UK01D-MLT MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP THEORY: MODULE EIGHT
Effective
Cross-utilization of Leadership Principles Between Business and Church Disciplines
Trinity Theological Seminary,
Statement of the Problem
How can leadership principles found
in business research and experiences be used effectively in the hands of church
leaders? Similarly, how can principles
found in religious research and experiences be used effectively by business
leaders? Can, or even should learning
from these two contexts (disciplines) be mingled and used indiscriminately? Although the question sounds simple, there
are many hidden variables to the answer.
In fact, the question finds itself placed squarely on one of the major
battle fields of time and existence: the Kingdom vs. the world.
It would seem simple. Time management should be time management,
planning skills should be planning skills, accounting should be accounting,
etc. in both disciplines. On the surface
they seem to be equal, so why shouldn’t church and business leaders
deliberately read and borrow from the others’ disciplines? The popular answer is that leadership
principles discovered in both disciplines can, should, and will be
cross-utilized. The more discerning answer,
as posed by this study, is that for the church leader, there are some important
Kingdom issues at play whenever any principles are cross-utilized.
As is true with any leadership tool used for Kingdom work,
there should be great discernment in selecting what principles are used, and
also how they are engaged in the business of the church.
Because of the dynamics of meeting
basic economic needs and of finding significance in any culture where the
Church finds itself, the search for good leadership tools has the potential of
being a Trojan horse, inadvertently letting the enemy and his philosophies
within the gates. As for the business
leader, unless he or she has been transformed and made aware of all aspects of
the Creator’s world, full cross-utilization is not even possible. In many cases, it is not even desired.
Summary of Investigation
Popular Thought
The Church is
often readily encouraged to search out leadership and business tools from
business sources. Westermann (1997) in a
book for Christian leaders, reveals that he first
understood leadership selection approaches through an study of business
literature. He states clearly that “the
good and successful principles for leading business people are the same
God-designed truths for leading church people.” (p.
vii) He refers to both a Harvard
Business Review article by Chris Argyris, and a Leadership magazine interview with
Charles E. Fuller Institute consultant Carl F. George to support his case, and
then concludes, “Businesses, in their lust for money, simply have learned much
more about leading than we Christians.”
In the quoted interview, George refers to a larger context in explaining
the linkage:
Leadership: But when
something comes from the chairman of Intel, or from Peters and Waterman, many
pastors say, “Well, that’s different from how things are in the church.”
George: Well, I would
say their theology is deficient at that point.
The God of creation is the one who has provided the abilities of every
human being. He’s the one who made
organization both necessary and possible.
When a fallen world makes organization work, it does so with the
principles of truth provided by the Creator.
The fact that these books don’t happen to have Bible verses sprinkled
throughout doesn’t mean there is less truth involved. (pp. vii-viii)
This study will confirm that the larger “creationist” context
that George addresses is critical to any healthy cross-utilization of
principles between the two disciplines.
Other leaders
see the danger of the mix more dramatically.
Eldridge (2001) quotes Oswald Chambers with quite another view:
But
we’ve tried to use those methods to tame the wildness of the spiritual
frontier. We take the latest marketing
methods, the newest business management fad, and we apply it to ministry. The problem with modern Christianity’s
obsession with principles is that it removes any real conversation with
God. Find the principle, apply the
principle-what do you need God for? So
Oswald Chambers warns us, “Never make a principle out of your experience; let
God be as original with other people as he is with you.” (p. 210)
In the leadership literature, both disciplines make their
case for integration and/or separation of principles between the
disciplines. To see this struggle more
clearly, it might be helpful to compare the approach, research methodology, and
results of two current publications aimed at advancing the understanding and
principles of leadership success: (a)
representing the business discipline, Good
to Great (Collins, 2001), and (b) representing the discipline of the
church, Spiritual Leadership (Sanders,
1994).
Good to Great has set a new high bar in
business research integrity and intensity, one that Peters and Waterman had
previously set with their book In Search
of Excellence. Collins chose a
rigorous “financial” definition of business success. To qualify for his study, companies had to display
the following pattern: “Fifteen-year
cumulative stock returns at or below the general stock market, punctuated by a
transition point, then cumulative returns at least three times the market over
the net fifteen years.” (Collins, p. 6) The difficulty in integrating personal and
business contexts is evident in his “personal” definition of success, “The
ultimate definition of success in life is that your spouse likes and respects
you ever more as the years go by. By
that measure, more than any other, I hope to be as successful as she is.” (p. xii) Claiming
curiosity as his major motivation, he goes on to reveal a much deeper reason
for his rigor: “It is about the question--Can a good company become a great
company and, if so, how?--and our search for timeless, universal answers can be
applied by any organization.” (Collins, p. 4)
The dilemma is
obvious. On one hand he explains, “To
make that final shift [to success] requires core values and a purpose beyond
just making money combined within the dynamic of preserve the core/stimulate
progress.” (p. 14) On
the other hand, he counter balances with the statement “But that does not mean
we should stop the search for timeless principles… yes, the specific
application will change (the engineering), but certain immutable laws of
organized human performance (the physics) will endure.” (p. 15) Collins concludes
this treatise for meaning by nearly disclaiming the underlying rationale for
his study, “This may come as surprise, but I don’t primarily think of my work
as about the study of business, nor do I see this as fundamentally a business
book. Rather, I see my work as being
about discovering what creates enduring great organizations of any type.” (p.
15) It should be noted
that Collins does recognize “churches” in a long list of other organizations
such as schools, government agencies, newspapers, etc.
Many
insightful conclusions were made, but the crowning observation was that
successful companies (using his financial definition) had somehow linked
themselves to what he coined “Level 5 Leadership.” Most of the secondary insights on company
success were also linked to soft-skills issues:
a focus on whom you hire vs. what they can do; a culture of discipline
for people, thoughts and action; a need for focus and fit (Hedgehog Concept),
and an approach to facts that rely on a brutal display of reality.
When Collin’s research team studied
the characteristics of the chosen companies, it created another intellectual
dilemma. The book clearly supports a
scientific explanation of existence. He
uses an analogy blaming Christianity for society’s slowness in understanding
good leadership. In his view, the church
“Held back our scientific understanding of the physical world in the Dark
ages. In the 1500’s, people ascribed all
events they didn’t understand to God.”
Giving credit to science for the Enlightenment and the resulting new
understandings of leadership, he continues to discount religion as a source for
knowledge. During the Enlightenment, “We
began to search for a more scientific understanding—physics, chemistry,
biology, and so forth. Not that we
became atheists, but we gained deeper understanding about how the universe
tics.” (p. 21) Based on this analogy, he claims the
study team had fallen into the same trap.
Instead of saying “God is the answer to everything,” they were saying
that “leadership is the answer to everything” and as a result they were
ignoring the data. When the data was
compiled, however, another dilemma was apparent. Everything on their “successful leadership”
list fit a similar list in the Bible, that of being a servant leader in the
tradition of Christ’s example. Their
research findings described an unselfish person who would deny himself for the
sake of others. Listen to this
discussion by Collin’s staff:
We
debated for a long time on the research team about how to describe good to
great leaders. Initially we penciled in
terms like “selfless executive” and servant leader. But members of the team violently objected to
these characterizations. “Those labels
don’t ring true,” said Anthony Chirikas.
“It makes them sound weak or meek, but that’s not all the way I think of
Darwin Smith or Colman Mockler. They
would do almost anything to make the company great.” Then Eve Li suggested, “Why don’t we just
call them Level 5 Leaders?” (p. 30)
To what lengths does one go to avoid an existing and proven
model of leadership? This is one of many
examples where the team of writers, in order to keep science as the dominant
driver of truth, overlooked preexisting realities that would be obvious to a
church leader. The pattern was to
redefine and compress issues of morality into the safer discipline of ethics,
as is seen in chapter 8 on the culture of discipline. (pp. 120-143)
Spiritual Leadership (Sanders, 1994) also used, for its time, a fairly
rigorous research approach to accumulate information from biographies,
interviews, and the experience of great leaders. To make the cut, the works of those studied
had to be measured by time, followers, and impact. A major difference from Collins is the
assumption Sanders makes regarding the authority and validity of Scripture as a
primary source of information about leadership. Collins makes it clear up front that science
is his primary source of knowledge and interpretation:
It
is important to understand that we developed all the concepts in this book by
making empirical deductions directly from the data. We did not begin this project with a theory
to test or prove. We sought to build a
theory from the ground up, derived directly from the evidence. (p. 10)
In contrast, Sanders (1994) clearly and unashamedly states:
The
principles of leadership in both the temporal and spiritual realm are presented
and illustrated from both Scripture and the biographies of eminent men of
God. In the case of Scripture references, that translation has been used which appeared to
the author to be most accurate and luminous.
The material has been presented in a form that is calculated to be of
help even to younger Christians in whose hearts the Holy Spirit is working to
create a holy ambition to place all their powers at the disposal of the
Redeemer. (pp. 11-12)
It is evident that the primary sources for knowledge and
understanding of each author could not be more polarized. Sanders strongly believed his studies could
have positive impact in both the business (temporal) and the church (spiritual)
disciplines. What is interesting is that
he begins his work with the assumption that servant leadership is the key to
any organization’s success. He leads
with this “fact of faith” and builds upon it.
The importance of meaningful existence, with which Sanders also begins,
is reflected in his quote from Shakespeare’s words of Wolsey speaking to the
English general:
Cromwell, I charge thee, fling away
ambitions,
By that Sin Fell
the angels; how can a man then,
The image of his Maker, hope to profit by’t?
(p. 13)
Sanders contextualize the leader’s mission and purpose for
existence, and then proceeded to define the qualities needed for great
leadership. In the first chapter (pp.
13-16), Sanders (a) defines the parameters of ambition, “…to realize God’s
highest potential for our lives…,” (b) clarifies the focus of leadership,
“…that centers on the glory of God and welfare of the church…,” (c) defines
leadership as serving, “True greatness, true leadership, is found in giving
yourself in service to others,” and (d) concludes with the ultimate measurement
of leadership, “…to fit into God’s plan for him…” as quoted from one of S. D.
Gordon’s devotional books. In the same
chapter, he also talks about the dynamic tension faced by leaders to “aspire to
leadership” (1 Tim. 3:1) and yet yield selfish ambition as noted in Jeremiah
45:5, “Should you then seek great things for yourself? Seek them not.” This is a glimpse of the war between temporal
and spiritual application of any business or leadership principle. Collins talks about this same dynamic tension
in terms of “duality,” stating that a Level 5 Leader is a blend of modest vs. willful,
and humble vs. fearless actions. (Collins, p. 22)
Sanders’ conclusions are far more
detailed than Collins in contrasting the differences between the temporal and
spiritual aspects of leadership behavior (See Table 1, Sanders’ Comparison of Natural and Spiritual
Leader Characteristics). Notice that
it is not an either-or list. The
spiritual list often builds upon, tempers, and guides the temporal list,
creating balance in the dynamic tension he describes. After spending several chapters rooting all
leadership around the teaching of Jesus, Sanders pulls lessons and insights
from great leaders of the Bible. He builds
on those concepts with practical adaptations to today’s world, and ends with a
study of Nehemiah’s leadership lessons.
He clearly illustrates that “spiritual” church leaders have context
awareness much larger than do “temporal” business leaders.
Academic Thought
A 5 year
review of three journals, the Human Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ), the
Human Resource Management (HRM) and the Human Resource Management Review
(HRMR), was made to determine if and how issues of business and church were
distinguished in mainstream academia. It
was not expected that “spirituality,” or perhaps even “morality,” would be
addressed by name, but it was expected that certain “soft skill” issues related
to leadership development, such as character development, attitude, ethics,
etc., which often address spiritual-type issues, would be addressed. At minimum, did these articles even recognize
the awareness of anything other than a pure business context? What other players in the soft skill
development process, if any, did they recognize? What would be the degree and balance of these
inclusions? Articles tended to fall in
two groups concerning the coverage of the leadership soft-skill development
issues (values and ethics): (a) articles
that had a basic absence or minor mention of these issues, and (b) articles
that directly addressed these issues.
Articles with an absence or minor mention of these issues:
In their HRM article, Van Eynde and Tucker (1997, pp. 397-408) interviewed
24 leading senior human resources (HR) executives to determine the adequacy of
current post-secondary HRM curriculums.
Using a variation of the
In a similar article on developing
new HR proficiencies, Hansen (2002) studied HR industrial relations (IR)
students to see if the current curriculum actually developed the stated set of
proficiencies. Students rated most
offerings as adequate and added an additional 5 items they felt were lacking,
moving the proficiency list from 15-20 items.
Values and ethics are nowhere mentioned or even suggested. The authors make an interesting assumption
that knowledge acquisition, principally through educational institutions, will
produce these proficiencies, including leadership and more technical skills
(TQM, labor negotiations, etc.). The
only observable openness to the use of nonacademic partners in developing these
future HR leaders was in a reference to developing linkages.
Finally,
academic programs must find some way to discuss how they can best move away
from the current course- and requirement-centered approach toward a
proficiencies-based model of learning.
Only then can the linkages between academic programs and labor market
demands be strengthened. (p. 536)
There seems to be a lack of understanding as to the role
parents and churches provide in the basic character formation of these
students, allowing these proficiencies to become healthy and productive.
Kerr and Von Gilinow (1997) discuss
the future of HR tasks and the migration back toward some of the formerly held
personnel roles. With an emphasis on new
soft skills such as awareness training, language training, spousal adjustments,
etc., they came short of mentioning any need for value and ethics
training. Kaufman (1999) also looked at
the evolution of university training programs for HR in terms of their trends
for the future. He emphasized the shift
toward employee-generated solutions and the definition of employees in terms of
human resource capital. He believes that
HR will move into a more “strategic planning and business role” as
globalization impacts most companies, but does not address the values or ethics
dimensions of HR. In his concluding
statement, Kaufman opens the door to values and ethics just a little, and his
concern for diversity introduces sensitivity to the values and ethics issues in
the work place.
An editorial in the 2002 Fall issue of the HRDQ journal (Short,
Morrison (2000)
mildly approached the ethics and value issues in his study on how best to
develop a global leadership model. He
searched domestic, contingency, and academic literature and found models with
competencies numbering from 11 to 250. (p. 120) He reviews Black’s (1999) systematic
theory which broached ethics and values through the integrity window, defining
it as “a strong commitment to personal and company standards.” Morrison concludes his review of Black’s
model by stating:
It
is the inconsistent application of ethical standards both outside and inside
the company that causes managers to lose the ability to lead on a global
basis. Situational ethics, while often
offering short-term advantages, ends up compromising leaders (and companies)
who are judged according to higher, global standards of conduct. (p. 125)
The indictment of situational ethics is a fairly strong
statement. It suggests that the
“spiritual” strengths of the Church are needed in developing people with strong
ethical behavior. Conner’s HRM article (2000,
p. 149) takes a stronger approach to the developing of future global
leaders. She included “strong character”
in her short list of basic qualities for leaders; the other 5 included business
savvy, personal influence, ability to motivate self
and others, entrepreneurial orientation, and a global perspective.
In a very
stimulating article on HR megatrends, James (1997) views HR trends through 7
lenses: historic, economic, future
demographics, environment, HR regulatory, HR literature and media, and the
future of HR roles in business. Because
of his broad-reaching perspectives, he includes the impacts of culture,
religion, and governmental influences in his thinking. His approach effectively opens the discussion
on values and ethics within some cultural contexts:
7. Employees’ Values Are Becoming More Personal
and Divergent. …Managers must be careful
not to make generalizations that might be incorrect-for example, not all older
workers have traditional values, not all younger workers have “new age”
values. When managers understand the
values in a particular work force, the can better motivate and reward employees.
(p. 458)
He does not address how those values will be developed, but
does emphasize the role of society more than most researchers; he does not
specifically mention the church.
Articles that address these issues directly:
Four articles addressed morality and ethics directly (Losey, 1997; McLean, 2001; Schumann, 2001; Wells &
Schminke, 2001) one included ethics as a stated competency (Losey,
1999), and one company study strongly embedded values and ethics in its design
(Alldredge & Nilan, 2000).
Ethics
is not simply a matter of economics, avoiding lawsuits, or improving the bottom
line. Rather, it is an acknowledgment
that ethical behavior, in and of itself, is desirable. Of course, the difficulty that is always
encountered when discussing ethics is how ethical behavior should be
defined. The Golden Rule mentioned in
most religious writings, says something to the effect that “we should do unto
others as we would have them do unto us.”
This is, however, an ethnocentric perspective. (p. 220)
A
review of the proceedings of the Academy reveals a large number of papers
related either to ethics or to spirituality in the workplace, each often used
in some ways to represent to the other in language that is acceptable for
people for whom the alternative might not be. (p. 219)
He strongly urges HRD professionals to be aware of the ethical
implications in their research and writing.
Alldredge and Nilan (2000) reported on how 3M has included ethics as
part of its competency model. They
divided competencies into three classifications: Fundamental, Essential, and Visionary. Ethics and Integrity were listed prominently at
the top of the Fundamental list. (p. 139)
Losey (1997), much like those above, sees ethics as a
competency rather than a character trait. It is one of 5 competencies needed to
turn “human capital into long-term competitive advantage.” The other 4 are intelligence, education,
experience, and interests. (p. 99) He surmises that most HR professionals
understand the short term impact of ethics, like protecting company
secrets. The long-term benefits,
however, are a bit more subtle, and need to be taught and supported regularly. An example would be peer pressure that compromises
company standards. He summarizes his
view by saying that “poor ethics have
long term damaging effects on professional competency.” (Losey,
p. 102)
In their article, Ethical development and human resources
training: An integrative framework,
Wells and Schminke (2001) develop the issues of values and ethics by defining
business ethics as “individual choices in an organizational context.” (p. 136) The study addresses
the impact of leadership’s major influence an organizations’ ethical behavior (p. 143), and they go to major lengths to create
a non-religious system of wisdom and morality to guide ethical behavior. They call it “cognitive moral development,”
or CMD:
Thus,
ethics programs must be grounded in sound theoretical frameworks that integrate
both the ethics and training literatures.
In this article, we attempt to craft such a framework. First, we introduce the concept of cognitive
moral development, which will serve as our illustrative example for … improving
individual and organizational ethics. (p. 136)
In their model, they show the degree to which trainee
characteristics and individual behaviors, brought to the ethics training,
actually impact the outcome effectiveness of that training. What they fail to adequately note, is that those
behaviors and characteristics are developed at home, at church, and in the
community, long before they ever reach an ethics training class in the work
place. None the less, they do take
ethics and ethics training seriously.
They also widen the leadership context debate.
Schumann (2001)
further argues that “the analysis of ethical issues in human resources
management is legitimate and important,” that “the theory of ethical relativism
should be rejected,” and that “it is meaningful to search for universal moral
principles.” (p. 93)
He has chosen to empower his model based on Kant’s philosophy,
rather than select a spiritually-based standard for truth. Even so, his ideas do acknowledge a need for
something other than business principles to be present in the healthy
development of the employee. The next
logical step would be to actually suggest a spiritual source.
Losey (1997)
comes closer to admitting a spiritual standard in his article The Future HR Professional: Competency Buttressed by Advocacy and Ethics. He is an advocate for HR ethical codes of
conduct. As he tries to explain why the
role of HR will be around in the future, he places some of its added value in a
new role of HR leaders in better understanding “their communities, workplace, employee
attitudes, and government regulations and requirements.” (Losey,
1997, p. 148) He adds:
As
HR professionals, we must never allow the door to shut on doing what’s
right. We must always be willing to
assume the risk of appealing a management position depending solely upon our
won competency and ability to make that appeal? (p. 149)
As with the other researchers, Losey has misplaced his
hope. He does not seem to grasp that
guidelines motivating this type of behavior will most likely come from spiritual
sources. Losey concludes by saying “It
is upon simple issues, however, that organizational cultures are built.” (p. 149) He may have a point, for Faith is a
simple issue, and this is an indirect admission that the business discipline is
not in, and of itself, adequate to meet the needs of its work force. Spiritual awareness, knowledge and
understanding are needed as well.
In general,
there has been a new awareness and interest in addressing both value and
ethical issues among HR and HRD academic professionals over the past 5 years. Lack of integrity is being recognized as a
bad business issue, a loss to the bottom line, and something to be studied and
measured. The current tendency of
mainstream academic research is to avoid any existing spiritual solutions, or
sources of study. Instead, they attempt to create their own quasi-religious
paradigms. Unlike popular business
literature, spiritual sources are still not considered by the main stream
academic researchers as being viable for advancing business knowledge.
Biblical Thought
Scripture has some very definite
instructions, and a unique perspective related to the mingling of temporal and
spiritual principles for business. The
underlying difficulty of business and church leaders sharing information,
however, lies in their fundamental difference in orientation toward life. Oswald Chambers (1935) points to a passage in
John that underscores this point very well, “… it has not yet been revealed
what we shall be …” (1 John 3:2). It is
hard to be clearer than this:
Our
natural inclination is to be so precise—trying always to forecast accurately
what will happen next—that we look upon uncertainty as a bad thing. We think
that we must reach some predetermined goal, but that is not the nature of the
spiritual life. The nature of the spiritual life is that we are certain in our
uncertainty. Certainty is the mark of
the commonsense life—gracious uncertainty is the mark of the spiritual life. To
be certain of God means that we are uncertain in all our ways, not knowing what
tomorrow may bring. (Chambers, April 30th)
Simply put, business leaders cannot tolerate the lack of
precision, the uncertainty, and the yielding of control that is such a major
part of what church leadership is called to deal with daily. There is a larger context that must be
accepted – that of the Creator’s will.
Thus, unlike the church (spiritual) leader, the business (temporal)
leader is unaware of how to handle sin, demonic influence, or even God’s
intentions for His world. Lacking an
understanding of the Creator God, he deals with only a partial understanding of
the big picture.
Business Perspective: Matthew Henry (1706) pays close
attention to the concept of business in Scripture. He states that “
Follow this line of thinking. Once man had been exposed to the tree of
knowledge, evil was no longer separated from good. This started God’s plan of reconciling his
creation to himself through the judges, prophets, kings, and the tribes of
After the resurrection, the dynamic
changed again. God’s strategy shifted
from bringing people in, to going and reaching out to them (See Figure 4. Law of Grace). The Church was sent to make disciples and
touch the needs of wanting peoples (KJV,
Acts 1:8). The curse of work remained,
but now a new factor was introduced – the transformed Christian that
intermingled in the work and business centers of the world. The church became a Kingdom with constantly changing
boundaries of huddling disciples; as it expanded, the Kingdom began permeating
the world. The world began to encounter
the true Church in human form, as the age of law passed, and each believer
became a priest, carrying the good news of God’s grace. The distinction was clear to the
Creator. There were those in the world,
and those in the Kingdom. Those in the
Kingdom were also to be in the world, but the work rules were different. (See Table 2, Distinctions between the Kingdom and the World). Transformed Christians, as part of God’s
restoration plan, were to have a distinct advantage in business through an
understanding of the larger context of all business – to create value and
glorify the Creator.
Before Christian leaders brag about their
larger understanding, it is important to note that this is God’s doing, and not
a result of their personal intellect, savvy or acumen. It is, however, a result of their choices in
accepting the Christ of creation into their lives and living in disciplined
obedience. God opens the eyes of
believers to His larger domain of “All Creation.” Paul states:
But
God chose what is nonsense in the world to make the wise feel
ashamed. God chose what is weak
in the worlds to make the strong feel ashamed.
And God chose what is insignificant in the world, what is despised, what
is nothing, in order to destroy what is something, so that no human being may
boast in God’s presence. (NIV, 1 Cor
There were some warnings and conditions placed upon these new
believers concerning business as they intermingled with the world. Money, the major pursuit, motivator, and
measure of success within the world’s business context, can be addictive, and
take one’s focus from the larger Kingdom.
Christians are instructed, “Keep your lives free from the love of money,
and be content with what you have.” (KJV,
Heb 3:5). Timothy warns, “Deacons
likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not
greedy for money; they must hold fast the mystery of the faith with a clear
conscience.” (KJV, Tim 3:8) The warnings go on! So, how does the transformed business leader
skillfully navigate in the Kingdom and the world? By being shrewd!
Shrewdness.
This character trait, or skill, is truly a double-edged sword. Shrewdness is the one characteristic that a
transformed Christian has that can help him or her best cross-utilize business
principles from any source. There are
two sides to shrewdness and some dangers in using it. Shrewdness is defined in several dimensions
(See Figure 5. Shrewdness). The Hebrew word ‘panourgos' defines shrewd as “all working,
adroit, and crafty.” (Strong, G3835)
Brown-Diver-Briggs (1999) add four additional variations: (a) €aňram, to be subtle, be shrewd, be crafty,
beware, take crafty counsel, be prudent; (b) €aňruňm,subtle, shrewd, crafty, sly, sensible; (c) cheňphesń, trick, plot, (shrewd) device; and (d)
chaňkaňm, 1) skillful (in technical work), 2)
wise (in administration), 3) shrewd, crafty, cunning, wily, subtle, 4) learned,
shrewd (class of men), 5) prudent, 6) wise (ethically and religiously). A review of these words and usages shows a
unique blending of skills, much like the dynamic balance suggested for leaders
by both Sanders and Collins. These
studies reveal the many linkages between shrewdness and business acumen (technical
work, administration, executive board rooms, and sales, etc.). The definitions also reference wisdom in
connection with ethics (temporal focus) and religion (spiritual focus), showing
how the transformed believer can navigate in both worlds.
In Matthew, Jesus informed his
followers, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be a shrewd as snakes and as
innocent as doves.” (KJV, Matt
10:16) The Psalmist further added to the
duality of behavior demanded of the transformed believer: “to the pure you show
yourself pure, but to the crooked you show yourself shrewd.” (KJV, Psalms 18:26) The most amazing use of the term, however,
comes from Luke, where Jesus, instead of ridiculing the unjust servant,
actually commended him for his shrewdness in making friends and collecting
money for the master at the same time.
Jesus said, “For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their
generation than the sons of light.” (Constance, 1999, Paragraph 1) Jacob was known for his shrewd judgment
related to Joseph’s vision. (Josephus, 1998, Paragraph 4) But there are also dangers in practicing
shrewdness.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia talks about clever
(shrewd) sages in much the same language you would describe a business man, and
with some of the same temptations. “He
serves among great men, and appears before him who rules; He travels through
the land of strange nations; For he hath tried good things and evil among men.”
(Orr, 1998, E, Later Israel, 3) Although
shrewdness is linked to business success (Spurgeon, 1997) and intelligence
(Barnes, 1999), it is also linked to godless wisdom (Orr, 1998, W, Wisdom, 2)
and bad choices (Bruce, 1871, Chapter 23).
Conclusions
We can see
from popular, academic, and Biblical wisdom that business leadership principles
can, should, and will be cross utilized between business and church
disciplines. There are advantages and
disadvantages to sharing learned principles in both directions. Some business leaders will react to Biblical
truth and spend needless hours reinventing known concepts, much like Collins’
discovery of Level 5 Leaders. How much
simpler would it have been to just open the Bible and study the servant
ministry of Jesus. Some church leaders
will stay cloistered within the walls of their doctrine, afraid of anything
secular, and like Westermann warned, they will miss valuable tools that could
help them improve the ministry God has called them to perform. In the reverse direction, many business leaders
will look at truth and not understand how to apply it successfully. If they do not recognize sin and the demonic,
many of the problems of their workforce will never be addressed properly. Until they experience the transformation
available only through the Creator, they will only see the true world “as
through a glass darkly.” (KJV, Cor 13) With similar
reasoning, church leaders often bypass the checks and balances of God’s
leadings in trying to be recognized and accepted by the world’s business
leaders. They need to accept what the
apostle John said, and embrace the fact that they are “not illegitimate
children, “ and declare “The only Father we have is God himself.” (KJV, John 8:40)
The final
question is related to the “can or should” of effective cross-utilization of
business leadership principles between the business and church
disciplines. Consider the two diagrams
below.
|
CHURCH LEADERS |
Kingdom Principles |
Worldly Principles |
|
Can they use? |
YES – Depending upon skill and motivation. |
YES – With caution and awareness of Kingdom Issues. |
|
Should they use? |
YES – With diligence and continuous training. |
YES – With adaptation and awareness of God’s
Kingdom. |
|
BUSINESS LEADERS |
Kingdom Principles |
Worldly Principles |
|
Can they use? |
NOT ALL – Many will not want to, others cannot
understand. |
YES – Depending upon skill and motivation. |
|
Should they use? |
THEY CAN TRY – But they will only benefit fully by
discovering the transforming power of Christ. |
YES – With diligence and continuous training. |
Christian
colleges and universities have the best of both worlds, and should expose their
students first to the transforming power of the Creator and then to both church
and business leadership principles. It
matters not whether students serve in the Kingdom or the world – they will have
the greatest of advantages in understanding and cross-utilizing all principles!
References
Alldredge, M. E., & Nilan, K. J. (2000). 3M's leadership competency model: An internally developed solution. Human Resource Management, 39(2 &
3), 133-145.
Barnes, A. (1999). Barnes' Notes on the Old Testament [CD
ROM]. Parson's Technology, Inc. Retrieved April, 2003, from the World
Wide Web:
Black, S.,
Morrison, A., & Gregersen, H. (1999). Global
Explorers: The next generation of
leaders.
Brown, Driver,
& Briggs. (1999). Bown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions [CD
ROM]. Parsons Technology, Inc. Retrieved April, 2003, from the World
Wide Web:
Bruce, A. B. (1871). The Training of the Twelve
[CD ROM]. Parsons Technology, Inc. Retrieved March, 2003, from the World
Wide Web:
Chambers, O. (1935, 1998). My Utmost for His Highest
[CD ROM]. Oswald Chambers Publications Association, Ltd. Retrieved
April, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great (First ed.).
Conner, J. (2000). Developing the
global leaders of tomorrow. Human
Resource Management, 39(2 & 3), 147-157.
Constance, N. E. (1999, 1988). Explorer's Bible Study: Luke & Acts [CD ROM]. Parsons
Technology, Inc. Retrieved April, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
Eldredge, J. (2001). Wild at Heart.
Hansen, W. L. (2002). Developing new proficiencies for human resource and industrial
relations professionals. Human
Resource Management Review(12),
513-538.
Henry, M. (1706, 2000). Matthew Henry's Commentary on
the Old Testament [CD ROM]. Parsons Church Group. Retrieved March,
2003, from the World Wide Web:
The Holy Bible, King James Version (1998). [CD ROM]. Parsons
Technology, Inc. Retrieved March, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
James, R. (1997). HR
megatrends. Human Resource Management, 36(4), 453-463.
Josephus, F.
(1998). The Works of Josephus [CD
ROM]. Parson's Technology, Inc. Retrieved March, 2003, from the World
Wide Web:
Kaufman, B. E. (1999). Evolution and current status of university HR programs. Human Resource Management, 38(2),
103-110.
Kerr, S., & Von
Glinow, M. A. (1997). The future of HR: plus ca change,
plus c'est la meme chose1. Human Resource Management, 36(1),
115-119.
Losey, M. R. (1997). The future HR professional: competency buttressed by advocacy and ethics.
Human Resource Management, 36(1),
147-150.
Losey, M. R. (1999). Mastering
the competencies of HR management. Human
Resource Management, 38(2), 99-102.
McLean, G. N. (2001). Ethical Dilemmas and the Many Hats of HRD. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(3),
219-221.
Morrison, A. J. (2000). Developing a global leadership model. Human Resource Management, 39(2 & 3), 117-131.
Orr, J. (1998). International Standard Bible Encylopedia [CD ROM]. Parsons Technology, Inc.
Retrieved March, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
Sanders, J. O.
(1994). Spiritual Leadership (Second ed.).
Schumann, P. L. (2001). A moral principles framework for human resource management ethics.
Human Resource Management Review(11),
93-111.
Short, D. C.,
Spurgeon, C. H. (1997). The Treasury of David, Psalms
1-57 [CD ROM]. Parsons Technology, Inc. Retrieved Mach, 2003, from
the World Wide Web:
Strong, J. (1998). Strong's Hebew
& Green Dictionaries [CD ROM]. Parson Technology, Inc. Retrieved
Apriol, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
Van Eynde, D. F., & Tucker, S. L. (1997). A Quality Human Resource
Curriculum: Recommendations from Leading
Senior HR Executives. Human Resource
Management, 36(4), 397-408.
Walker, G., &
MacDonald, J. R. (2001). Designing and implementing an HR scorecard. Human Resource Management, 40(4), 365-377.
Wells, D., & Schminke, M. (2001). Ethical development and human
resources training. An integrative framework. Human Resource Management Review(11), 135-158.
Westermann, J. J. (1997). The Leadership Continuum (First ed.). Deer Lodge,
Tables
Table 1
Sanders’ Comparison of Natural and Spiritual Leader Characteristics
|
NATURAL |
SPIRITUAL |
|
Self-confident |
Confident in God |
|
Knows men |
Also knows God |
|
Makes own decisions |
Seeks God’s will |
|
Ambitious |
Humble |
|
Creates methods |