Before proceeding to the discussion regarding leadership development, there is a need to understand first the inter-relation between the dichotomy of a leader (the landscape and the inscape of a leader). Viv Thomas (1999), in his book Future Leader, explained the connection between the “landscape” and the “inscape.” According to him,
The landscape has a sister, the ‘inscape’ of the observer. There is a certain shape to each landscape and to each inscape. The contours of our lives, the weather systems passing through us as moods, the age of our bodies, the friends we have or do not have, our own histories and intended futures all form our inscape. It is the condition of this inscape that establishes what sort of leaders we will be. Jesus had an inscape; he responded to the external world through the frame of his internal world (pp. 14-15).
In other words, every leader has a public life and a private life. However, the response to the public life is basically based on the frame of the private life. Leadership development, therefore, is the discipline that develops the “inscape” of the leader in order to function effectively to the demands of his “landscape.” MacDonald (2003) in his book “Ordering your private world” states that
there are those who enjoy fast starts in adult life because of natural abilities and useful connections. They may have the benefit of growing up in talented families, where the people around them were highly communicative and gifted in dealing with ideas and problem-solving. Such early exposures teach the young person how to lead, how to compete against others, and how to handle himself in difficult situations. The result could be a premature success. The premature succeeder is usually a fast learner, able to acquire expertise with minimum effort. And he may conclude that he can do just about anything he sets his mind to, because things appear to come easily to him. But my observation is that somewhere in his early thirties, indications of possible trouble will begin to show in the life of the naturally fast starter… because the rest of the race in life will have to be run on endurance and discipline and not talents (p. 95).
Because of this, leadership development trainings had undergone several reforms in order to fit different times and context with the goal of producing right leaders who have a strong “inscape” to run on endurance and discipline.
Reengineering of Leadership Development Models
This portion investigates the reengineering of leadership development models in order to fit the changing times and contexts in leadership development. Wall, Solum, & Sobol (1992) said that
the new paradigm that is emerging is more practical than altruistic. Authority is being shifted to frontline workers not to help them actualize themselves but to improve quality and productivity. At the heart of the new vision is one simple fact: The top-down style of making decisions is too sluggish and too removed from the action to produce the quality goods needed to compete in today’s market. At the same time, the new vision is based on communication, the free flow of ideas, and the reaching of full human potential. It puts people first. Rigid organizational lines give way to flexible networks, and the questioning of old thinking is not only encouraged, it’s expected (p. 19).
This new paradigm was introduced by Hammer and Champy (1994) as “reengineering the corporation and management.” Reengineering is defined as the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service and speed (p. 32). Champy (2006), however, admitted that if management doesn’t change, reengineering will be stopped in its tracks (p. 5).
The reengineering of leadership development as to be presented in this study can be divided into three major divisions. The first part discussed the “traditional model” used in leadership development which was inherited from the Greek culture. The second part discussed the “developmental model” used in leadership development which was a paradigm shift from the “traditional model.” The third part presented other models used to fit the 21st century context.
This review of literature seeks to present that one of the best approaches in reengineering leadership development is to contextualize leadership development by stimulating changes through the Developmental Model but at the same time preserving the core ideology of the Traditional Model. This is in accordance with the proposal of Collins and Porras (1997) regarding the interplay between “core ideology” and “drive for progress.” According to them,
Core ideology provides continuity while drive for progress urges continual change (new directions, new methods, new strategies, and so on). Core ideology plants a relatively fixed stake in the ground while drive for progress impels constant movement (toward the goals, improvement, an envisioned form, and so on). Core ideology limits possibilities and directions for the company (to those consistent with the content of the ideology) while drive for progress expands the number and variety of possibilities that the company can consider. Core ideology has clear content (“This is our core ideology and we will not breach it”) while drive for progress can be content-free (“Any progress is good, as long as it is consistent with our core”). Installing a core ideology is, by its very nature, a conservative act while expressing the drive for progress can lead to dramatic, radical, and revolutionary change (p. 85).
Thus, by stimulating progress, the models will not be outmoded. But by preserving the core ideology, the models will not become new. One example is preserving the Traditional Model of leadership development, but incorporating the Developmental Model of leadership development in the Traditional Model to suit the 21st century context.
The Traditional Schooling Model is one of the oldest leadership development approaches that aimed to develop the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor with the use of the school building and formal lectures. It seeks to train the head, the heart, and the hands.
The goal of this model is the acquisition of accumulated knowledge through organized and formal education. Trainers are viewed as authorities who have the right to determine what students will learn and often how and when they will learn. The students, on the other hand, are passive in the learning process (Clinton, 1984, 12-14).
This model was first proposed by Plato in his book “The Republic” with an aim to produce philosopher rulers based on his “analogy of the cave.” He proposed that the potential philosopher rulers should be exposed to the study of
the science of number and the art of calculation in order to distinguish between one and two and three because numbers appear to lead towards truth. Next is geometry because the “study of shapes” tends to make it easier to see the idea of the good which attract the soul towards truth, and work out the philosopher’s mind so as to direct upwards what we now improperly keep downwards. After studying the plane surface through geometry, they should study astronomy which is the study of “solids in motion.” Those lovely patterns in the heavens are decorations in the visible world but these can be apprehended by reason and thought, not by sight. Just as our eyes were made for astronomy, so our ears were made for harmonic movements (numbers in the concords which are heard) which are useful as long as it is pursued in seeking for the beautiful and the good. Last is dialectic which enables the mind to grasp the unfolding of the guiding law of the good (Aha! experience). This brings out to its final meaning, the real nature of good itself which is the very end of the world of thought.
We are content… to call the first part science, and the second understanding, and the third belief, and the fourth conjecture: these last two together we may call opinion, and the first two exercise of reason. Opinion is concerned with becoming, and the exercise of reason with being; and what being is to becoming, that exercise of reason is to opinion (Warmington, 1956,321-333).
Descending from the Hellenistic-Greco-Roman Empire, Calvin’s Academy in Geneva follows the “Traditional Model” patterned after the Academy of Plato (knowledge acquisition) which was the pattern of most educational institutions during their time.
Knowing that the ignorance of the Roman priesthood was a source of much superstition and corruption, Calvin labored zealously for the education of the ministry and the whole people, and secured the best teachers…. Ten able and experienced professors were associated with him for the different departments of grammar, logic, mathematics, physics, music, and the ancient languages. Calvin himself was to continue his theological lectures…. The academy became the chief nursery of Protestant ministers and teachers for France… (Schaff, 1981, 804-806).
As a counter-reaction to the reformation, the Roman Catholic Church adopted the “Traditional Model” following the mandate of the Council of Trent with the aim of producing high breed Roman Catholic leaders. As Lang (1993) wrote:
So far as possible, candidates for the priesthood were to be kept removed from the world until they had sunk deep roots in the firm and rich soil of clerical life. Only then could they be trusted to undertake their rigorous work of the ministry…. And the result: generations of priests, deeply trained in habits of personal piety and imbued with a profound loyalty to the Church, formed a dedicated Catholic laity, upon whose support and cooperation bishops and priests could proudly and unquestioningly rely (10).
After the mass migrations to America from Europe, the Puritans carried with them the Traditional Model of training their leaders. As Lang (1993) wrote:
The training of the Puritan ministers was begun on New England soil with the offering of a curriculum which consisted of mathematics, logic, and rhetoric as the trivium and Latin, Greek, Hebrew and the “Divinity Subjects” as the quadrivium. Thus, among the Puritans during this early period there was a strong stress on a learned ministry: one who was to teach the “mysteries of God, was not to be a babe in knowledge.
After this college training, aspiring Puritan ministers were expected to enter an apprenticeship which lasted from one to three years. Often the apprentice served as an assistant to a respected and effective pastor. He lived in the pastor’s house, read his books, accompanied him on pastoral calls, performed a ranged of pastoral duties under supervision, received advice from the pastor’s wife, and sometimes married the pastor’s daughter….
When the apprentice and his supervising pastor felt that the apprentice was ready, he presented himself to the examining committee which examined his college credentials, several of his written sermons, his understanding of Scripture, and his theological convictions. After being duly licensed, he sought a congregation to serve. Once called, he was ordained and thus began his ministry, probably to remain there for life. He thereby entered the role of a highly respected pillar of the community, one whose main responsibility was that of reinforcing the stable functioning of his city or town (p. 20).
As improvements of educational institutions persisted, the “Traditional Leadership Development Model” was also improved to meet the improving education of the times. Calian (2002) wrote:
In the 1970’s most Protestant clergy received a liberal arts education in log house colleges that later developed into universities, followed by an apprenticeship of six months to a year… with an ordained clergyman. Concern for the adequacy and accountability of such preparation led to the formation of seminaries…. The word “seminary” is from the Latin seminarium, meaning “seed plot,” and suggests a place where something is bred, grown, or developed – namely a “hot house” for plants. The seminary was to be a perpetual seed plot for preparing seminarians to be formed into ministers of God within a sheltered environment since the church often recruited young candidates for the priesthood from the age of twelve (p.1).
In other words, potential leaders from the church in the society were recruited and separated from the society in order to train their cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Ideally, seven years of formal training were recommended plus some years of apprenticeship. Four years is required for Bachelor’s degree focusing on the liberal arts in order to develop the “knowing” (cognitive/head). Three years is required for Masters of Divinity degree with specialization in order to develop the “being” (affective/heart). As Rhodes and Richardson (1991) wrote:
It is important to understand what Hopewell means when he states that theological education of Master of Divinity students “centers on the student’s cognitive and characterological development.” He says that the present curriculum in most seminaries is developed to meet two needs. First, the development of competencies, including intellectual competency, of clergy and second, their personal maturation and leadership (p. 34).
In addition, the one to three years apprenticeship as presented by Lang (1993) should still be required in order to develop the “doing” (psychomotor/hand). Thus a maximum of ten years is required for the development of this kind of high breed leaders.
The introduction of dispensational theology, however, required a modification of the “Traditional Leadership Development Model.” Dispensational theology views the world as a sinking ship and thereby took the “Great Commission” mandate seriously. Thus, the “Bible Institute Training Model” was introduced reducing the seven to ten years leadership development training into three years only. The goal is to produce leaders who will go to the different tribes of the world. As Rambo (1993) wrote:
“Simpson quickly and accurately concluded that existing theological seminaries could not, and would not, produce enough missionaries to accomplish his worldwide vision to place the gospel “where never gospel-messenger had trod.” Conventional training was too long, and the interest in missions too little, to spawn a missionary movement… The mentality was that we must get to the Regions Beyond as quickly as possible; people are dying without Christ, and Jesus is coming back soon, in fact… He may come ‘at any moment.’ There is no time to waste” (p. 23).
The Bible Institute movement, however, produced amateur leaders who were young and inexperienced. It also failed to attract brilliant middle-aged potential leaders. As Rambo (1993) quoted the words of McGavran, “not enough bright men are entering our school (Bible Institutes). Of those who graduate, a good percentage go off to government, commerce or industry (p. 22).”
The rise of the urban society called for a rethinking of leadership development in order to meet the challenge of the urban life without neglecting the rural people. The outcome is that several Christian leadership strategists architected the “Developmental Model” with the hope of attracting middle-aged potential leaders and producing more Christian leaders who will accept the challenge of leadership for the growing churches.
The Developmental Model is a paradigm shift from the “Traditional Leadership Development Model.”
The goal is the fullest development of a person and his/her gifts. Field-based learning or real-life settings are considered excellent settings for leadership development. The trainers are seen as facilitators who care about the learner. The emphasis is on modeling of the trainer as a learner also. The students are active in the learning process including what, how, when and where they learn (Clinton, 1984, 14).
The Developmental Model seeks to incorporate cognitive input and field education. Cognitive input is done through seminars while field-education is done through “in-ministry.” The Theological Education by Extension (T.E.E.) is the prototype of this model. However, as Rambo (1993) wrote:
But, the principal conclusion is unavoidable. T.E.E. programs in which the CMA (Christian and Missionary Alliance) is involved have not produced many well-trained pastors/leaders. Rightly or wrongly, when we helped establish these T.E.E. efforts we expected that they would do more than just serve as unique programs of Christian education. We have been looking for many well-trained pastors equal to or better than the pastors produced by the residence schools. So far we have not gotten them. This has been our experience, so perhaps it has been the experience of other groups as well.
It maybe that many of the programs have not been functioning long enough to produce any fully trained pastors. It is also likely that numerous T.E.E. students are functioning as pastors in unorganized churches or in evangelistic posts, ministries which are not adequately reflected in the official church statistics” (32).
Other Approaches to fit the 21st Century Context
The failure of T.E.E. created a gap for leadership developers to fit in another approach in leadership development especially because there is an elevation of the urban challenge into a global challenge backed up by a postmodern philosophy of society. The challenge posed by globalization has something to do with a lot of conflicts. As Benjamin Pwee (2007) said,
conflict brought about by globalization is being manifested at the personal level in terms of internal roles and identity conflict as traditional community and societal markers all change and become fluid. It is also being manifested at relationship level in the form of increasing divorce rates, parent-child generational gaps, as well as employee-leadership conflicts in corporations. On a larger organizational level, conflict arise between ethnic people-groups due to history, between governments and the masses they try to lead, between religious factions, and between nation-states (7).
Moreover, the global challenge is backed up by a postmodern philosophy of society. The church which was infected by modern thinking is starting to feel its limitations. Postmodernism is
a vague, catch-all term description of the philosophical undergirding of our present society. It strikes at the root of the situation because it suggests dissatisfaction with the modern world as we have known it. Modern society is becoming outmoded. This does not mean that modern attitudes are collapsing, but that we are coming to terms with their limitations. We are losing the confidence which characterized the previous generation (Cheesman, 1997, 22).
The rise of globalization and postmodernism requires another re-invention of a “Leadership Development Model” that will fit the challenge of the 21st century. Wolfgang (1998) proposed an acephalous or headless housechurches with an aim to disciple nations by fathering the next generation (93, 162). Delamarter (2005), on the other hand, presented six types of technology classrooms that have emerged in the last few years namely
the “smart classroom,” the “virtual para-classroom,” the “virtual online classroom,” the “hybrid classroom,” the “video conferencing classroom,” and the synchronous “net meeting” classroom. He then concludes with a description of something of the array of visions for the role of technology in the teaching/learning process (leadership development included) that will likely develop in the future (105-116).
Based on the previous paragraphs, the contribution of the “Traditional Model” in leadership development could not be disregarded. Several leaders had been produced through the “Traditional Model.” However, due to the changing times and contexts, change should be introduced by incorporating the Developmental Model so that leadership development will not be outmoded. The “Traditional Model” which aims to develop the cognitive, affective, and experiential skills through formal education with the aid of expert teachers and the cooperation of passive students should be preserved. In this way, the wisdom of the past will still be passed on to the next generation.
However, aside from the “Traditional Curriculum,” the Developmental Model through extra-curricular activities should be incorporated so that the students will be active in the learning process choosing what, how, when and where they should learn. In this way, students have the control of choosing which is beneficial for them for their future challenges. They should be freed from the control of expert teachers. This will enhance the students to freely speculate, experiment and create whatever is for them necessary to advance their learning. They can use and even improve the latest technology available for the enhancement of leadership development.
Finally, there should be a dynamic integration between these two models through a two-fold thinking process wherein, on one hand, ideas learned from the academic curriculum through the “Traditional Model” should be relevantly correlated to the experiences in the extra-curricular activities. On the other hand, experiences in the “Developmental Model” through the extra-curricular activities should produce ideas which will influence the improvement of the traditional academic curriculum. Preserving the past “Traditional Model” would provide an anchor for the students to align themselves to their ancestral Christian Tradition. Freeing them to speculate, experiment, create and change outmoded traditions would lead them to updated methods of Christian leadership development models that will fit their context.