or limited to only worship and organized beliefs. On the other hand, spirituality would define one’s proximity to God, in addition to proximity towards other living beings and the world at large. Another contrast between the two terms is that religion may discriminate against different faiths (religions) whereas in spirituality, discrimination is insignificant because different religions may unite under common spiritualities (Fry, 2003). The above definitions support the reasoning leading to the conclusion that in organizations and even ministries, spirituality would be more effective if incorporated into leadership as compared to religion. The key roles which a leader is mandated to include motivating, leading, organizing, guiding, developing, and striving in order to keep their followers from losing focus on the organization’s (ministry) cultures, visions, values, and goals. These combined, leadership can be termed as a transformational process geared towards sustenance and the achievement of an organization’s success. I believe that the chief reason why personal spiritual leadership would create the best theories for guiding people is because such a leader can reach out deep into a person’s fundamental demand (needs), and this covers both the leader and follower. In so doing, a leader can tap into the person’s best activation components and on it, spark better commitment and productivity. The shortfall with most existing leadership theories is that they include all other aspects of the human, but fail to address the spiritual bit. A person is made up of two main parts; mind and body. If a theory addresses one of these and leaves out the other, then loopholes are created, and which endanger the overall style of leadership. In summing up, I state that spiritual leadership is the key base necessary for creating a theory which encompasses the behaviors, attitudes, and values necessary for activating one’s spiritual survival either in membership, leadership, or both (Reave, 2005). Background of my Theory I came up with the above explanations and conclusions with the minimal experience I have collected in my ministering. Being in ministry has taken me to different societies and organizations (including other ministries), and from these visits, I observed that the applied leadership creates optimum conditions for the growth of an abyss between the clergy and laity. My point is that the styles of leadership in place are responsible for the definite observable gap which I observed during some of my conferences and visits. This should never be the case. I concur with (Cole, 2009) who states that such a distance between the laity and clergy is overly unnecessary, and to an extent is very harmful to the church. The chief idea I express, based on Cole’s reasoning is that the church should be like a triangle in which the clergy is at the very top, supported from below by the laity. As such, they both need each other. In the absence of the laity, the clergy would not be at the top. On the other hand, the absence of the clergy, the church “triangle” would not be complete. This can be better put as that the terms clergy and laity should not be discriminate. Rather, they should only be used to represent who is who in the ministry, but should not point at authority levels. Some theories of leadership suggest that the powers of the top leadership, which in this case is the clergy, should be done away with. This is not acceptable because the church itself as defined by Christ is a vine which is made up of different parts. It is only through the correlation and harmonious existence between the leaves, stems, roots, and branches that the “vine” can get to bloom and bear fruit. This should be replicated in coming up with ministry leadership theories; the clergy and laity should work harmoniously for the good of the church. At this point, I support that leadership ignited from within a person (personal perspective) who adheres to Christ’s proposal for manning the church would best work for the church. It is therefore sufficient to state that in ministries undergoing problems with leadership, it is simply because the leaders were drawn from unfavorable settings other than personally-motivated or individuals constructed under the Holy Church. Guided by such thoughts, I sought to develop a theory which focuses primarily on leadership, discipleship, and the church as an overall entity. Back to the personal level, I used guidelines which point at leadership as a purely transformational process and not a process concerned with inflicting or enforcing orders on the laity. In this context of holy ministry, the transformation is all about dedicating oneself to sustaining the ministry to the point of sacrifice. What I mean is that as a leader, one should have a commitment, so intense that even if it got to a point whereby one had to exchange their lives in order for the ministry to nourish, then so be it. Cole insists that the health of any ministry depends on the collective efforts between the laity and clergy. If the two are overly committed to see the ministry succeed, then that elevates the health status of that ministry. “The health of any organization can be evaluated in direct proportion to its willingness to die… The more willing it is to die so that the Kingdom can flourish, the healthier the organization is” (Cole, 2009). My Spiritual Personal Leadership Theory Generally, my personal leadership theory is derived from the perspective that leadership begins from within an individual. It is only through transforming self that a person can transform others. I seek to create a spiritual personal leadership theory which will paint me (and other leaders) as possessing self-drive, collectivity, connectivity, and the might to be results-oriented in achievement of the ministry’s objectives. Basically, it aims at creating a leader who can be readily absorbed into the laity and merge with them without the emergence of any break between them. The elements herein integrate with spirituality, which according to Neal (2001), leads to the establishment of positive relationships in any organization between top leaderships and the normal persons. This achieved, effectiveness is guaranteed. The first characteristic making up my personal spiritual leadership theory is trust. Trust within the ministry means that neither the laity nor the clergy should fear the other when it comes to committing to ministry affairs. The laity should be able to share their issues to the clergy without any suspicions or worries. The clergy on the other hand should reciprocate the same to the laity. On the basis of leadership-discipleship, trust means that both parties entrust the other with their roles in the ministry, and believe that the allocated roles will be executed in the best way possible. A leader should therefore create grounds for the laity to trust them. The best way to do so is being responsible, accountable, and absolute in executing one’s roles. In short, any member (disciple) of the ministry should be at ease in the event that their lives, opportunities, and overall development had to be entrusted with their leader. The second characteristic is that, the mentioned leader should posses a genuine “calling” to partake in the ministry work. Calling in this context refers to that inward passion sparked internally for the leader to commit themselves to the ministry work. The idea here is that when one possesses the calling rather than being persuaded or pushed into working for the ministry, they tend to possess qualities which relate to commitment. These vary from behavior, ethics, humility, openness, integrity, and honesty (which lead to trust). A leader inspired by a calling would even be more creative in devising strategies which would enhance their leadership, solutions to the laity, and development of the church. This is so because they embody an unstoppable will to work, and keep working towards achievement of ministry objectives. A call in this placement relates directly to the spiritual (mind) context of the human, and works perfectly to motivate the body (physical) being into working. The good thing about a leader with a calling is that they extend the same to their followers, and motivate them to press on with discipleship. An entrusted person has the backup of the laity to man their affairs in the ministry. If this person possesses, or acquires a genuine call to work in the ministry, they automatically become result-oriented leaders. This is the third characteristic of my theory. Being result-oriented simply means setting a goal such as pursuing Christ’s Kingdom, and implementing all necessary requirements to achieve it, such as adhering to his Word. A leader who is goal-oriented is less likely to lose focus en route to the goal even in the presence of obstacles. Creativity goes hand in hand with being goal-oriented. This is so because when the focus is on a specific destination, a person always finds means of getting there if they do not lose the will. When such a leader is at the crown of the ministry pyramid, the disciples follow suit, and become as aggressive in attaining their objectives (Fairholm, 1996). This not only keeps the ministry in high spirits but also knits the laity and clergy together. The final characteristic in my theory combines the calling with trust to arrive at servant leadership. A servant leader should be controlled by the spirit of humility. Humility in ministry leadership will ensure that despite their ranking in the clergy or laity, an individual cannot look down on others or elevate themselves above the rest. I usually ponder over the scary thought as to what it would be like if someone within the ministry leadership elevated themselves above God. The obvious is that they would scatter the clergy, of which in the absence of it, there would be no church (ministry). Serving others whole-heartedly create trust, cohesion, and effectiveness in leadership. It has been proven that leaders who set their rates lower than those of others, usually have the highest ratings from their disciples (Northhouse, 2012). Christ humbled Himself and washed the feet of His disciples, and that remains one of the most inspirational acts in the Christian world. When a leader is humble and serves others, their followers find it simpler to open up to them, support them, work like their leader, and listen to what they have to say. Overall, motivation remains high, cohesion is maintained, progress is maximized, and in the end, effectiveness and objectives are met. Comparison to other Theories Traits Theory My theory differs with the trait theory, particularly on the basis that the effectiveness of a leader can be traced back to their characters (Fleenor, 2011). While I agree that people may possess traits that may boost their leadership skills, no traits are specific in determining the best leader since everyone has a unique quality which if effectively applied can lead to effectiveness in leadership. Behavioral Theory This theory differs from my theory in that it does not recognize leadership presence. My theory advocates for leader presence for the “triangle” to be complete. The two, however concur in that there should be a balance between a leader’s concern for their tasks as well as a concern for the laity (followers). Contingency / Situational Theory This theory has three main characteristics; that people can change their behavior depending on situation preferences, that people’s controlling psychology does not exist, and finally ignores the presence of leadership (Richard, 2013). The dominant difference here is that the contingency theory does not recognize the leadership presence whereas my theory points on it as a mandatory part. It however, agrees to some point with my theory that a person can alter their traits to suit certain circumstances. My theory, however stresses that one should go beyond altering only when circumstances demand it, and should alter themselves to pursue better personal achievement. Functional Theory The functional theory is similar to the contingency theory in that it ignores the controlling psychology of people, does not recognize the leadership presence, and finally ascertains that all leaders can ape behavioral requirements only after behavioral (altering) training, although the majority cannot (Mannix & Neale, 2012). My theory agrees to the functional theory’s upholding that leaders should take the shape of what people expect from them for leadership to be effective. They further show a likeness in that they support that a leader should not be wholly for the followers, but should also seek personal development in terms of behavior, technicality, and psychological growth. Similar to all other theories, this one differs with mine in that it does not recognize leadership presence. Skills Approach Theory The skills approach theory states that a leader is constructed by their personality which includes skills. It therefore stipulates that leadership can be learned or advanced. The skills here represent a relationship, technical, conceptual, psychological, or competence skills. In comparison to my theory, the skills approach offers a limited difference; that in as much as leadership can be acquired or created, it requires the learner to possess self-motivation or a calling for them to be leaders. In short, one can be forced into learning leadership skills, but if it does not come from within them, then they cannot be effective leaders. Style Leadership Theory The style approach to leadership defines a leader from their actions, and what they do. This translated means that the followers can define, criticize, or are influenced by observing the actions of their leader (DuBrin, 2012). This approach is similar to my theory in that both recognize that when the disciples look at their leader, they can learn or run from them. For instance, in my theory, the characteristic of a leader being a servant dictates that when a leader is humble and serves the people in the best way possible, the people (followers) are likelier to work together, assist each other, be motivated, and work communally. Evaluation Collectively, most of the other theories focus more on the leaders’ welfare and overall output while ignoring the personal welfare of the leader and follower. Again, the follower is perceived of as being on a lower ranking in the hierarchy as compared to the leader; that is, a servant to the leader. Finally, most of the theories tend to be rigid in terms of recognizing leadership presence, shared leadership, and the importance of the spiritual leadership approaches. In comparison to my theory, and relating to my experiences in this ministry work, I think these theories are misinformed especially those that look down on the follower. They overlook the fact that better relationship and communication between leaders and followers leads to effectiveness and cohesion (Frisdiantara & Sahertian, 2012). The other issue I disregard is that the theories do not recognize that the followers are “many” leaders, only that they appoint that one leader so that everyone gets a share of running their fellowship. In elaboration, my theory acknowledges that the followers are as important as the leaders since each has their own unique roles. The final and very important issue is spiritual inclusion when it comes to leadership. The spiritual aspect has been defined as constituting matters of religion and the personal (mind) as well. A spiritual leader has a calling from within them, has self-drive, and self-motivation. Such a leader will compare themselves to others and attain humility, honesty, and consideration for the followers. The result of such will be fellowship in which the leaders and followers coexist and cooperate towards achievement of their overall development and growth. In a nutshell, applying my created theory of personal spiritual leadership will work as an effective tool in equipping me and others as leaders who not only consider their development but also consider their followers’. I am guaranteed that if adhered, my approach will contribute to effectiveness in leadership, thus fostering production and overall achievement of objectives. References Clawson, J. (2009). Level Three Leadership. Pearson/ Prentice Hall. Cole, N. (2010). Organic Leadership: Leadiing Naturally Right Where You are. Baker Books. DuBrin, A. (2012). Leadership: Research Findings, Practice, and Skills. Cengage Learning. Fairholm, G. (1996). “Spiritual Leadership: Fulfilling Whole-Self Needs at Work.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal. (17), 5. Fleenor, J. (2011, Feb. 16). “Trait Approach to Leadership.” Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Frisdiantara, C., & Sahertian, P. (2012, August). “The Spiritual Leadership Dimension in Relation to Other Value-Based Leaderships in Organizations.” International Journal of Humanities and Social science.2 (15). Fry, W. (2003, September). “Toward a Theory of Spiritual Leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly. (14), 693-727. Mannix, E., & Neale, M. (2012). Looking Back, Moving Forward: A Review of Group and Team-Based Research. Emerald Group, UK. Northhouse, P. (2012). Leadership: Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications. Reave, L. (2005). “Spiritual Values and Practices Related to Leadership Effectiveness.” The Leadership Quarterly. (16), 655-687. Richard D. (2013). "The role of stewardship in leadership: Applying the contingency theory of leadership to relationship cultivation practices of public relations practitioners". Journal of Communication Management. 17 (4), 324-340. Read More