Why Models? How do Leadership Models Transfer to the Church?

Why Models?

How do leadership models transfer into the church?

By David Drury

In teaching a masters in ministry course on Power, Change and Conflict Management for IWU I’ve come across many students who bristle at the idea of adopting or transferring leadership or change models into the church. The church is viewed as something wholly other than the corporate business world that these ideas feel like a violation of the spiritual nature of the church. Models and theories can be misused and abused. They can also seem irrelevant to a student in a field that simply wants to do what works. So, why study and use leadership or change models? Is model-thinking more harmful than helpful? What are the best reasons for the whole leadership models in the church approach anyway? Here’s what I think:

Models are theoretical—in many ways all of education is theory and all of work and ministry is practice. Educational institutions are not concerned primarily with practical matters—as much as that may frustrate the pragmatist student. Educational institutions are concerned with theoretical matters. A model is a theory of how things could usually happen, do usually happen, or should usually happen.

Models must be adapted—there is a danger in treating any model as cross-transferable in totality—what works at Toyota or Google might not work at Willow Creek or 1^st Baptist. All models should be adapted and tweaked based on specific situations. This may seem obvious but most objections to models come from the over-dependence on them observed by others.

Models facilitate comprehensive planning—one of the greatest reasons to use model-thinking is to “cover your blind spots.” By using a chart or listing a model you can “cover the bases” that you might not think of in a more reactive planning session. You can look around the corners, instead of getting smacked in the face when you round the bend. In this way models facilitate a more strategic and accurate picture of what should happen or what should have happened. There is less guesswork.

Models help us to lead beyond intuition—many times leaders make decisions or changes based on our hunch instead of on the complete accurate picture. Pastors are often intuitive leaders—even spiritually intuitive leaders. We also naturally begin to discount the ideas and tracks that our outside of our own intuition. A model helps us to do more than just what we internally feel is good to do. It gives the added power of the learning of others even to a gifted intuitive leader.

Models enable the evaluation of past failures—when looking back and wondering why something did not work, a model can help point out where things went askew. For instance, in analyzing a past change that had many problems, a model can help us see at what point leaders missed a key step or failed to take into account some strategic element of the management of that change.

Models encourage universals over particulars—the study of leadership could be seen as an art but a large portion of it is also a science. And all science requires the testing of a hypothesis over time and in different conditions. So a model is a theory that has stood the test of time in other situations. They are more universal than mere anecdote. While case-studies may be of great value they are not alone in determining what is “generally true or wise.”

That’s my 2 cents on leadership or change models. What’s yours?

Click here to respond to this article at the response blog.

Or email David@DruryWriting.com

Publishing information:

David Drury Bio

David Drury’s Writings