Abstract: Although pastors may recognize contingency leadership models as a valuable response, to date there has been very little research done on validating the use of these constructs within the pastoral setting. A qualitative research project was conducted to provide reliable guidance for selecting the best fit of leadership styles in pastoral situations using a grounded theory approach on 32 pastor-team sets as a basis for conceptualizing growth stages that serve as a basis for deciding optimal fit of leadership styles. From this research emerged a life cycle model with seven stages of growth with practical implications for pastors as faith-based leaders.
Keywords: leadership styles, Christian leadership, faith-based organizations
Background
One of the recent trends in contingency leadership modeling is the acknowledgment that leadership styles are not only a function of the leader’s attributes and relationships with followers, but also the realization that context and specific situations are also relevant moderators of effectiveness (Haslam, Reicher, & Platow, 2011). Illustrations of the significance of context to leadership: cases where seasoned leaders from one sector expect to apply their knowledge and skills when transferring to another sector, such as when a retired CEO from corporate America becomes a leader in a nonprofit organization, or when a military officer retires and becomes a ministry leader. Individual skills remain, but the contextual realities unique to each sector—such as the nonprofit, military, education, government, or faith-based sectors—may also demand variations in the way followers are directed, inspired, challenged, and developed. Likewise, even an experienced leader within the same sector—for instance, a pastor—would still need to reflect upon the situation in which he/she finds himself/herself as well as those he/she seeks to lead in deciding the most appropriate leadership style. In effect, the current thinking on contingency leadership is that context and situations mediate leadership styles.
Consequently, there are as many contingency models as there are possible situations (Messick & Kramer, 2005). Leadership models illustrating this point are framed around “culture” as the contingency-situational framework (Albritton, 2009; Muczyk & Holt, 2008), some built around environmental uncertainties within an organization (Nebeker, 1975), and those based on social influences (Yetton & Crouch, 1983). Additional examples include selecting the best leadership-situation fit based upon a shared values perspective (Morris, Brotheridge, & Urbanski, 2005), on an economic success outlook (Gebert & Steinkamp, 1991), and based on a follower’s situational perspective (Houghton & Yoho, 2005). To be sure, contingency models of leadership for the most part are dependent upon prior knowledge of specific organizational aspects for a leader to match an effective style (Korman & Tanofsky, 1975). The degree to which the contingency-frameworks just mentioned truly replicate in the faith-based sector, with sufficient similarity to warrant its validity, is somewhat vague. Intuitive or anecdotal support aside, transposing these leadership models across sectors without research-based evidence may result in detrimental outcomes (Rojas & Alvarez, 2012).
From this cursory review of contingency theory in leadership, two questions emerge that require further investigation to accept with more confidence the pairing of leadership styles with standard contingencies within the pastoral or faith-based context. First, what types of distinctive yet commonplace situations do leaders and followers encounter in the faith-based sector? Second, what leadership styles best fit these different situations? Qualitative research was conducted to provide an evidence-based response to these questions, using organizational life cycle stages as a framework for common situations in the pastoral setting; within this framework, leadership styles offering the best fit to these stages were assessed. In other words, rather than suggesting a generic model of contingency leadership for the pastoral setting, the preferred approach for this study was to draw from the leader-follower experiences of the pastoral setting, compose a framework of interpreted circumstances along life cycle stages, and then suggest leadership styles appropriate to these circumstances. It was necessary to provide an overview of organization life cycles to achieve these objectives, research a valid life cycle for the pastoral setting, and then associate the prevailing circumstances of each stage with leadership styles.
Organization life cycle (OLC) modeling has been used since the 1990s as a framework to analyze organizational development, assess performance, and for anticipating and addressing change (Clifford-Born, 2000). Life cycle modeling is based upon an organic view of organizations which acknowledges a succession of developmental stages, learning opportunities, and performance strategies which at a minimum include the stages of birth, growth, and maturity (Milliman, Von Glinow, & Nathan, 1991). Life cycle frameworks in nonprofit organizations—a sector more closely related to faith-based organizations—have been used as a contingency-situational framework for researching leadership stability and growth (Alexander, Fennell, & Halpem, 1993), in characterizing a founder’s leadership style (McNamara, 1998), for evaluating best fit of leadership styles within groups, teams, and organizations (Eago, 2009; Wall, 1989), and in measuring board of director leadership effectiveness (Dart, Bradshaw, Murray, & Wolpin, 2006).
The traditional focus of OLC models has been the business setting, although some nonprofit models can more easily apply to the pastoral setting. For example, in the book 5 Life Stages of Nonprofit Organizations (Sharken-Simon, 2001), the author identifies five possible stages for nonprofit organizations, namely: Imagine and Inspire, Found and Frame, Ground and Grow, Produce and Sustain, and Review and Renew. On the other hand, in Trade Secrets for Managers, McLaughlin (2001) suggests six stages of a nonprofit’s life cycle: Forming, Growing, Coalescing, Peaking, Maturing, and Refocusing. Connolly (2006) also sees six stages, but with a different characterization of each stage: Start-up, Adolescent, Mature, Stagnant, Reverse Stagnation, and Defunct. Santora and Sarros (2008) also use a six-stage model, but label their stages as: Introduction, Growth, Maturity, Revival, Decline, and Death. A more commonly used model comes from Kenny-Stevens (2002), who recognizes seven stages: Idea, Start-up, Growth, Maturity, Decline, Turnaround, and Terminal. These multiple interpretations of stages suggest that, although OLC modeling has become a valuable framework to understand nonprofit stages of development, they seem to be interpretative, depending on the type, size, and mission of the organization; therefore, these frameworks require more scrutiny when considering their use in the faith-based sector.
Although not yet widely researched for the use of life cycles as a platform to depict situations and constraints affecting leadership styles in the faith-based sector, there is some preliminary research available to suggest the topic is of interest to the leadership discipline. For example, Snodgrass (2003) studied 30 pastoral leaders to assess their adjustments during significant stages of growth. Green (2005) researched the relationship of pastoral leadership and life cycles concerning congregational size and church culture. Miller (2007) discussed the difficulties of small church pastors in creating an environment to develop lay leaders properly during growth stages. Mung’oma (2003) investigated leadership revitalization strategies during stages of decline and stagnation.
To be sure, faith-based organizations have a series of unique conditions that may very well moderate the leadership dynamic within life cycle situations. For example, emerging literature has established that organizations assume the personality of the leader (Giberson, Resick, & Dickson, 2005; Schmid, 2006); thus, it would follow that a change of a leader (in this case, a pastor) would also prompt organizational adjustments relevant to OLC modeling. More importantly, the transition effects of newly assigned pastors become more dramatic when considering the influence of the spiritual charismas and religious ardor they bring along with whatever level of leadership skills and experiences they possess (Hernandez & Leslie, 2001). In some cases, such as the pastor of a Catholic parish, the changes in leadership may occur more frequently compared to other denominations which highlights a necessity to study and understand the dynamics of leadership transitions as a contingency.
Notably, leaders from the faith-based sector—predominantly pastors—may tend to resolve conflicts between business processes more in favor of values based upon sacred beliefs and discernment abilities (Duncan & Morris, 2003). For many pastors, the dual role of both spiritual and business leader represents a stressor, as they find themselves continuously switching roles from one situation to the next (Cnaan, 2007). Leaders in faith-based organizations are also more likely to base decisions on faith-in-action criteria more so than a social service oriented nonprofit or for-profit entity (Smith & Sosin, 2001). Also, performance measurements are different because relationships take precedence over task orientations (Fischer, 2004). Additionally, leaders seem more focused on the organization’s faith-based identity than a social or business-oriented vision (Yip, Twohill, & Munusamy, 2010).
In many cases, business decisions are overturned in preference for faith-based values, such as trust, forgiveness, and mercy (Fleckenstein & Bowes, 2000). Essentially, the inseparability of a faith-based mission and business dynamics present the faith-based leader with a series of challenges and ambiguities quite different than experienced in traditional nonprofit or for-profit leadership operations (Rojas & Alvarez, 2012). These are just some of the comparable situations prevalent in religious denominations, congregations, and organizations of other faiths and beliefs that support the use of OLC as a valid situational framework (Cladis, 1999).
This qualitative research project aimed to identify and explore distinctive stages of growth in faith-based organizations and the potential implications of these stages to the leadership functions, including periods of leadership transition (i.e., incoming—outgoing pastor conditions). For purposes of this study, faith-based organizations refer to religious denominations, congregations, ministries, parishes, or dioceses (Butler & Herman, 1999).
Methodology
A qualitative research project to explore the implications of life cycles on leadership styles in faith-based teams was composed using the grounded theory approach as the strategy of inquiry (Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998). This theory suggests identifying valid and reliable source documents, applying theoretical sampling, performing open coding, conducting multiple iterations of comparative analysis, and formulating the generation of theory or model.
The sources of data for this research came from official yearly progress reports from 32 parish leadership teams that had participated in a grant which focused on providing organizational and leadership development interventions for selected pastoral teams in a significant US Catholic archdiocese. Consistent with the terms of the grant provider, financial resources, consultation, and leadership development services were offered to support each parish team’s distinctive learning commitments. Each team shared ways to grow personally and spiritually. They, in turn, shared their experiences with the parish at large to contribute to their organizational mission and parish life objectives.
The researcher conducted a systematic coding on the final written reports submitted each year for five years to the grant agency; these reports may represent a trend of organizational patterns clustered into discrete stages (Dodge & Robbins, 1992). For example, keywords such as “vision,” “envisioning,” “dream,” “energy,” “enthusiasm,” “creativity,” and “inspiration” were used to assess the fit for the “Imagine and Inspire” stage of the Sharken-Simon (2004) model, within the secondary data source (narratives of the final reports to the granting agency). Likewise, keywords such as “success,” “expansion,” “stability,” “structure,” “formalizing,” “more services,” and “more resources” were used to test the fitness of the McLaughlin (2001) definition of Growth stage. With all searches completed, a search table of frequencies was created for each stage of the models tested, and the highest frequencies decided the best fit. This step by step search and comparison of keywords from each nonprofit OLC model was the underlying protocol used as a systematic generation of OLC theory specially constructed for faith-based teams.
As was indicated earlier, the first iterations of coding and word search within the reports compared stage descriptions for two of the most commonly used nonprofit OLC models. The models selected were the Sharken-Simon (2004) five-stage model (Imagine and Inspire, Found and Frame, Ground and Grow, Produce and Sustain, Review and Renew), and the seven stages from the McLaughlin (2001) model (Idea, Start-up, Growth, Maturity, Decline, Turnaround, and Terminal). A word search engine used in the analysis had key-words and phrases for the stages of each of these models. In drawing a comparison from these models against the first iteration of codeword results, the stages called Imagine and Inspire, Found and Frame, and Review and Renew from the Sharken-Simon (2001) model showed high matches, whereas Ground and Grow, and Produce and Sustain showed low similarities. When applying keywords for the McLaughlin (2001) seven stage model, stages Growth, Maturity, and Turnaround showed high matches, but Idea, Startup, Decline and Terminal did not fit the data (low correspondence). This first iteration provided some evidence that the Sharken-Simon (2004) model was a better fit for the pastoral setting, but uneasily established were the stage names and specific relationships between the leader and followers.
The labels of these five stages were then modified based on phrases and keywords obtained from the first iteration experiences. Accordingly, the Found and Frame stage was renamed “Reconfiguring,” where the changes and perceived personality image of the leader was being understood, and processes, tasks, and responsibilities were adjusted accordingly. The Reconfiguring stage was followed by the Validating stage, the faith-based name for Review and Renew. In this stage, there is a strong emphasis on fulfilling and validating the expectations of the new leader. The Growth stage was renamed “Reaching,” since once the leader’s expectations and new functional boundaries were settled there was an interest in reaching new levels of performance and more intent reaching out to each other; this provides a clear opportunity for leadership action. Maturity was changed to “Awakening,” which emerged from a palpable awareness of trust, shared knowledge of the mission, and was also fertile grounds for exercising leadership.
There were also signs of authentic interest in envisioning, integrating, sharing, and increasing interest in the value of “Dialogue” (beyond communication). The leadership team’s ability to create “safe spaces”—environments characterized by openness and nurturing, and less influenced by critical judgment or condemnation–characterized this stage (Polletta, 1999). In this stage, sensitive issues came to light, and active listening prevailed. Finally, the stage called Imagine and Inspire was coined the “Nurturing” stage, where relational fulfillment became an enhancer of task performance, and opportunity for building a climate of collaboration became available to the leader. This stage seemed very compatible with deliberate interest in connecting operational dynamics with spiritual practices, a compelling objective for faith-based leaders.
Invariably a time came for the leader (pastor) to transition out of the organization and for a new one to arrive. By doing so, a series of instabilities were prompted where the team seemed to move away from previously established behavior-sets with the outgoing leader. Instead, they regressed more into task- oriented stages with increased levels of apprehension, caution, a mixed sense of loss, and increased expectations of the incoming leader. On this topic, the source documents had a significant number of stories relating to the transitioning out and in of leaders, a dynamic difficult to fit into the previously discussed life cycle models. This stage was best described by the Turnaround stage (McLaughlin, 2001), although the transitioning out and transitioning in of a pas- tor as leader presented themselves as separate and distinct contingencies, given the sense of loss for the outgoing leader and the increased level of expectations for the incoming leader.
A further series of iterations were conducted on the data to check the fit of the new labels for the stages extracted from the first iteration and to further explore more appropriate labels for the Turnaround stage of the McLaughlin (2001) model. During this second iteration, the relabeled stages of Reconfiguring, Validating, Reaching, Awakening, and Nurturing displayed higher matches than the Sharken-Simon (2004) model presented during the first iteration, suggesting an improved fit. However, attempts to consolidate transitioning out and transitioning in behaviors into a single stage (Turnaround) proved to be a significant challenge. Characterizing the transitioning out of the current leader were keywords such as “rising uncertainty,” “apprehension,” “fear,” “a sense of loss,” and “regression.” There was also a noticeable destabilization of relationships, even within the pastoral team. The exiting leader focused on the transitional readiness of the pastoral team—sort of a handoff to the incoming leader—by placing a hold on new initiatives while celebrating past achievements. The transitioning in of the new leader: “forming the relationships,” “sensing of each other,” “building trust,” “letting go,” and “welcoming.” The team seemed focused on living in a “neutral landscape” that in some ways, constrained the range of influence from the outgoing leader. Since the dynamics for outgoing and incoming transition periods seemed different, the Turnaround stage was divided into two separate stages called “Transitioning-Out” and “Transitioning-In.” These last stages address the impact of a departing pastor and the succeeding pastor.
The outcome of these iterations yielded seven distinct stages, which comprised the life cycle model for these faith-based organizations. The seven stages of a faith-based nonprofit life cycle that emerged from this study were: Transitioning-In, Reconfiguring, Validating, Reaching, Awakening, Nurturing, and Transitioning-Out. These stages are illustrated in Figure 1.
Pastoral Team Life Cycle
Appropriate at this point is a commentary and assessment on the trustworthiness, dependability, and generalizability, as well as a discussion on potential biases arising from this research project including features of reliability and validity for qualitative research (Creswell, 2007). Specifically, the trustworthiness of this research project resides in the validity of the secondary data and the extraction method used to compose the stages. The data came from the final reports to the grant agency, generated by the quarterly reports from each participating parish. The two supporting agencies of the grant (a major university and the diocesan offices) reviewed the report before final submission to the grant agency. The grant agency periodically audited data, trends, and final report findings for validity and accuracy.
Additionally, each of the parishes was assigned a consultant to facilitate the growth processes and capture major learning events. The present researcher was also one of fourteen consultants in the program and used many of them to clarify and confirm the variety of findings from the final reports. The confidence for generalizability of the results within the context of Catholic parishes in the United States is high given the broad sample (32 parishes), but the applicability to other denominations may require closer scrutiny.
Limitations
Naturally, there are a series of constraints to consider. First was the interpretative nature of qualitative research, meaning that although verified by other researchers, it is also possible that other researchers may come up with different viewpoints or versions of life cycle stages. For example, some faith-based organizations may confront an actual end-of-life stage in the form of church closings or parishes merging, a situation that was not present in the source data used for this research. What matters here is the fact that established life cycles in a faith-based organization could be used as a tool for better applying leadership styles. A second consideration was about the sample: that of parish staff as the lead team for a faith-based organization. All the leader teams set chosen for the grant had been previously screened and approved by a diocesan executive committee, and one of the selection criteria was a high likelihood of being able to benefit from the grant resources.
A third consideration was related to factors of cultural diversity, history, and background, gentrification within the parish boundaries, geographical location (urban, suburban, or rural), and any particular affiliation (religious orders, diocesan priests, mixed). Despite these factors, the seven stages of the life cycle presented demonstrated some value in stressing situational leadership styles given different developmental stages of faith-based teams.
Implications for Faith-based Leadership
Next was to demonstrate the relationship between life cycle stages and optimal leadership styles. For this research, leadership was defined as a process by which “intentional influence is exerted by one person over other people to guide, structure, and facilitate activities and relationships in a group or organization” (Yukl, 2002), and the use of leadership styles refers to clusters of behaviors that are prevalent in various discrete situations (Darling & Heller, 2012).
Although leadership literature presents an abundance of possible styles, a categorization by Manktelow (2007) is most helpful in illustrating the relationship between life cycle contingencies to leadership styles. Primarily, Manktelow (2007) identifies ten styles: transactional, autocratic, bureaucratic, charismatic, democratic, laissez-faire, task-oriented, people-oriented, servant, and transformational leadership styles. For the sake of this article, transactional styles of leadership are defined as ones that emphasize give-and-take dealings, driven mainly by rewards to enact leader function. Autocratic styles refer to the leader that exercises personal control over decisions with minimal inputs from followers. Bureaucratic forms of leadership were applied when the leader based decisions on established procedures, norms, or rules that strictly adhere to distinct lines of authority. Charismatic leaders use personal charm, attractive self-image, or special talents to enact the leadership role. Democratic types of leadership authorize the leader function using encouragement to all followers who participate in the decision-making processes. Laissez-faire forms of leadership were those in which the leader provides little or no direction at all to followers. Task-oriented styles are defined as those where the tasks at hand were the main driver of the decisions, and the leader provided direction. In people-oriented modes of leadership, the main drive of the leader is to support, motivate, and develop followers. Servant leadership places service towards the follower’s needs as the primary operational principle. Finally, transformational leadership functions by connecting the follower’s sense of identity to the vision of the organization.
As claimed by contingency theories, each one of these ten styles applies well to some situations, yet not to others (Yukl, 2002). Here, contingency theories refer to how circumstances alter a leader’s influence on an individual subordinate or a group (Yukl, 2011). In other words, the preferred leadership style is dependent upon the context (pastoral) and the situation (life cycle stage). What follows is a description of each stage of the life cycle model presented above, along with the leadership styles that seem to fit the circumstances best (see Table 1).
Practical Implications for Pastoral Leaders and Teams
The outcomes from the present study have practical implications for pastors as leaders. The first is the need for self-evaluation regarding one’s ability to adopt different leadership styles given changes in circumstances. A pastor feeling too comfortable with a single or limited leadership style throughout a situation or significant life cycle changes may be stifling organizational effectiveness. Secondly, the life cycle model assumes the pastor has a process of recognizing substantial shifts in organizational developments that call for a different leadership style. Even having the ability to implement a variety of leadership styles, a change in style may be meaningless without a way to accurately assess the organization’s progression.
For faith-based organizations, being able to detect movements into the different life cycle stages through the organization’s conscience allows the pastor to guide and provide a spiritual context for assessing growth. Another implication is acknowledging a growth path that is pointing towards the spiritual maturity of an organization. Without a spiritual growth path, a faith-based organization may be undermining one of its primary objectives, that of being able to share a path into faith maturity. Finally, there is a continued education component, where both the pastor and the faith-based organization are formed, guided, and nurtured along with a variety of life cycle stages leading to a fuller maturity in faith and service.
The value of this life-cycle approach to leading teams in faith-based organizations represents both a caution and an opportunity. The caution that arises from this study refers to avoiding the indiscriminate use of secular leadership modeling in faith-based organizations just because they are effective in the secular sector. Although most business techniques can be effective in the pastoral setting, most come from observations and studies made on and for business organizations, whereas the assumptions inherent to pastoral leadership are expected to come from church teachings, sacred Scripture, and rich spiritual heritage. The secular leadership paradigm is based on primarily transactional objectives, whereas leadership for ministry is transformational and based on achieving goals that guide life processes and realities within a religious (specifically Christian) worldview.
The vocabulary and fundamental models of secular leadership deliberately exclude realities that lie at the core of the faith-based sector, such as love, solidarity, faith, grace, forgiveness, prayer, discernment, divine providence, and community, to mention a few. The principles of secular leadership are about tangibles, such as efficiency, optimization, metrics, and organization building. Pastoral leadership is mostly about intangible life issues and faith-based community skills, which demand techniques of the heart, a set of skills absent from secular models. In demonstrating the applicability of life cycles to faith-based organizations, one must wonder what other secular models are effective or inadvertently detrimental to church mission.
If the life cycle model suggests being cautious about applying secular models in the pastoral setting, it also represents an opportunity for growth, especially for the administrative team of a congregation or a parish. Most members of the administrative staff are hired based on their business skills and as such, expect a business type of environment to serve the faith-based community. Among themselves as a team there is rarely the opportunity to share a defined path of spiritual growth. Many times, overwhelmed by the workload of their administrative responsibilities, the broader view of spiritual aspirations is lost. The life-cycle model offers a path from a climate of transactional relationships driven by business needs to higher stages that engage in deeper sharing.
The findings of this research project make some useful—albeit preliminary—contributions in validating life cycle modeling and understanding the nature and development of contingency leadership dynamics in faith-based organizations. Although there is a possibility of constructing other forms of life cycle stages, the present study sheds light on the relevance of adapting leadership styles to changing situations within the pastoral setting. Despite these preliminary findings on OLC for faith-based teams, there is still much to be analyzed, studied, and validated in the pastoral sector. Conversely, discoveries from the pastoral sector may also shed light on areas of further development in the general realm of nonprofit leadership, especially along the lines of the task-relational continuum. Nevertheless, this study demonstrates the value of continuing pastoral life cycle research about leadership and offers additional possible lines of discourse and research better fit for leaders of faith-based organizations.
References
Albritton, F. P. (2009). A cultural contingency leadership model for multinational joint ventures. Retrieved from Seminole State College of Florida. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1436722
Alexander, J. A., Fennell, M. L., & Halpern, M. T. (1993). Leadership instability in hospitals: The influence of board-CEO relations and organizational growth and decline. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(1), 74—99.
Born, C. C. (2000). Nonprofit board of director attributes at the stages of the organizational life cycle. Retrieved from UMI ProQuest—Digital Dissertations. (UMi No. AAt 9955337).
Butler, D. M., & Herman, R. D. (1999). Effective ministerial leadership. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9(3), 229—239.
Cnaan, R. (2007). A primer for pastors and other practitioners. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17(3), 373—374.
Cladis, R. (1999). Leading the team-based church: How pastors and church staffs can grow together into a powerful fellowship of leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Connolly, P. M. (2006). Navigating the organizational lifecycle: A capacity-building guide for nonprofit leaders. Washington, DC: Board Source.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Darling, J., & Heller, V. (2012). Effective organizational consulting across cultural boundaries: A case focusing on leadership styles and team-building. Organization Development Journal, 30(4), 54—72.
Dart, R., Bradshaw, P., Murray, V., & Wolpin, J. (2006). Boards of directors in nonprofit organizations: Do they follow a life-cycle model? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 6(4), 367—379.
Dodge, H., & Robbins, J. (1992). An empirical investigation of the organizational life cycle model for small business development and survival. Journal of Small Business Management, 30(1), 27—37.
Duncan, J. B. & Morris, H. S. (2003). The understanding of internal control principles by pastors. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(2), 213—225.
Eago, K. I. (2009). Transformational versus transactional leadership fit based on financial life-cycle phases of organizations (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Order No. 3359638, Capella University).
Fleckenstein, M. P., & Bowes, J. C. (2000). When trust is betrayed: Faith-based institutions and white-collar crime. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(1), 111—115.
Fischer, R. L. (2004). The devil is in the details: Implementing secular outcome measurement methods in faith-based organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 15(1), 25—40.
Gebert, D., & Steinkamp, T. (1991). Leadership style and economic success in Nigeria and Taiwan. Management International Review, 31(2), 161—171.
Giberson, T., Resick, C. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2005). Embedding leader characteristics: An examination of personality and values in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1002—1010.
Green, C. C. (2005). Pastoral leadership, congregational size, life-cycle stage, and church culture: A grounded theory analysis (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Order No. 3170687, Gonzaga University).
Haslam, A. S., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Hernandez, C. M., & Leslie, D. R. (2001). Charismatic leadership. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(4), 493—497.
Houghton, J. D., & Yoho, S. K. (2005). Toward a contingency model of leadership and psychological empowerment: When should self-leadership be encouraged? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(4), 65—83.
Kenny-Stevens, S. (2002). Nonprofit lifecycles: Stage-based wisdom for nonprofits. Long Lake, MN: Stagewise Enterprises.
Korman, A. K., & Tanofsky, R. (1975). Statistical problems of contingency models in organizational behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 18(2), 393—397. doi:10.2307/255543
McLaughlin, T. A. (2001). Trade secrets for nonprofit managers. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
McNamara, C. (1998, December). Founder’s syndrome: How founders and their organizations recover. Nonprofit World, 16(6), 38—43.
Manktelow, J. (2007). Mind tools: Practical thinking skills for an excellent life. London, UK: Mind Tools, Ltd.
Messik, D. M., & Kramer, R. (Eds.). (2005). The psychology of leadership: New perspectives and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Miller, D. W. (2007). God at work: The history and promise of the faith at work movement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Milliman, J., Von Glinow, M., & Nathan, M. (1991, April). Organizational life-cycles and strategic international human resource management in multinational companies: Implications for congruency theory. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 318—339.
Morris, J., Brotheridge, C. M., & Urbanski, J. C. (2005). Bringing humility to leadership: Antecedents and consequences of leader humility. Human Relations, 58(10), 1323—1350. doi:10.1177/0018726705059929
Muczyk, J. P., & Holt, D. T. (2008). Toward a cultural contingency model of leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(4), 277—286. doi:10.1177/1548051808315551
Mung’oma, S. M. (2003). Revitalization in the church: A study of leadership in the Anglican Diocese of Kampala, Uganda (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Order No. 3091863, Fuller Theological Seminary, School of World Mission).
Nebeker, D. M. (1975). Situational favorability and perceived environmental uncertainty: An integrative approach. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20(2), 281—294.
Polletta, F. (1999). Free spaces in collective action. Theory and Society, 28(1), 1—38. doi:10.1023/A:1006941408302
Rojas, R., & Alvarez, J. (2012). The challenges of pastoral leadership: Concepts and practice. Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse.
Santora, J. C., & Sarros, J. C. (2008). Founders, leaders, and organizational life-cycles: The choice is easy—learn or fail! Development and Learning in Organizations, 22(3), 12-15. doi:10.1108/14777280810861767
Schmid, H. (2006). Leadership styles and leadership change in human and community service organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 17(2), 179—194. doi:10.1002/nml.142
Sharken-Simon, J. (2004). Five stages of nonprofit organizations: Where you are, where you’re going, and what to expect when you get there. Saint Paul, MN: Amherst.
Smith, S., & Sosin, M. R. (2001). The varieties of faith-related agencies. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 651—670.
Snodgrass, A. J. (2003). Leadership behaviors and personal transitions that occur in the lives of pastors who have led churches through significant growth (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and theses. (Order No. 3092625, Asbury Theological Seminary).
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Wall, D. G. (1989). A study of variations in leadership styles and organizational climate across organizational life-cycles (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and theses. (Order No. 9010782, The University of Tulsa).
Yetton, P., & Crouch, A. (1983). Social influence and structure: Elements of a general theory of leadership. Australian Journal of Management (University of New South Wales), 8(2), 15.
Yip, J., Twohill, E., Ernst, C., & Munusamy, V. P. (2010). Leadership in faith-based non-profits. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 20(4), 461-472. doi:10.1002/nml.20005
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. (2011). Contingency theories of effective leadership. The SAGE Handbook of Leadership, 286—298.
Ronald R. Rojas, DBA, is an adjunct professor of Pastoral Administration at the St. Vincent De Paul Regional Seminary, located in Boynton Beach, Florida.