THE ROLE OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN IMPACTING CHANGE IN

MANAGEMENT STYLES AND PRACTICE IN PENTECOSTAL CHURCHES. A

CASE OF FORT PORTAL-UGANDA

by

TITUS S. MAKUMA

B.A.Bible/Theo., Glad Tidings Bible College, 2005

A MAJOR PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS IN LEADERSHIP

in the

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We accept this major project as conforming

To the required standard

___________________________________________________

Dr Minja David, Advisor

___________________________________________________

Dr Kirk Kauffeldt, Vice Chancellor

PAN AFRICA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

© July, 2009

Titus S. Makuma

Servant Leadership

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Role of Servant Leadership in Impacting Change in Management Styles and Practices

in Pentecostal churches. A Case of Fort Portal-Uganda

by Titus S. Makuma

This study is a descriptive research involving the analysis of servant leadership

practice and its application in the target population under study. It examines the question; Is

servant leadership practice evident in the way churches are led and is it impacting change on

management styles and practices in Pentecostal churches in Uganda.

The research findings have highlighted seven key outstanding issues and/or servant

leadership principles intended for service improvement: Influence, Relationships, Service,

Vision sharing, Mentoring, Community involvement, and Empowerment.

The research looks at influence as a key factor in ensuring sustainable change in the

Pentecostal churches in Uganda. Maxwell (1993) defines leadership as „influence.‟ Influence

is core to servant leadership. Leadership is not about control and acquiring more power.

Positive influence will create room for higher performance levels and relational building.

A relational leader looks at people as a valuable asset-in fact the greatest resource for

every organization is human resource. People need to understand that their contribution

towards service improvement is an asset. They need to be loved and cared for otherwise; the

style of leadership may appear to be transactional, based on the „give and take‟ principle other

than offering service to the community.

Service is embedded at the heart of true servant leadership. Service is considered to be

a useful tool for impacting change and practice in the management styles in Pentecostal

churches in Uganda. Greenleaf (1995) argues that service must precede leadership. He says

that, the servant leader is a servant first, and then conscious choice brings one to aspire to

lead. The rule of the game is actually service and vision sharing.

Servant Leadership

iii

The research shows that vision sharing plays a leading role in the change

implementation process. It creates an environment of teamwork and effective communication.

Church organizations should learn to place their vision statements on the table for all the

stakeholders to study and make valuable contributions. Without clarity in vision, there will be

less and half hearted involvement of other stakeholders in initiating change. A visionary

leader-these leaders have crystal clear picture in their minds of what they want to happen.

They cast visions powerfully and possess indefatigable enthusiasm to pursue the mission.

Visionary leaders are not easily discouraged or deterred (Hybels, (1998).

Effective visionary leaders are those who have embraced the principle of mentoring.

Mentoring is the process of identifying, teaching, sharing values, and impacting another

leader for excellent leadership. The role of mentoring is a Herculean task which calls for

dedication and focus on both parties. Effective leaders carry a sense of balance and respect

both in church and community. Sharing expectations and a periodic review and evaluation

will give strength to application and facilitate empowerment (Stanley & Clinton, 1992).

In the light of preaching the gospel, the church should also embark on community

based projects such as education, healthcare, feeding street children and orphanage in support

and enhancement of government programs. This will bring life and hope in communities

especially among the low income earners. Community based projects paint a picture that the

church organizations are accountable in their service improvement operations. These projects

must reflect the church constitution other than being individual based, for the purpose of

accountability and responsiveness.

The research has noted that, the future of effective servant leadership in Uganda is

highly dependent on the principle of empowerment. Leaders need to be motivated and

empowered through bible training opportunities, leadership seminars, workshops, and other

capacity building programmes. Focus develops as you begin to understand the priorities of

Servant Leadership

iv

Christ and personalize them (Stanley & Clinton, 1992). This will create a healthy working

environment leading to service improvement in Pentecostal churches in Uganda.

This project is the result of research in diverse areas related to different leadership

concepts namely; understanding leadership, leadership defined, the practice of servant

leadership, the leadership of Jesus, the leadership challenge, and the authentic leader.

The main focus is to inform the potential stakeholders about the significant role played

by the practice of servant leadership in impacting the change process.

Titus S. Makuma

Servant Leadership

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion of this project has been the result of positive contributions made by

many individuals to whom I am highly indebted. To my advisor, Dr Minja David, thank you

so much for your wise, timely, skillful, and fatherly advise. You made yourself available for

me in all avenues including short text messages late in the night to which responded eagerly

and calmly. My sincere thanks to Rev Lenny and Glenda Meyer for your dedication to

prayers, material (laptop) and financial support towards the entire MAL program. You never

got tired or complained at any one moment. You always spoke words of love, hope, and faith

into my spirit. May God bless and continue to use your leadership potential for His kingdom

purposes.

To my wife, Rose Grace Makuma and children, Timothy, Tabitha, and Titus Jr, I do

appreciate your co-operation, patience, and encouragement during my busy travel and reading

schedules. My success is the result of your love and constant prayers.

To my vice chancellor, Kirk Kauffeldt and all instructors in MAL program, thanks for

your guidance, mentorship, information, and transforming servant leadership principles.

These principles have had a great impact on my life, family, and ministry. Special mention

must be made of the program coordinator, Shelley Kauffeldt, and MAL program director,

Benson Katulwa-thanks for your hard work, wise counsel, effective feedback, and clear

direction. Shelley, I respect your firm leadership position, when you said, “we will follow you

up even at midnight, we will make sure that nobody is left behind, everybody must graduate.”

To my colleagues in MAL program, thank you for your demonstration of teamwork spirit,

love, and care for one another. I greatly value my meeting, learning, and interacting with all

of you.

Servant Leadership

vi

Special thanks go to all the stakeholders in this great project-the Pentecostal church

leaders, respondents, and all those individuals who made it possible for me to compile this

project. Without them, the success of this project would never have been possible.

Finally, my sincere appreciation to God for His relentless mercies, provision, and

divine protection throughout my studies at Pan Africa Christian University (PACU).

Titus S. Makuma.

Servant Leadership

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary………………………………………………………..............ii

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………...v

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………vii

List of Tables………………………………………………………………............ix

CHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND…………………………………………….....1

Introduction [Illustration]…………………………………………………..1

Description of Project……………………………………………………...1

Purpose of Project………………………………………………………….1

The Research Question…………………………………………………….2

Limitations of Project……………………………………………………...2

Delimitations……………………………………………………………….3

Definition of terms………………………………………………………....3

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………...4

Understanding Leadership………………………………………………....5

Leadership Defined………………………………………………………...6

Servant Leadership………………………………………………...............7

The Leadership of Jesus…………………………………………………..17

The Leadership Challenge………………………………………………...20

The Authentic Leader……………………………………………………..21

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY………………………………………...24

Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………...24

Research Design…………………………………………………………..24

Sample Size……………………………………………………………….25

Sampling Procedures……………………………………………………...25

Servant Leadership

viii

Research Instruments……………………………………………………...25

Ethical Considerations…………………………………………………….26

Reliability and Validity……………………………………………………26

CHAPTER FOUR: THE FINDINGS……………………………………………..27

Introduction………………………………………………………………..27

Profile of the Respondents………………………………………………....27

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSIONS………………………………………………..49

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS… ……………………………………………………..55

Outstanding Issues on Change Process………………………………….....55

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………….58

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………..60

1: Checklist/Survey Instrument……………………………………………60

2: Letter of informed consent……………………………………………...64

3: Letter of introduction……………………………………………………66

Servant Leadership

ix

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 The Study Design………………………………………………………….24

TABLE 2 Sex Distribution…………………………………………………………...26

TABLE 3 Age Distribution…………………………………………………………...27

TABLE 4 Level of Education Distribution…………………………………………...28

TABLE 5 Marital Distribution………………………………………………………..28

TABLE 6 Number of Children Distribution…………………………………………..29

TABLE 7 Duration in church Distribution……………………………………………30

TABLE 8 Understanding of leadership Distribution………………………………….30

TABLE 9 Years of experience in leadership held Distribution……………………….31

TABLE 10 Preferred style of leadership Distribution………………………………….32

TABLE 11 Understanding of servant leadership Distribution…………………………32

TABLE 12 Assessment of change Distribution………………………………………..33

TABLE 13 Role played by women Distribution……………………………………….34

TABLE 14 Male leaders versus female leaders Distribution…………………………..34

TABLE 15 Leadership development core values Distribution………………………...35

TABLE 16 Attitude about competition Distribution…………………………………...36

TABLE 17 Attitude about criticism Distribution………………………………………36

TABLE 18 Denominational position in government Distribution……………………..37

TABLE 19 Relationship with other church leaders Distribution………………………38

TABLE 20 Procedure for leadership appointment Distribution……………………….38

TABLE 21 Effectiveness of mentoring program Distribution…………………………39

TABLE 22 Effectiveness of church programs in community Distribution…………….40

TABLE 23 Specific motivation framework Distribution………………………………40

TABLE 24 Delegation of responsibilities Distribution………………………………...41

Servant Leadership

x

TABLE 25 Tools used in performance assessment Distribution………………………42

TABLE 26 The practice of feedback Distribution……………………………………..42

TABLE 27 Succession plan Distribution………………………………………………43

TABLE 28 Provision of leadership Distribution………………………………………44

TABLE 29 Meetings for decision-making Distribution……………………………….45

TABLE 30 Promotion of accountability Distribution…………………………………45

TABLE 31 Leadership retirement plan Distribution…………………………………..46

TABLE 32 Future plan for leadership development Distribution……………………..47

Servant Leadership

1

CHAPTER 1

BACKGROUND

Introduction [Illustration]

The study was conducted in the Pentecostal church organizations around Fort Portal

town within the municipality, which has about fifteen Pentecostal churches. Fort Portal town

is situated 300 km west of the capital Kampala. Historically, Fort Portal (fondly known as

Toro Kingdom) was the first kingdom in Uganda to experience Pentecostal revival movement,

which eventually affected other parts of the country.

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT

This project briefly illustrates the nature and style of leadership principles applied by

the Pentecostal churches in Fort Portal. It indicates the results areas being examined, and

provides detailed areas of possible service improvement, focusing on the Christ centered

servant leadership model.

PURPOSE OF PROJECT

The researcher intends to assess the extent servant leadership is practiced by churches

in the target population following servant leadership model formulated by Greenleaf (1995),

“The servant leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve,

to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply

different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual

power drive or to acquire material possessions.” The researcher will seek to answer the

question: What role if any does servant leadership play in realizing change in the Pentecostal

church leadership structure?

In particular, the researcher will focus on different leadership styles and practices

applied by the Pentecostal churches, which evidently may impact either positively or

negatively on the change process. The researcher will also analyze the extent to which the

Servant Leadership

2

current leadership practices contribute to the church‟s physical and spiritual growth. The

research findings will definitely set a strong servant- based leadership foundation which will

focus among other issues on: team work, accountability, relationship building, double loop

feedback, change initiative, effective mentoring, focus on Jesus, sharing the spotlight with

others, motivation, communication, vision sharing, empowerment, delegation, diversity, and

community involvement.

These characteristics are important for organizations that seek to promote and sustain

the process of service improvement.

THE RESEARCH QUESTION

The focus of the study was to answer the following questions:

1- Is servant leadership practice evident in the way churches are led?

2-If evident, is it impacting change on management styles and practices in the Pentecostal

Churches in Fort Portal-Uganda?

LIMITATIONS OF PROJECT

The project is likely to be constrained in four areas of study in the course of data

Collection.

1-To gather required information and data, the researcher will rely on the responses of the

selected pastors, elders, and departmental heads of different Pentecostal church organizations.

The challenge remains that some of respondents may not be in position to access the

necessary information as provided by the organizations‟ constitutions due to leadership gap.

Though, they can to some extent tell whether servant leadership is being practiced.

2 -There is also a likelihood that respondents will be guarded to ensure that they do not reveal

sensitive information especially to someone from a different denomination.

3-Time may be a constraint due to the researcher‟s busy schedules at home, office, and

church, which will impact on the effectiveness of data collection.

Servant Leadership

3

4 -Unreliable weather conditions may slow down the process of information gathering. The

method of observing the group‟s character and behavior may also bias the researcher‟s

conclusions.

Delimitations

The researcher avoided the use of multiple teams and/or focus groups and instead

concentrated on the selected respondents to be able to extract in-depth information. The

researcher will also avoid the temptation of sitting together with the respondents while they

fill in the questionnaires, to avoid respondents being biased.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

The researcher has defined some key concepts in the project such as „servant

leadership‟, „transactional leadership‟, and transforming leadership.‟

The servant leader is servant first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead,

(Greenleaf, 1995). Transactional leadership- occurs when one person takes the initiative in

making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things. The exchange

could be economic, political, and psychological in nature, (Burns, 1995). Lastly, transforming

leadership- occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders

and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality, (Burns, 1995).

Servant Leadership

4

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Kotter, (1996, p.3-15) has noted that to date, major change efforts have helped some

organizations adapt significantly to shifting conditions, have improved the competitive

standing of others, and have positioned a few for a far better future. But in too many situations

the improvements have been disappointing and the carnage has been appalling, with wasted

resources and burned-out, scared, or frustrated employees.

To some degree, the downside of change is inevitable. Whenever human communities

are forced to adjust to shifting conditions, pain is very present. But a significant amount of the

waste and anguish we‟ve witnessed in the past decade is avoidable (Kotter, 1996). We‟ve

made a lot of errors, the most common of which are: Allowing too much complacency-

transformations always fail to achieve their objectives when complacency levels are high.

Secondly, failing to create sufficiently powerful guiding coalition-in successful

transformations, people need to pull together as a team. Thirdly, underestimating the power of

vision- in many failed transformations, you find plans and programs trying to play the role of

vision, (Kotter, 1996, p.8). Fourthly, under communicating the vision by a factor of 10 or 100-

without credible communication, and a lot of it, employee‟s hearts and minds are never

captured.

More leadership errors as noted by Kotter (1996): Permitting obstacles to block the

new vision-sometimes the obstacle is the organizational structure. Failing to create short-term

wins- creating short-term wins is different from hoping for short-term wins. The latter is

passive, the former active. Declaring victory too soon-until changes sink down deeply into the

culture, which for an entire company can take three to ten years, new approaches are fragile

and subject to regression. Interestingly Kotter (1996) has noted that, declaring victory too

soon is like stumbling into a sinkhole on the road to meaningful change. And for a variety of

Servant Leadership

5

reasons, even smart people don‟t just stumble into that hole. Sometimes they jump in with

both feet. Lastly, neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the corporate culture-smart people

miss the mark here when they are insensitive to cultural issues (Kotter, 1996).

The ultimate test of practical leadership is the realization of intended, real change that

meets people‟s enduring needs (Kouzes, & Posner, 1990, p.37). Change is a fact of life for

leaders and yet many are uncertain about whether change is a good thing or a necessary evil

(Kadalie, 2006, p.225). To be a leader is to be a change agent. To lead people in a church or

organization is asking them to change something (Kadalie, 2006, p.228).

However, in relation to these schools of thought, church organizations are visibly

affected by their ineffective management styles and practices where change is inevitably a

compelling factor in the 21st century. Lack of effective elements and/or instruments of change

initiative in the organizational leadership structure, are a reflection of ineffective practice of

servant leadership in such an organization.

UNDERSTANDING LEADERSHIP

Kadalie, (2006), states that, the term „leadership‟ is a difficult term to define. For

every leadership theory, and there are a lot out there, there is a unique understanding of what

the term describes. While achieving consensus about the definition of leadership may be

impossible, leadership is an important part of our human experience that we all relate to. Most

people can distinguish between a good leader and a bad leader without having done any study

on leadership. However, for those who are leaders it is unacceptable to simply exercise one‟s

leadership out of the intuitive sense one has about leadership. According to Kadalie (2006),

leaders ought to examine their leadership and become increasingly intentional about doing

whatever needs to be done to become a good leader, or an effective leader. For the Christian

leader the evaluation of one‟s leadership must be critically informed by the revealed truth of

God‟s word. Therefore, it is in this perspective that, the practice of servant leadership in the

Servant Leadership

6

Pentecostal churches in Fort Portal has become an area of concern and worth of study. Ethical

conclusions may be drawn basing on different ethical approaches by some schools of thought,

which uniquely present the definitions of leadership from different forums of experience and

practice.

Leadership Defined

Leadership has risen above normal workday usage as a conveyor of meaning. There

seems to be a feeling that if we invoke it often enough with sufficient ardor we can ease our

sense of having lost our way, our sense of things unaccomplished, of duties unfulfilled,

(Gardner, 1990). Leadership relates to the process of persuasion or example by which an

individual (or leadership team) induces a group to pursue objectives held by the leader or

shared by the leader and his or her followers. Leaders are integral parts of the system, subject

to the forces that affect the system. They perform (or cause to be performed) certain tasks or

functions that are essential if the group is to accomplish its purposes (Gardner, 1990).

Clinton, (1993) on the other hand, has stated that, Leadership is a dynamic process in

which a man or woman with God-given capacity influences a specific group of God‟s people

toward His purposes for the group. It is therefore, important for every church organization to

develop a perspective, which looks at leadership with a lens of diversity and inclusiveness in

all leadership structures.

Maxwell, (1993), has defined leadership as influence. Nothing more, nothing less. “He

who thinketh he leadeth and hath no one following him is only taking a walk” (Maxwell,

1993).

Maxwell (1993) has identified FIVE levels of leadership influence as: Position

(Rights)-people follow because they have to. People are simply coerced into following the

leader. Secondly, permission (Relationships)-People follow because they want to. They show

willingness to co-operate in carrying out certain organizational tasks. Thirdly, production

Servant Leadership

7

(Results)-people follow because of what you have done for the organization. They feel they

are part of the change process. Fourthly, personnel development (Reproduction)-people follow

because of what you have done for them. They demonstrate a sense of leadership

transformation and career development, which in the long run benefits the organization.

Lastly, personhood (Respect)-people follow because of who you are and what you represent.

Your sense of character and leadership attitude evidently impacts their management styles and

practices. It is at this level that, the value of integrity and a true sense of servant leadership are

clearly portrayed in a leader‟s life.

Maxwell (1993) has drawn a conclusion that, everyone is a leader because everyone

influences someone. Not everyone will become a great leader, but everyone can become a

better leader. Will you unleash your leadership potential? And will you use your leadership

skills to better mankind?

Servant Leadership

The servant leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to

serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply

different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual

power drive or to acquire material possessions (Greenleaf, 1995).

Burns, (1995), says the genius of leadership lies in the manner in which leaders see

and act on their own and their followers‟ values and motivations. Leadership, unlike naked

power wielding, is thus inseparable from followers‟ needs and goals. The interaction takes

two fundamentally different forms-namely, transactional leadership, which occurs when one

person takes the initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of

valued things. The exchange could be economic, political, and psychological in nature. In my

view, this kind of leadership relationship is temporary and unbinding in nature.

Servant Leadership

8

Burns (1995) also mentions transforming leadership, which occurs when one or more

persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to

higher levels of motivation and morality. Their purpose, which might have started out as

separate but related, as in the case of transactional leadership become fused. Indeed, the

principle of servant leadership is at the core of this fundamental form of relationship, which

naturally is more binding and focused. Burns (1995) has identified Gandhi as one of the

morally upright modern leaders who aroused and elevated the hopes and demands of millions

of Indians and whose life and personality were enhanced in the process. Evidently Gandhi

embraced the right principles of servant leadership.

Leadership principles are timeless, while, the models that examine those principles

may change (Homrig, 2001). The transformational model offers one of many good ways to

examine leadership and the type of leader, and follower, who are ideally suited for today‟s and

tomorrow‟s strategic environment (Homrig, 2001).

The life of Jesus and His involvement with followers demonstrates the intensity to

which the leader/follower relationship can grow; it doesn‟t replace family relationships, but it

can become just as strong (Brinner & Pritchard, 1998). Obviously the nature of the enterprise

will dictate the intensity of the relationship. For instance, coaching a youth soccer team is

considerably different from leading troops into battle during wartime. Good leaders have a

vision; better leaders share a vision; the best leaders invite others to join them in spreading

this vision (Brinner & Pritchard, 1998). In this way the best leaders create a sense of intimacy

with hundreds, thousands, and even millions of followers, which explains why some feel that

they know great world leaders even though they have never met.

There is no more powerful engine driving an organization toward excellence and long-

range success than an attractive, worthwhile, and achievable vision of the future, widely

shared (Nanus,1992). On the other hand, Saffold, (2005) says, strategic planning is about

Servant Leadership

9

leadership; leadership is about the future; and the future is about vision. It is the privilege and

responsibility of leaders to move people and organizations from where they are today to

where they need to be tomorrow.

The process of developing an organizational vision may be called goal setting, long-

range planning, vision casting, or some other name. Regardless of the term, developing an

organizational vision is an attempt to think carefully about the future (Saffold, 2005). It is a

pity that many leaders today especially those from the mushrooming churches (churches

without root and clear foundation) tend to think more about the present survival tricks than

setting a strong organizational base for the future. This kind of attitude and mindset seem to

have given room to competition, strife, and complacency. Self-centeredness seems to be

taking the center stage hence, overshadowing the widely accepted concepts of servant

leadership.

Saffold (2005), in his analysis on „vision as a preferred future‟ has said that, just as

architects make drawings and engineers build models, effective leaders find ways of giving

expression to their hopes for the future. A vision is an image of a possible and desirable

future. Leaders must take care not to rule out possibilities prematurely just because they seem

impossible. Practical leadership demands action to move toward reasonable goals. Notably,

leaders will want to develop a description of a preferred future, a depiction of what they

would like the organization to be if it could realize most fully the potential that God has

placed within it or could develop through it.

Saffold (2005) has reaffirmed the need for good vision statement, which need not be

long. This should supply details for shorter-term achievements with declining detail as the

number of years increase Leadership through vision is a companion philosophy to

management by mission. Mission is concerned with core purposes and results, and the goal of

management by mission is for every activity to be shaped by the organization‟s fundamental

Servant Leadership

10

purposes. Genuine Christian leadership demands that both leaders and followers allow their

wants, needs, aspirations, and expectations to be guided, shaped, and ruled by God. In

adopting a philosophy of leadership through vision, we are not “buying into” a secular model

of leadership (Saffold, 2005). God led Abraham away from Ur with visions of a land and a

great nation (Genesis 12:1-4). Moses moved the Israelites toward a promised land that would

flow with milk and honey (Exodus 3:7-10). David was captivated with a vision to build a

house for God, and his people “gave willingly” (1 Chronicles 19:6). Lastly, Nehemiah‟s

vision for a city wall attracted a work crew that completed the job in fifty-two days

(Nehemiah 6:15).

Hybels, (1998), has looked at ten different ways or styles of leadership that are

suitable to leading God‟s people. First and foremost he lays emphasis on a visionary leader-

these leaders have crystal clear picture in their minds of what they want to happen. They cast

visions powerfully and possess indefatigable enthusiasm to pursue the mission. Visionary

leaders are not easily discouraged or deterred. In the case of directional leader-this style

doesn‟t get much press, but it is exceedingly important. The directional leader has the un

canny, God-given ability to choose the right path at those critical intersections where an

organization starts asking hard questions: “Is it time for a wholesale change or should we stay

the course? Do we focus on growth or consolidation? Should we start new ministries or

deepen and improve the existing ones? Should we add facilities or relocate? Is it time for

some fresh staff, or do we dance with those who brought us here? The idea here is what

strategic should be recommended?

Strategic leader-a strategic leader forms a game plan every one can understand and

participate in, one that will eventually lead to the achievement of the vision. A strategic leader

challenges the organization to work the plan. She says, “Don‟t get distracted. Do what needs

to be done to achieve the next step, then the next, and we shall achieve the vision together”

Servant Leadership

11

(Hybels, 1998). Turning to managing leader-they often aren‟t as popular as the leader who

can give the big vision talk or make the big decision around the boardroom table or put the big

plan in place. But in the day-to-day world, someone has to manage the process to make sure

we get where we want to go. On the other hand, motivational leader- possesses insight into

who needs a fresh challenge or additional training. They can sense who needs public

recognition, an encouraging word, or a day off. They know when a pay increase, office

change, title change, or sabbatical is needed. Motivational leaders know that teammates get

tired, lose focus, and experience mission drift. Workers wonder if what they‟re doing really

matters to any one-or to God. Motivational leaders don‟t get bitter or vengeful when morale

sinks. They instead see it as an opportunity to inspire and lift the spirits of every one on the

team.

Hybels (1998) identifies Jesus as being a consistent motivator of the disciples. He

changed Peter‟s name. He promised His followers a hundred-fold reward in this life and in the

next. Often, Jesus would take the disciples away and say, “let‟s not take a hill. Let‟s sleep at

the bottom of one. Let‟s go fishing, eat, and hang out.” In away Jesus portrayed the true

character of a good Shepherd. The Shepherding leader- loves team members so deeply,

nurtures them so gently, supports them so consistently, listens to them so patiently, and prays

for them so diligently that the mission of the team gets achieved.

Team-building leader- these leaders have supernatural insight into people. They find

or develop leaders with the right abilities, character, and chemistry with other team members.

They place people in the right positions for the right reasons who will then produce the right

results. Hybels (1998) stresses that, when the team-building leader gets everyone in place, he

or she then says to the team, “You know what we‟re trying to do. You know what part of the

mission you‟re responsible for. You know what part of the mission the rest of us are

Servant Leadership

12

responsible for. So head out. Work hard. Achieve your objectives. Communicate with your

co-laborers, but lead. This is a call for innovation and entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurial leader- these leaders possess vision, boundless energy, and a risk-

taking spirit. Their distinguishing characteristic is, they function best in a start-up operation.

They love being told it cannot be done. Entrepreneurs on the other hand, feel guilty at the

thought of leaving something they gave birth to. These leaders thrive while swimming in the

troubled waters where they can produce their potential leadership skills. Furthermore, re-

engineering leader- they thrive in a situation that has lost vision or focus, or one that has been

staffed inappropriately. This kind of leader says, “Oh boy, I get to re-engineer this whole

situation.” They find out what the mission was and what it needs to be now. They decide how

progress and success will be measured. They love to tune up, heal, and revitalize hurting

organizations (Hybels, 1998). Notably, this is a good factor of servant leadership, which

focuses on rebranding organizations that seem to have lost shape and fervor.

Lastly, Hybels (1998) has analyzed the concept of a bridge building leader-This leader

brings a wide variety of constituencies together under a single umbrella of leadership so that a

complex organization can achieve its mission. This feat requires enormous flexibility in a

leader-the ability to compromise and negotiate, to listen, understand, and think outside of the

box. It requires not only the ability to be diplomatic; it requires also the gift of being able to

relate to diverse people. This may require a leader to put on right lenses for cultural diversity,

and inclusiveness other than being elusive and exclusive in the organizational leadership

structure.

Williams, (2001), emphatically looks at FIVE lenses as being appropriate to the

practice of servant leadership in an organization. He says, the colorblind leaders have the

ability to see people as individuals and ignore race, color, ethnicity, and other external cultural

factors. They want to look at a person‟s individual qualities and character. They believe that

Servant Leadership

13

ignoring race and color will have an equalizing effect. Their motto: “When I see you, I see a

person, not your color.”

In the similar manner the integrationist- supports breaking down all barriers between

racial groups by merging people of different cultures together in communities and in the work

place. They believe that we can replace our ignorance of each other‟s culture with a greater

understanding and knowledge if we live and work together. They want the national laws to

reinforce this idea.

The idea is strengthened by the meritocratist leaders, who according to Williams

(2001) believe in individualist credo of America: If you have the abilities and work hard

enough, you can compete with anyone to make your dreams come true. Meritocratists

disapprove of programs that use race, culture, ethnicity, class, or any cultural attributes as

criteria for opportunity, believing instead in personal merit. Their motto: “Cream rises to the

top.”

More emphasis is laid on multiculturalist leaders who celebrate the diversity of

cultures in the United States and the contributions they make to our national character and

history. This leader wants to retain the customs, languages, and ideas of people originating in

other cultures. The Multiculturalist believes these retained characteristics combine to create an

appealing and colorful mixed salad, a metaphor often used to describe this perspective. Their

motto: “The more cultural diversity, the better.”

Lastly, Williams (2001), identifies transcendent leader who focuses on the human

spirit, our universal connection, and our shared humanity. The transcendent elevates our belief

in each soul in relation to the divine and to one another. Race, ethnicity, and nationality are a

part of God/the Universe‟s plan and contribute to the richness of humanity. Their motto:

“There‟s really one race-the human race.” However, the purpose of these lenses is to ascertain

Servant Leadership

14

cohesion and teamwork spirit in an organization regardless of cultural diversity. Leaders begin

to demonstrate the true qualities of servant leadership as in the biblical sense.

Warren, (1997), has observed that, dynamic leaders possess some distinguishing

personality traits that give them the power and passion to succeed. For instance, self-

knowledge-there is no greater teacher than responsibility, especially at an early age. With

responsibility and accountability, you gain self-insight through some hall of mirrors, some

prismatic way of seeing yourself in a variety of circumstances.

Effective leaders develop valued and varied sources of feedback on their behavior and

performance. And one of the best sources for many executives is a spouse. According to

Warren (1997), there is something to say about finding any valued source of feedback. The

trick is getting the best feedback possible, being open to it, and changing for the better

because of it. It is really important to encourage a double-loop feedback, which is more

effective and productive.

Furthermore, effective leaders are great askers and listeners. When it has to do with

their work, their job, their company, they are wide-awake. They know what they are good at

doing, and they nurture and develop those skills and talents extraordinarily. They want to get

better. In some cases, they are more eager to learn and more open than I would have thought

possible.

On the other hand, most leaders are adventurous, risk takers, curious-amazingly

curious. They seem to walk through life with their eyebrows raised. And they seem to be

capable of taking great risks-always getting involved in situations that they did not realize

until later were dangerous.

Warren (1997) has observed that, whereas some leaders have very few interpersonal

skills, they do have a concentration that is almost alarming-their caliper eyes focused

primarily on their work, on the company, on the goals, on the mission.

Servant Leadership

15

Surprisingly, great leaders have had a significant setback, crisis, or failure in their

lives. For instance, many of the leaders Warren (1997) studied faced adversity early in their

lives. Four of them had chronic illnesses. Three others were raised as orphans. However,

servant leaders do rise from obscurity to greater heights in organizational change initiative.

Warren (1997) has looked at open style as an important component of leadership in

that it sets an extremely reflective atmosphere as well as openness and vulnerability to

criticism. Open forum is a good platform for the change process in an organization. Church

leaders should be encouraged to widely open their offices for the purpose of openness and

interaction. They should openly respond to questions and concerns from a variety of

constituents and stakeholders in the organization.

It is important for every leader to realize that he or she can‟t handle every problem,

that he or she can‟t handle all things one-on-one, that he or she has to rely heavily on staff and

work with systems if things are going to get better.

Lastly, many leaders take great pride in serving as models and mentors. In Warren‟s

case-from his days as a university president, he takes the most pride from the fact that, ten of

his associates-two women and eight men-later became extremely successful university or

college presidents. Church leaders should take pride in the new guard of young leaders

passionately referred to as “Joshua generation.” The church needs leaders who are focused,

self-driven, and morally upright. Leaders who are willing to learn.

Society today is rediscovering that the process of learning and maturing needs time

and many kinds of relationships such as mentoring- a relational experience in which one

person empowers another by sharing God-given resources. For instance, Barnabas was a

people influencer. He saw potential in Saul (later the Apostle Paul) when others kept their

distance (Stanley & Clinton, 1992).

Servant Leadership

16

Barnabas illustrates a number of the specific ways that mentors help the mentorees:

Mentors give to mentorees-timely advice, letters, articles, books, or other literally information

that offers perspective; freedom to emerge as a leader even beyond the level of a mentor.

Mentors risk their own reputation in order to sponsor a mentoree. They also model various

aspects of leadership functions so as to challenge the mentorees to move toward them.

Mentors on the other hand, direct the mentorees to needed resources that will further develop

them. Lastly, mentors co-minister with mentorees in order to increase their confidence, status,

and credibility.

Mentoring is indeed an empowering experience that requires a connection between

two people…the mentor and the mentoree (Stanley & Clinton, 1992). Three dynamics are

vital to a mentoring relationship: Attraction-it is the necessary starting point in the mentoring

relationship. The mentoree is drawn to the mentor for various reasons-perspective, certain

skills, experience, values, and commitments modeled, perceived wisdom, position, character,

knowledge, and influence. The mentor is attracted to the mentoree‟s attitude, potential, and

opportunity for influence. However, as attraction increases, trust, confidence, and mentoring

subjects develop that will strengthen the mentoring relationship and ensure empowerment

(Stanley & Clinton, 1992).

On the issue of responsiveness-the mentoree must be willing and ready to learn from

the mentor. Attitude is crucial for the mentoree. A responsive, receiving spirit on the part of

the mentoree and attentiveness on the part of the mentor directly speed up and enhance the

empowerment (Stanley & Clinton, 1992).

Sharing expectations and a periodic review and evaluation will give strength to

application and facilitate empowerment. The mentor should therefore take responsibility for

initiating and maintaining accountability with the mentoree (Stanley & Clinton, 1992).

Servant Leadership

17

The more deliberate and intense the mentoring relationship, the more important these

dynamics are. This is because, mutual commitment is necessary for change and growth to take

place. These dynamics are the ingredients that produce this commitment. The commitment

may also be looked at in the light of perspective and focus-notably the Apostle Paul

demonstrates the mutual effect that perspective and focus have on one another. You develop

perspective as you gain experience and reflect on that experience in the presence of God. On

the other hand, focus develops as you begin to understand the priorities of Christ and

personalize them (Stanley & Clinton, 1992).

Intimacy with Christ forms the core of your inner being. Solomon, the King of Israel,

wrote in Proverbs, “Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the well-spring of life” (4:23).

The power to lead and minister comes from the inner life. This was the focus area of the

Apostle Paul‟s life: to know Christ intimately (Philippians 3:10). He saw this as a lifelong

pursuit that needed multiple inputs (Stanley & Clinton, 1992).

THE LEADERSHIP OF JESUS

Kadalie (2006, p.124) has looked at the exemplary leadership of Jesus Christ as the

best model we can look at. He has identified nine different ways in which Jesus demonstrated

His leadership abilities:

Leadership development begins with a call. Jesus found His future leaders fishing by a

lake and in other everyday activities. He picked them just as they were. When we call

someone in Jesus‟ Name, it is a ministry of powerful affirmation (p.124).

Jesus went a step to name them. He looked at Peter and said, „You are Simon, you are

going to be Peter‟. When we develop leaders we need to know their names, we need to know

what their names stand for-that is we need to know them well. Understand their strengths and

weaknesses and call them by the new vision of what they will become in Christ (p.124).

Servant Leadership

18

Besides naming, Jesus believed in teams. He sent them out two by two. Teams

accompanied Him. Leadership developers need to know the power of teams. It is important to

work with individuals but also to bring them into a group, where strengths and weaknesses

can be balanced and vision shared (p.124).

Jesus trusted them despite their shortcomings. He told them to follow Him, then taught

them by letting them live with Him and watch Him. He sent them out to go and do, entrusting

them with a task. However, leaders are made not just by telling them what to do, but also by

trusting them to do it (p.124).

Trusting in some cases is strengthened by testing. For instance, when a big storm came

upon them on the lake while they were sleeping on the boat, Jesus asked them, „where is your

faith?‟ He pushed them beyond their safe depths. Leaders grow when they are in situations

beyond their own control and strengths, where they will learn that they will fail unless they

trust in God (p.124).

For the purpose of effectiveness, Jesus employed the strategy of inclusion-from the

crowds He picked seventy, and from the seventy He selected twelve, and out of the twelve,

three. He often took Peter, James and John with Him. To make leaders, we have to focus on

the few who have potential, as well as some who may not seem to have it. Sometimes these

are risks we must take if we want to grow leaders in depth (Kadalie, 2006, p.125).

Jesus‟ leadership program was not a formal, hierarchical structure, but a community

of friends, and the Friend was the center. The night He left them, He said to them, „I no longer

call you servants…I have called you friends‟. Leaders-in-the-making need to sense they are

persons, not projects-persons who, in the best sense of the word, are friends (p.125).

As a friend, Jesus warned His disciples of dangers ahead. In Peter‟s case He warned

him that he would betray Him and let Him down. Although Peter denied Jesus three times

something turned him around. Jesus gave him a chance and an opportunity to reaffirm his love

Servant Leadership

19

and his commitment to feed Jesus‟ sheep. In developing leaders we need to know they will

fail. When that happens, they need correction, encouragement and a chance to start again

(p.125). My observation here is that, only friendly and servant leaders can avail one a chance

and an opportunity to test the waters of change all over again.

We need to make people understand they are chosen as Jesus did. Jesus‟ disciples

realized He had chosen them, prayed for them, died for them and now He trusted them. He

had put Himself in them. Now He was sending them to find His sheep and care for His sheep.

Jesus helped them become the leaders He called them to be (p.125).

Under these circumstances, Jesus was inevitably releasing leaders as change agents in

the changing world. Kadalie (2006, p.127) has commented that, leaders who are effective are

those who adapt to change. Those who are not just efficient but who effectively grab hold of

the opportunities staring them in the face. The scriptures are full of examples of forward

thinking leaders-God chose Moses to deal with the Egyptian crisis, Joshua for the demanding

journey into the promised land, John the Baptist to prepare the way for our Lord, Peter to help

usher in the church in a Jewish environment, and Paul and his team for the gentile challenge.

We certainly need new leaders who are relevant in the prevailing climate. Kadalie (2006)

takes note of former Kenyan President Moi‟s timely statement, “If I must go, then all those

belonging to the old guard must leave with me.”

In leadership change is inevitable. It is a pity that the church is operating in an era

where leaders have adopted the slogan of „no change.‟ The old guard of leaders find it hard

and challenging to willingly pass on the baton to the new guard of leaders for they feel

uncertain about tomorrow. It is important for leaders with a servant heart to model values that

demonstrate the attitude of change for the good of the organization.

Servant Leadership

20

Wallace Erickson in his article, „Transition in Leadership‟ remarked, “One of the best

tests of leadership is the willingness to pass the baton to a successor and let him carry it across

the finish line.”(Kadalie, 2006, p.128).

The Leadership Challenge

Leaders should learn the importance of challenging people. This involves urging

individuals to reach their full potential and not settle for anything less than God‟s best

(Kadalie, 2006, p.16). In fact there are so many opportunities staring us in the face and needs

that we must address. We must prompt others we can influence to take action (Kadalie, 2006).

The leadership challenge is probably one of the greatest facing us today. In our leadership we

will face immense difficulties that may seem insurmountable, but this is what leadership is all

about (Kadalie, 2006).

However, leaders need to take up the following challenges: The challenge to be value

driven; the challenge to lead in a world that has turned into a global village; the challenge to

build a client-centered organization; the challenge to respond innovatively to accelerated

change; the challenge of leveraging technology; the challenge to think strategically, and the

challenge to become a learning organization (Kadalie, 2006, p.16).

These challenges depict leadership values that must be employed to model

organizational change for service improvement. Leaders should be challenged and encouraged

to measure up to the structures of change that affect organizations at different levels.

Our individual responses to many of these challenges differ: Some are over cautious

with millions of reasons why not to do anything; some are gripped by fear and go into some

form of paralysis (Kadalie, 2006, p.16); some find every excuse in the book to run away from

the challenges (Kadalie, 2006, p.17); some will quickly suggest another‟s name to avoid

taking personal risk and responsibility; some just choose to ignore the realities and challenges

of today and find immense comfort in the status quo; interestingly some moan, complain and

Servant Leadership

21

make constant negative remarks, unaware of the incredible challenges staring them in the

face; some without much thought, get excited and grab these challenges with both hands,

while some prayerfully take a step of faith and respond in obedience to the challenges they

face.

In the midst of all this dynamic activity associated with leadership it is important to

remember the essential functions of leading. By appropriately giving priority to the essentials

we will exercise leadership that is grounded in principles (Kadalie, 2006).

The Authentic Leader

People may not say it but they want authenticity in leadership (Kadalie, 2006, p.56).

Do we tell people we had a tough week? Do we tell them we had difficulty with a piece of

scripture? Do we share about our struggles at home? Are we willing to take off the leadership

masks and share our humanity with our followers? In fact by doing this we are not becoming

less human but, rather acknowledging Paul‟s position, “we loved you so much that we were

delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well” (1Thess.2:8).

The Old and New Testaments reveal a pattern that leaders ought to be open about their

weaknesses and struggles (Kadalie, 2006). For instance, Moses was exhausted before Jethro,

David expresses his struggles in the Psalms, Job had doubts and fears, and Jeremiah cried.

Paul admits to the Corinthians that he comes to them in weakness and fear with much

trembling (1 Cor.2: 1-3). Jesus modeled transparency by crying at Lazarus‟ funeral and

showing His fear before crucifixion. African leaders should learn to model the life of Jesus.

The life of brokenness instead of holding on the traditional assumptions that, „men never shed

a tear in public.‟

People often award us with a high level of spirituality when they have no idea whether

we have had a quite time with God in weeks, have marriage difficulties, or struggling with

addictions. A commitment to authenticity helps us refuse the false image some project onto us

Servant Leadership

22

and lowers the mask of hypocrisy (Kadalie, 2006). The researcher has noted that, leaders need

to stand out and lead by example. Leaders should exercise Godly wisdom and also utilize the

teachable moments to build the level of credibility.

Many of us were taught to withhold our true selves from those we serve for fear of

losing moral influence and ability to provide spiritual leadership. In reality, you gain

credibility when you share where you have struggled (Kadalie, 2006, p.57).

When we are honest about our struggles, those to whom we minister grow more

comfortable with being honest about their struggles (Kadalie, 2006). Ministry begins when

leaders create a context in which people can say, “My name is John, and I lost my job”. “My

name is Sheila and my marriage is falling apart”. We take off our masks so others will take off

theirs (Kadalie, 2006). This is an important lesson for leaders in church organizations who

tend to hide away from reality. Leaders should endeavor to model the attitude of humility in

order to impact and influence the congregations, which have been entrusted to them.

The practice of servant leadership is an incredible tool, which must be employed in

order to effect structural change and service improvement in church organizations. Hence,

significantly transforming community. The challenge facing the church today is that leaders

want to lead before they can think of serving their people. In other wards they want to put

food on their tables before they can consider the hungry neighbor. In a nutshell they are more

concerned about their personal/family fairly tales and identities than offering true service to

the community.

The scenario may look natural and normal but true servant leadership calls for

„service‟ first then „leadership‟ later. In the event where there is lack of purpose, value-driven,

and innovation, the end result is evidently ineffective practices of servant leadership principles

necessary for service improvement.

Servant Leadership

23

Nonetheless, the exemplary leadership of Jesus is designed to provide a springboard

for effective servant leadership. Diverse schools of thought such as Burns (1995), Homrig

(2001), Nanus (1992), Saffold (2005), Hybels (1998), Williams (2001), Warren (1997),

Stanley & Clinton (1992), have skillfully presented different concepts of servant leadership

but none of them can measure up to the style and leadership of Jesus Christ. Referring to

Jesus, Kadalie (2006) has drawn a clear path of leadership development which portrays

among other leadership values; positive attitude, teamwork, trust, empowerment, inclusion,

mentoring, and delegation.

Furthermore, Greenleaf (1995) has looked at the principle of servant leadership as

being a service at heart-one should think of service first then leadership later. It is more

fulfilling for a leader to intentionally embrace these essential tools for the purpose of change

and service improvement.

Servant Leadership

24

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This section will look at the methods of investigation and procedures that were used in

data collection process.

Theoretical Framework

The researcher was guided mostly by the interpretive perspective, and specifically by

Greenleaf‟s (1995) perspective of a servant leader. However, the interpretive perspective will

place focus on interpreting the meanings and perspectives of different leadership styles as

practiced by the selected Pentecostal churches in Fort Portal. The researcher used the

meanings related to different management styles and practices embraced by the leaders to be

able to assess the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of the leadership framework. This

approach together with Greenleaf‟s approach helped the researcher to determine and

recommend the role of servant leadership in the process of service improvement.

The researcher observed different behaviors and character traits exhibited by the

church leaders through interaction, which evidently pointed to their childhood upbringing. For

instance, leaders who are greedy for power, materialistic (possessing many pairs of shoes,

flashy life style), self centeredness, insecurity, and defensive in nature, have one thing in

common-childhood tendencies which need to be corrected by right, impacting, and

transforming leadership principles.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The researcher mainly used a descriptive design to establish the evidence and practice

of servant leadership in the way churches are led and if at all it is impacting change in

management styles and practice in Pentecostal churches in Fort Portal-Uganda.

The researcher‟s population of study was 6 key Pentecostal churches in the region and

the target population being 60 people-10 respondents from each church.

Servant Leadership

25

Table No.1: The Study Design.

The Research

Question Information to be collected

Source of

information

Method of

collection

Question:

Is servant leadership

practice evident in

the way churches

are led and is it

impacting change on

management styles

and practices in the

Pentecostal churches

in Fort Portal-

Uganda?

If servant leadership

practice is evident and

how significant it is in the

change process?

If servant leadership

practice is evident and

how effective it is in the

change process?

Pastors,

Elders &

Departmental

heads

Questionnaire

Sample Size

The total number of people interviewed was 57 respondents whose questionnaires

were filled and returned for data analysis.

Sampling Procedures

The research was carried out in Fort Portal town. The researcher used the purposive

sampling technique (Mugenda, O.M. & Mugenda, A.G. 2003, p.50) to determine the target

sample of 60 leaders from 6 Pentecostal churches. The ratio used was 2 pastors, 3 elders, 5

departmental heads (2:3:5) from each church. The departmental heads represented the

congregation.

Research Instruments

The researcher used mainly structured questionnaire instrument to obtain data. A list

of clearly structured questions both open ended and closed format were used to allow free

expression of the interviewees as well as provide room for effective interpretation of data

analysis. They were also structured in such a way that they do not embarrass or harm the

personality of the interviewee and more so the credibility of the organization. The researcher

Servant Leadership

26

handed the questionnaire to the respondents, explained the questions and requested the

respondents to fill them. The respondents were not allowed to fill in their names for the

purpose of confidentiality and enhancing the quality of information.

The researcher also used the method of observation of leadership behavior and character traits

through interaction for data collection.

Data was analyzed using relevant statistics available in the SPSS computer software.

Before the actual analysis was done, the researcher coded and collated information and data to

make the analysis possible.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The letters of informed consent, permission to research, and introduction were

obtained from the university‟s „Ethical Review Committee‟ (ERC) to be presented to the

leadership of the selected Pentecostal churches in Fort Portal. The researcher requested the

church leadership to identify capable and potential leaders to fill in the questionnaires.

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

Care was taken by the researcher to ensure that inaccurate coding did not

happen, biased information avoided, and fatigue minimized to ensure a clear demonstration

and address to the research questions.

Servant Leadership

27

CHAPTER 4

THE FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter gives the results of data collection, which were got from six Pentecostal

Churches in Fort Portal-Uganda.

The objective of the study was to obtain data relating to the „Extent to which Servant

Leadership practice is applied by Pentecostal Churches in Uganda.‟

Data was obtained from Pastors, elders, and departmental heads of the selected

Pentecostal Churches in Uganda.

The researcher used one structured/standardized questionnaire to carry out an

interview with the respondents.

In the presentation of the results, tables and figures have been used. Frequencies

and/or percentages have been used to describe the results.

PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS

Distribution of respondents by sex

The respondents were asked what sex they were and the results are shown in the table

No.2 below.

Table No.2 Sex Distribution

Sex

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Male

Female

Total

37

20

57

64.9

35.1

100.0

64.9

35.1

100.0

64.9

100.0

Servant Leadership

28

Sixty five percent of the respondents were males while thirty five percent were

females. Culture plays a leading role in this analysis in the sense that women in Uganda are

mostly looked at as household properties other than potential change agents.

Distribution of respondents by age

The respondents were asked how old they were and the results are given in the table

No.3 below.

Table No 3 Age Distribution

Age (years)

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

25-30

31-35

36 and above

Total

10

15

32

57

18.0

26.0

56.0

100.0

18.0

26.0

56.0

100.0

18.0

44.0

100.0

Fifty six percent of the respondents were 36 years and above while twenty six percent

were 31-35 years and eighteen percent indicated 25-30 years. The above analysis shows that

most of the leaders are more mature (36 and above) as compared to others who are still in

their youthful stages and need more time to mature into future potential leaders.

Distribution of respondents by education status

The respondents were asked what level of education they had attained and the results

are reflected in the table No.4 below.

Servant Leadership

29

Table No.4 Level of Education Distribution

Education Status

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Primary

Secondary

Higher Institution

University

Total

4

12

29

12

57

7.0

21.0

51.0

21.0

100.0

7.0

21.0

51.0

21.0

100.0

7.0

28.0

79.0

100.0

Fifty one percent of the respondents indicated that they had attained higher institution

of learning while twenty one percent separately indicated both university and secondary,

seven percent had attained primary level. From this analysis the conclusion can be drawn that

most of the church organizations in Uganda do not look at the advancement of education as a

prerequisite for leadership development. They believe in the anointing as the ultimate measure

for ministry.

Distribution of respondents by marital status

The respondents were asked what marital status they were and the results are analyzed

in the table No.5 below.

Table No. 5 Marital Distribution

Marital Status

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Married

Single

Total

44

13

57

77.2

22.8

100.0

77.2

22.8

100.0

77.2

100.0

Servant Leadership

30

Seventy seven percent of the respondents indicated that they were married while

twenty three percent were single. This demonstrates the emphasis of marriage requirement

among the church leaders who in most cases serve as models. However, to some extent the

singles are also encouraged to serve depending on the definition of single hood.

Response to the number of children each respondent had

The respondents were asked how many children they had and the results are measured

in the table No.6 below.

Table No. 6 Number of Children Distribution

Children

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

0-3

4-7

8-11

12 and above

Total

37

15

4

1

57

64.9

26.3

7.0

1.8

100.0

64.9

26.3

7.0

1.8

100.0

64.9

91.2

98.2

100.0

Sixty five percent of the respondents had less number of children while twenty six

percent had slightly more as compared to seven percent who indicated 8-11 and two percent

had 12 and above. The above analysis demonstrates the negative attitude most leaders may

have towards having a big number of children. Besides, there could be other factors at play

such as single hood, barrenness, discordant couples, and poor conditions of living. It was also

noted that those with big number of children do adopt besides the biological ones.

Response to how long respondents had spent in the organization

The respondents were asked their time of duration and the results are reflected in the

table No.7 below.

Servant Leadership

31

Table No. 7 Duration in church Distribution

Duration (years)

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

1-5 years

6-10 years

11 and above

Total

6

20

31

57

10.5

35.1

54.4

100.0

10.5

35.1

54.4

100.0

10.5

45.6

100.0

Fifty four percent indicated that they had been in the organization for 11 years and

above while thirty five percent indicated 6-10 years and eleven percent mentioned 1-5 years.

The analysis shows that the prerequisite for leadership appointment is total commitment to

church vision and activities. Leaders are given time to acclimatize with the policies.

Response to the understanding of the term ‘leadership’

The respondents were asked to define „leadership‟ and the results are analyzed in the

table No.8 below.

Table No.8 Understanding of leadership Distribution

Leadership

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Control

Power

No Idea

Influence

Total

8

13

16

20

57

14.0

22.8

28.1

35.1

100.0

14.0

22.8

28.1

35.1

100.0

14.0

36.8

64.9

100.0

Servant Leadership

32

Thirty five percent of the respondents defined leadership as influence while twenty

eight percent had no idea, twenty three percent looked at leadership as power and fourteen

percent indicated control. To some people leadership is simply position and power. However,

Influence is an effective tool that defines and fosters the right concept of leadership (Maxwell,

1993).

Response to years of leadership experience in the organization

The respondents were asked how experienced they were and the results are given in

the table No.9 below.

Table No.9 Years of experience in leadership held Distribution

Experience (years)

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

1-3

4-6

7 and above

Total

7

19

31

57

12.3

33.3

54.4

100.0

12.3

33.3

54.4

100.0

12.3

45.6

100.0

Fifty four percent indicated that they had been in leadership positions for seven years

and above while thirty three percent mentioned 4-6 years and twelve percent had the

experience of 1-3 years. The analysis shows the organizations‟ believe in the practice of

maturity that presents a better crop of respected leaders (Maxwell, 1993).

Response to the preferred style of leadership

The respondents were asked their preferred style of leadership and the results are

shown in the table No.10 below.

Servant Leadership

33

Table No.10 Preferred style of leadership Distribution

Style of Leadership

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Transactional

Controlling

Maintaining

Relational

Total

1

5

1

50

57

1.8

8.7

1.8

87.7

100.0

1.8

8.7

1.8

87.7

100.0

1.8

10.5

12.3

100.0

Eighty seven percent of the respondents preferred relational style of leadership while

nine percent indicated the controlling style and two percent separately indicated both

transactional and maintaining. The study shows that most church leaders in Uganda have a

good working relationship which promotes service improvement (Burns, 1995). Though,

some people take on leadership with selfish motives.

Response to the understanding of the term ‘servant leadership’

The respondents were asked to define servant leadership and the results are measured

in the table No.11 below.

Table No.11 Understanding of servant leadership Distribution

Servant Leadership

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Directing

Shining

Service

Total

3

1

53

57

5.3

1.8

92.9

100.0

5.3

1.8

92.9

100.0

5.3

7.1

100.0

Servant Leadership

34

Ninety three percent of the respondents indicated that leadership is service while five

percent mentioned directing and two percent understood servant leadership in the context of

being in the spotlight. The above analysis highlights the spirit of humility and commitment as

demonstrated by the church leaders aimed at service improvement (Greenleaf, 1995), (Burns,

1995).

Response to the assessment of the respondents’ change initiative

The respondents were asked to assess their role in causing change in the organization‟s

leadership structure and the results are analyzed in the table No.12 below.

Table No.12 Assessment of change Distribution

Change Initiative

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Lone Ranger

Transactional

Maintaining

Sharing Vision

Total

13

1

26

17

57

22.8

1.8

45.6

29.8

100.0

22.8

1.8

45.6

29.8

100.0

22.8

24.6

70.2

100.0

Forty five percent viewed their role in the concept of maintenance while thirty percent

indicated vision sharing, twenty three percent fell in the realm of lone ranger and two percent

being transactional. The analysis reveals that majority of the leaders are not change initiators

in a sense that they are incapable of risk taking (Warren, 1997). Vision sharing is effectively

demonstrated by a small number of leaders who believe in change initiative.

Response to the role of women in the organization

The respondents were asked to reflect on the role played by women in their

organizations and the results are indicated in the table No.13 below.

Servant Leadership

35

Table No.13 Role played by women Distribution

Women involvement

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

None

Passive followers

Active followers

Change Initiative

Total

4

11

17

25

57

7.0

19.3

29.8

43.9

100.0

7.0

19.3

29.8

43.9

100.0

7.0

26.3

56.1

100.0

Forty four percent indicated change initiative while thirty percent were active

followers, nineteen percent were seen as passive and seven percent had no role to play. The

analysis shows that to some extent women are engaged in the process of change though

cultural beliefs hamper their leadership potential, hence, need for diversity and inclusiveness

(Clinton, 1993). Some women are culturally bound to follow male leaders.

Response to the ratio of male leaders as compared to female leaders

The corresponding results are shown in the table No.14 below.

Table No.14 Male leaders versus female leaders Distribution

Ratio

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

1:1

2:1

3:1

Other (specify)

Total

5

15

34

3

57

8.7

26.3

59.7

5.3

100.0

8.7

26.3

59.7

5.3

100.0

8.7

35

94.7

100.0

Servant Leadership

36

Sixty percent of the respondents indicated that the number of male leaders exceeded

that of female leaders while twenty six percent put the ratio at 2:1, nine percent indicated even

distribution in leadership positions and five percent mentioned that the number of male

leaders is abnormally higher (5:1) than female leaders. Culturally men are looked at as

potential leaders as compared to women. They are considered to be strong and bread earners

for their families, hence, need for change in organizational culture (Kadalie, 2006).

Response to the leadership development core values

The respondents were asked to state some of the organization‟s core values in relation

to leadership development and the results are reflected in the table No.15 below.

Table No.15 Leadership development core values Distribution

Core Values

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

None

Results

Commitment

Discipleship

Total

21

5

18

13

57

36.8

8.8

31.6

22.8

100.0

36.8

8.8

31.6

22.8

100.0

36.8

45.6

77.2

100.0

Thirty seven percent of the respondents indicated that the organizations had no core

values that guided leadership development while thirty one percent mentioned commitment,

twenty three percent indicated discipleship and nine percent were for results. Evidently the

organizations lack a strong guiding vision framework (Nanus, 1992). Lack of core values

mean ineffectiveness in leadership development structures.

Response to the attitude about competition from other denominations

Servant Leadership

37

The respondents were asked their attitude about competition from other denominations

and the results are indicated in the table No.16 below.

Table No.16 Attitude about competition Distribution

Attitude

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Bad

Fair

Good

Very Good

Total

15

6

29

7

57

26.3

10.5

50.9

12.3

100.0

26.3

10.5

50.9

12.3

100.0

26.3

36.8

87.7

100.0

Fifty one percent expressed that competition is good while twenty six percent hated

competition, twelve percent indicated that it is very good and eleven percent mentioned fair.

Naturally leaders in Uganda look at competition as a fair play- it sets a platform of innovation

and entrepreneurialship (Hybels, 1998), (Kotter, 1996). Though some feel bad and insecure.

Response to the attitude about criticism

The corresponding results are reflected in the table No.17 below.

Table No.17 Attitude about criticism Distribution

Criticism

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Bad

Fair

Good

Very Good

Total

13

12

29

3

57

22.8

21.1

50.8

5.3

100.0

22.8

21.1

50.8

5.3

100.0

22.8

43.9

94.7

100.0

Servant Leadership

38

Fifty one percent of the respondents indicated that criticism is good while twenty three

percent disliked it, twenty one percent mentioned fair and five percent were very positive

about it. Leaders consider criticism a learning process leading to openness and vulnerability

(Warren, 1997). Though some have no room for criticism.

Response to the denominational image before the authorities

The respondents were asked to describe their denominational image in the eyes of the

government and the results are shown in the table No.18 below.

Table No.18 Denominational position in government Distribution

Reputation

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Separation

Spiritual

Supportive

Total

3

37

17

57

5.3

64.9

29.8

100.0

5.3

64.9

29.8

100.0

5.3

70.2

100.0

Sixty five percent indicated that the government looks at them as being more spiritual

while thirty percent have caught the government‟s eye due to their support programs and five

percent mentioned the state of separation. The results show that the church is more focused on

spiritual things than support programs. There is need to readjust for the purposes of

accountability (Warren, 1997).

Response to relationship with other church leaders

The respondents were asked their relationship with other church leaders and the results

are analyzed in the table No.19 below.

Servant Leadership

39

Table No.19 Relationship with other church leaders Distribution

Relationship

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Fair

Good

Very Good

Excellent

Total

10

37

7

3

57

17.5

64.9

12.3

5.3

100.0

17.5

64.9

12.3

5.3

100.0

17.5

82.4

94.7

100.0

Sixty five percent had a good working relationship with other leaders while eighteen

percent were moderate, twelve percent said it is very good and five percent indicated

excellent. The interpretation here is that, the leaders are relational and practice teamwork

(Hybels, 1998), (Williams, 2001). Though some relationships are unpredictable.

Response to leadership appointment procedure

The respondents were asked the procedure for appointing leaders in their organizations

and the results are indicated in the table No.20 below.

Table No.20 Procedure for leadership appointment Distribution

Procedure

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

By ballot

By show of hand

Other (specify)

Total

19

15

23

57

33.3

26.3

40.4

100.0

33.3

26.3

40.4

100.0

33.3

59.6

100.0

Servant Leadership

40

Forty percent of the respondents indicated that leadership is done on doctrinal

appointment while thirty three percent indicated ballot and twenty six percent mentioned

show of hand. The interpretation here is that pastors follow the biblical principles of

appointing leaders in their churches. A leader must be called first (Kadalie, 2006).

Appointment based on ballot and show of hand is mostly self-centered and ineffective.

Response to the effectiveness of the mentoring program

The respondents were asked how effective their mentoring programs were and the

results are measured in the table No.21 below.

Table No.21 Effectiveness of mentoring program Distribution

Effectiveness

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Non-existent

Less effective

More effective

Total

32

17

8

57

56.0

30.0

14.0

100.0

56.0

30.0

14.0

100.0

56.0

86.0

100.0

Fifty six percent of the respondents indicated that the mentoring programs were none

existent while thirty percent said they are less effective and only fourteen percent were

positive about their effectiveness. The analysis shows that most leaders in Uganda are self

centered in the way they conduct the church business. They lack innovation and people

development skills (Maxwell, 1993), (Stanley & Clinton, 1992). Some leaders consider

mentoring as a secular practice which has nothing to do with church.

Response to the effectiveness of church programs in the community

The respondents were asked how effective the church programs were in the

community and the results are reflected in the table No.22 below.

Servant Leadership

41

Table No.22 Effectiveness of church programs in community Distribution

Effectiveness

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Non-existent

Less effective

More effective

Total

12

17

28

57

21.0

30.0

49.0

100.0

21.0

30.0

49.0

100.0

21.0

51.0

100.0

Forty nine percent indicated that the church programs were more effective while thirty

percent doubted their effectiveness and twenty one percent said no community program

existed. The analysis indicates that some churches engage in community programs such as

healthcare, education, sanitation, and orphanage for service improvement (Kadalie, 2006).

Though some leaders feel it is wasteful and outside their calling.

Response to a specific motivation framework

The respondents were asked whether the organizations had specific motivation

framework for leaders and the results are given in the table No.23 below.

Table No.23 Specific motivation framework Distribution

Framework

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Not Quite

No

Yes

Total

13

19

25

57

22.8

33.3

43.9

100.0

22.8

33.3

43.9

100.0

22.8

56.1

100.0

Servant Leadership

42

Forty four percent indicated that the motivation framework is put in place while thirty

three percent said no and twenty three percent were not sure. To some extent, some church

organizations have a motivation framework which involves monthly financial upkeep

(Hybels, 1998). Some leaders believe that church workers should always exercise faith.

Response to delegation of responsibilities

The respondents were asked to state how often they delegated responsibilities to their

associates and the results are shown in the table No.24 below

Table No.24 Delegation of responsibilities Distribution

Delegation

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Everyday or more

2-6 times a week

About once a week

About once a month

Never

Total

12

11

27

7

-

57

21.0

19.3

47.4

12.3

-

100.0

21.0

19.3

47.4

12.3

-

100.0

21.0

40.3

87.7

100.0

Forty seven percent of the respondents delegated responsibilities to their associates

once a week while twenty one percent did it on a daily basis, nineteen percent indicated 2-6

times a week and twelve percent mentioned once a month. Most leaders practice delegation of

responsibility which is essential for change and service improvement (Kouzes, & Posner,

1990). Though it is done only once a week possibly due to insecurity and lack of confidence.

Response to tools used to assess performance

The respondents were asked the kind of tools the organizations used to assess

performance and the results are mentioned in the table No.25 below.

Servant Leadership

43

Table No.25 Tools used in performance assessment Distribution

Tools

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

None

Hire and Fire

Critique

Feedback

Total

12

6

13

26

57

21.1

10.5

22.8

45.6

100.0

21.1

10.5

22.8

45.6

100.0

21.1

31.6

54.4

100.0

Forty six percent of the respondents mentioned feedback as the assessment tool while

twenty three percent indicated critique, twenty one percent expressed ignorance about the

tools used and ten percent settled for the principle of hire and fire. The results reveal that most

leaders do listen to stakeholders for the purpose of assessing performance levels (Warren,

1997). Some leaders lack effective assessment abilities and skill.

Response to whether the organizations encouraged feedback

The corresponding results are analyzed in the table No.26 below.

Table No.26 The practice of feedback Distribution

Feedback

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Totally Agree

Partially Agree

Neither Agree nor

Disagree

Totally Disagree

Total

54

3

-

-

57

94.7

5.3

100.0

94.7

5.3

-

-

100.0

94.7

100.0

Servant Leadership

44

Ninety five percent of the respondents indicated that they totally agree with the

practice of effective feedback in the leadership structure while five percent partially agreed.

According to the analysis, feedback plays a leading role in bringing about change and

organizational growth, as long as it is done through right channels of communication (Warren,

1997). Though some organizations seem not to embrace the practice.

Response to whether the organization had a succession plan

The respondents were asked whether their organizations had a specific succession plan

and the results are indicated in the table No.27 below.

Table No.27 Succession plan Distribution

Succession Plan

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Totally Agree

Partially Agree

Neither Agree nor

Disagree

Totally Disagree

Total

39

7

4

7

57

68.4

12.3

7.0

12.3

100.0

68.4

12.3

7.0

12.3

100.0

68.4

80.7

87.7

100.0

Sixty eight percent totally agreed that the succession plan existed while twelve percent

indicated partial agreement, more twelve percent totally disagreed and seven percent neither

agreed nor disagreed. The results show that to some extent existing leaders under some

circumstances do hand over office to other potential leaders for change and vision sharing

(Nanus, 1992). Some leaders detest the practice of succession, they would rather hold on their

leadership responsibilities till the end.

Servant Leadership

45

Response to who provided leadership in absence of a leader

The respondents were asked the provision of leadership in case the leader was away

and the results are stated in the table No.28 below.

Table No.28 Provision of leadership Distribution

Leadership

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

None

Controlling

Monitoring

Delegation

Total

5

13

8

31

57

8.8

22.8

14.0

54.4

100.0

8.8

22.8

14.0

54.4

100.0

8.8

31.6

45.6

100.0

Fifty four percent of the respondents indicated the process of delegation while twenty

three percent mentioned the controlling factor, fourteen percent stated monitoring and nine

percent were of the view that no provision was in place. Most leaders delegate responsibilities

to their associates whenever they are out of office. It is a sign of trust and teamwork (Hybels,

1998). Though some leaders do delegate half heartedly, others detest the practice.

Response to how often meetings were conducted for decision-making

The respondents were asked how often meetings were conducted for the process of

decision-making and the results are cited in the table No.29 below.

Servant Leadership

46

Table No.29 Meetings for decision-making Distribution

Meetings

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Every week or more

About once a month

About once a year

Never

Total

11

40

5

1

57

19.3

70.2

8.8

1.7

100.0

19.3

70.2

8.8

1.7

100.0

19.3

89.5

98.3

100.0

Seventy percent indicated that meetings were conducted about once a month while

nineteen percent mentioned every week or more, nine percent cited once a year and two

percent said no meetings were conducted. The analysis shows that decision making process is

made out of consensus and/or mutual consultations which are healthy for the change process.

Regular meetings provide a sense of belonging and accountability among the stakeholders

(Kadalie, 2006).

Response to how accountability was promoted in church

The corresponding results are stated in the table No.30 below.

Table No.30 Promotion of accountability Distribution

Accountability

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Enforcement

Camera meetings

Team work

Feedback

Total

14

9

8

26

57

24.6

15.8

14.0

45.6

100.0

24.6

15.8

14.0

45.6

100.0

24.6

40.4

54.4

100.0

Servant Leadership

47

Forty five percent cited the feedback as a tool used in the promotion of accountability

while twenty five percent indicated enforcement, sixteen mentioned camera meetings and

fourteen thought team work was used for accountability process. Double loop feedback is a

continuous exercise for the realization of higher performance levels. Openness creates an

atmosphere of trust and vulnerability, integral parts of service improvement (Warren, 1997).

Response to a specific retirement plan for leaders

The respondents were asked whether their organizations had a specific retirement plan

for the leaders and the results are recorded in the table No.31 below.

Table No.31 Leadership retirement plan Distribution

Retirement Plan

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Totally Agree

Partially Agree

Neither Agree nor

Disagree

Partially Disagree

Totally Disagree

Total

27

6

9

4

11

57

47.4

10.5

15.8

7.0

19.3

100.0

47.4

10.5

15.8

7.0

19.3

100.0

47.4

57.4

73.2

80.2

100.0

Forty seven percent totally agreed that the organizations had a leadership retirement

plan while nineteen percent totally disagreed, sixteen percent neither agreed nor disagreed,

eleven percent partially agreed and seven percent indicated partial disagreement with the

retirement plan. The results show that leaders are strategically focused and do not hold onto

Servant Leadership

48

leadership positions in church (Saffold, 2005). Though some may retire unwillingly and

conditionally, typical African mindset.

Response to what must be done in future for effective leadership development

The respondents were asked their views about the future effective leadership

development plan and the results are reflected in the table No.32 below.

Table No.32 Future plan for leadership development Distribution

Future Plan

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

No Idea

Hard work

Cultural Bias

Empowerment

Total

5

3

1

48

57

8.7

5.3

1.8

84.2

100.0

8.7

5.3

1.8

84.2

100.0

8.7

14.0

15.8

100.0

Eighty four percent of the respondents indicated that empowerment was key to future

effective leadership development while nine percent had no idea, five percent settled for hard

work and two percent thought cultural bias was the solution. The analysis above indicates that

the future of an effective and value driven organization should be reflected through the

practice of empowering potential leaders. The organizations must put in place capacity

building programs which are flexible and manageable (Stanley & Clinton, 1992), (Hybels,

1998).

Servant Leadership

49

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSIONS

This chapter provides a balanced discussion on the major findings of the study. It

underlines the main leadership concepts that identify with the practice of servant leadership in

impacting organizational change.

It is understandably that a small percentage of leaders in Pentecostal churches have a

clear understanding of leadership as being influence. Leadership is influence. Nothing more,

nothing less (Maxwell, 1993). There is no doubt that these leaders given good exposure and

skill, they can effectively cause change in the organization. The focus of leadership should be

put on quality other than quantity.

The church in Uganda should focus on leaders who are mature and respected by other

stakeholders. Maxwell (1993) has noted that, people will follow you because of who you are

and what you represent. Your sense of character and attitude evidently impacts their

management styles and practices. Experience on the other hand, should measure up with

excellent performance levels in the organization.

Furthermore, experience should compliment the concept of positive relationships as

demonstrated by the majority of leaders in the region. Transforming leadership occurs when

one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one

another to higher levels of motivation and morality (Burns, 1995).This attitude speaks a lot

about culture in Uganda which prefers friendship to hostility. However, the concept of servant

leadership is a condition of a transformed heart that puts the love of Christ above culture.

Greenleaf (1995) says that, a servant leader is a servant first. It begins with the

natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to

aspire to lead. Given proper training, guidance, and motivation, these leaders can impact

service improvement in their respective organizations.

Servant Leadership

50

Warren (1997) has observed that, whereas some leaders have very few interpersonal

skills, they do have a concentration that is almost alarming-their caliper eyes focused

primarily on their work, on the company, on the goals, on the mission. The church needs

leaders who are focused on the goals and mission oriented. Leaders who are tasked to initiate

change other than simply maintaining the status quo. The church should also design structures

which will appreciate the role of women as potential change agents regardless of cultural

setbacks. There is need for diversity and inclusion for the purpose of service improvement.

Clinton, (1993) has stated that, Leadership is a dynamic process in which a man or

woman with God-given capacity influences a specific group of God‟s people toward His

purposes for the group. Women need to rise to the occasion to take on more imposing tasks

like any other leader in the organization. Women are potential leaders whose self esteem must

be boosted by a well structured leadership environment.

Sadly the results present the varying ratios where the majority in leadership positions

are males. Even where the ratio is 1:1, women are closely monitored and supervised by men, a

demonstration of cultural bias. Do women have the potential and a call for leadership? Yes.

To make leaders, we have to focus on the few who have potential, as well as some who may

not seem to have it. Sometimes these are risks we must take if we want to grow leaders in

depth (Kadalie, 2006).

Interestingly, most church organizations in Uganda lack core values for leadership

development. This affirms the need for competent trained leaders at the helm of

organizational leadership. People who can take the initiative to push the organizations to

higher levels of achievement. There is no more powerful engine driving an organization

toward excellence and long-range success than an attractive, worthwhile, and achievable

vision of the future, widely shared, (Nanus,1992). On the other hand, Saffold, (2005) says,

Servant Leadership

51

strategic planning is about leadership; leadership is about the future; and the future is about

vision.

Kotter, (1996,) has noted that to date, major change efforts have helped some

organizations adapt significantly to shifting conditions, have improved the competitive

standing of others, and have positioned a few for a far better future. It is one thing for leaders

to embrace competition as a good factor of life but yet another to endeavor to have a

competitive advantage vital for service improvement.

However, the inter-church relationship is considerably good. Most Pentecostal leaders

in Uganda pray and support one another on the basis of agape love and unity in the body of

Christ. It is true disagreements do exist in some leadership circles but leaders in most cases

apply the principle of agreeing to disagree for the purpose of kingdom relationship. It is

beneficial for the church when the leaders start putting on the right lenses of culture. More

emphasis should be laid on multiculturalist leaders who celebrate the diversity of cultures and

the contributions they make to our national character and history. This leader wants to retain

the customs, languages, and ideas of people originating in other cultures. Their motto: “The

more cultural diversity, the better” (Williams, 2001).

The same attitude should reflect the appointment of leaders which must be effected

through right procedure to avoid the creation of family dynasties in church leadership

positions which will bear a negative impact on the change process. Leadership development

begins with a call. When we call someone in Jesus‟ Name, it is a ministry of powerful

affirmation (Kadalie, 2006).

This should be accompanied by a well structured mentoring program. Mentoring is

indeed an empowering experience that requires a connection between two people…the mentor

and the mentoree (Stanley & Clinton, 1992). Personnel development is an integral part of the

organizational vision. People follow because of what you have done for them. They

Servant Leadership

52

demonstrate a sense of leadership transformation and career development, which in the long

run benefits the organization (Maxwell, 1993).

A look at the church community impact, it is evident that the relatively majority

church organizations have practical programs like orphanages, health care, and education

projects for reaching out to communities. This shows that the church is alive and relevant to

the community need which is the true essence of the gospel. In fact there are so many

opportunities staring us in the face and needs that we must address. We must prompt others

we can influence to take action (Kadalie, 2006).

Besides reaching out to the community, the church needs to have a motivation

framework in place. The analysis reveals that most church organizations have a motivation

framework though relatively below average. The reasons could be that most church leaders

take faith as the standard measure of motivation. They simply don‟t want to commit

themselves to financial and material support. They consistently tell their leaders that serving

God is an act of faith regardless of one‟s personal and/or family needs. A motivational leader-

possesses insight into who needs a fresh challenge or additional training. They can sense who

needs public recognition, an encouraging word, or a day off. They know when a pay increase,

office change, title change, or sabbatical is needed. Motivational leaders know that teammates

get tired, lose focus, and experience mission drift. Workers wonder if what they‟re doing

really matters to any one-or to God. Motivational leaders don‟t get bitter or vengeful when

morale sinks. They instead see it as an opportunity to inspire and lift the spirits of every one

on the team (Hybels, 1998). It is very possible that these leaders are also open to the principle

of delegation of responsibility.

Delegation of responsibility must be practiced without fear or favor for the good of the

organization and personnel development. The ultimate test of practical leadership is the

realization of intended, real change that meets people‟s enduring needs (Kouzes, & Posner,

Servant Leadership

53

1990). In this case job insecurity and self-centeredness should be put out of question. On the

other hand, feedback has been sighted as an important assessment tool for service

improvement. Effective leaders develop valued and varied sources of feedback on their

behavior and performance. And one of the best sources for many executives is a spouse.

According to Warren (1997), there is something to say about finding any valued source of

feedback. The trick is getting the best feedback possible, being open to it, and changing for

the better because of it. It is true in recent times church organizations are beginning to involve

other stakeholders in the decision making process for better service delivery.

The results have also shown that some Pentecostal churches have a succession plan for

their leaders. They demonstrate effectiveness, accountability and teamwork spirit. There is

no more powerful engine driving an organization toward excellence and long-range success

than an attractive, worthwhile, and achievable vision of the future, widely shared,

(Nanus,1992). The negative impact could arise in the event where the leaders may decide to

delegate responsibilities and/or pass on the succession mantle to their spouses, family

members, and close confidants. This will evidently affect the decision-making process.

Leadership developers need to know the power of teams. It is important to work with

individuals but also to bring them into a group, where strengths and weaknesses can be

balanced and vision shared (Kadalie, 2006).

Furthermore, Warren (1997) has looked at open style as an important

component of leadership in that it sets an extremely reflective atmosphere as well as openness

and vulnerability to criticism. Today‟s church in Uganda seems to have overcome the

assumption that meetings are a waste of time, energy, and resources. In fact meetings create a

positive environment of accountability hence, effective change process.

In the final analysis, the church should focus on strategic leadership preferably having

a clear retirement plan. Saffold, (2005) says, strategic planning is about leadership; leadership

Servant Leadership

54

is about the future; and the future is about vision. Leaders must responsibly embrace the

philosophy of moving people and organizations from where they are today to where they need

to be tomorrow. People should be empowered through training and other capacity building

avenues which strategically point them to the co-operate organizational future.

A strategic leader forms a game plan every one can understand and participate in, one

that will eventually lead to the achievement of the vision. A strategic leader challenges the

organization to work the plan. She says, “Don‟t get distracted. Do what needs to be done to

achieve the next step, then the next, and we shall achieve the vision together” (Hybels, 1998).

Servant Leadership

55

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter focuses on the outstanding issues necessary for change process which are

central to the research questions: Is servant leadership practice evident in the way churches

are led?

If evident, is it impacting change on management styles and practices in the Pentecostal

Churches in Fort Portal-Uganda? These questions have been addressed in the sense that, the

leadership challenges and/or setbacks facing the church in Uganda have been identified and

refocused for the change initiative. For instance, the role of women, leadership appointment,

and church image in government, delegation, and motivation among others have been

reviewed and put into right context for leadership development.

Outstanding Issues on Change Process

The research has highlighted seven key outstanding issues and/or servant leadership

principles intended for service improvement: Influence, Relationships, and Service, Vision

sharing, Mentoring, Community involvement, and Empowerment.

The research looks at influence as a key factor in ensuring sustainable change process

in the Pentecostal churches in Uganda. Maxwell (1993) defines leadership as „influence.‟

Influence is the core of servant leadership. Leadership is not about control and acquiring more

power. Indeed power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Leaders ought to learn

the habit of looking back to see if someone is following them or not. Otherwise they may

simply be taking a walk. Positive influence will create room for higher performance levels and

relational building.

However, a relational leader looks at people as a valuable asset-in fact the greatest

resource for every organization is human resource. People need to understand that their

contribution towards service improvement is an asset. They need to be loved and cared for

Servant Leadership

56

otherwise; the style of leadership may appear to be transactional, based on the „give and take‟

principle other than offering service to the community.

Service is embedded at the heart of true servant leadership. Service is considered to be

a useful tool for impacting change and practice in the management styles in Pentecostal

churches in Uganda. Greenleaf (1995) argues that service must precede leadership. He says

that, the servant leader is a servant first, and then conscious choice brings one to aspire to

lead. The rule of the game is actually service and vision sharing.

The research identifies that vision sharing plays a leading role in the change

implementation process. It creates an environment of teamwork and effective communication.

Church organizations should learn to place their vision statements on the table for all the

stakeholders to study and make valuable contributions. Without clarity in vision, there will be

less and half hearted involvement of other stakeholders in initiating change. A visionary

leader-these leaders have crystal clear picture in their minds of what they want to happen.

They cast visions powerfully and possess indefatigable enthusiasm to pursue the mission.

Visionary leaders are not easily discouraged or deterred (Hybels, (1998).

Effective visionary leaders are those who have embraced the principle of mentoring.

Mentoring is the process of identifying, teaching, sharing values, and impacting another leader

for excellent leadership. The role of mentoring is a Herculean task which calls for dedication

and focus on both parties. Effective leaders carry a sense of balance and respect both in

church and community. Sharing expectations and a periodic review and evaluation will give

strength to application and facilitate empowerment (Stanley & Clinton, 1992).

In the light of preaching the gospel, the church should also embark on community

based projects such as education, healthcare, feeding street children and orphanage in support

and enhancement of government programs. This will bring life and hope in communities

especially among the low income earners. Community based projects paint a picture that the

Servant Leadership

57

church organizations are accountable in their service improvement operations. These projects

must reflect the church constitution other than being individual based, for the purpose of

accountability and responsiveness.

The research has noted that, the future of effective servant leadership in Uganda is

highly dependent on the principle of empowerment. Leaders need to be motivated and

empowered through bible training opportunities, leadership seminars, workshops, and other

capacity building programs. Focus develops as you begin to understand the priorities of Christ

and personalize them (Stanley & Clinton, 1992). This will create a healthy working

environment leading to service improvement in Pentecostal churches in Uganda.

The main focus is to inform the potential stakeholders about the significant role played

by the practice of servant leadership in impacting the change process.

Before giving your recommendations, say whether your research questions have been

answered.

Servant Leadership

58

REFERENCES

Briner, B., & Pritchard, R. (1998). Leadership lessons of Jesus. Timeless lessons for

leaders in today‟s world, Random House, New York & Broadman and Holman

Publishers, pp.89-91.

Burns, M. (1995). “Transactional and transforming leadership.” The leader‟s

Companion: Insights on leadership through the ages. J Thomas Wren, ed. New

York, NY: © Free Press, pp.100-101.

Clinton, J.R. (1993). The making of a leader: Recognizing the lessons and stages of

leadership development, NavPress, A ministry of the Navigators, Colorado

Springs, CO 80935, USA, p.14.

Gardner, J.W. (1990). “The nature of leadership.” On leadership, New York, NY: © Free

Press, p.1

Greenleaf, R.K. (1995). “Servant leadership.” The leader‟s companion:

Insights on leadership through the ages. J Thomas Wren, ed. New York, NY: © Free

Press.

Homrig, M. A. (2001). “Transformational leadership.” Retrieved on January 8, 2009 from

http://www.leadership.au.af.mil/documents/homrig.htm

Hybels, B. (1988). “Finding your leadership style: Ten different ways to lead God‟s

people,” Winter, pp.84-89.

Kadalie, D. (2006). Leader‟s resource kit: Tools and techniques to develop your leadership,

Evangel Publishing House, Nairobi, Kenya, pp.13, 16-17, 56-57, 124-125, 127-128,

225, 228.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,

Massachusetts, USA, pp.3-15.

Servant Leadership

59

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1990). The leadership challenge, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass

Publishers, p.37.

Maxwell, J.C. (1993). In developing the leader within you. Milton Keyes, G B: © Word

Publishing, pp.15, and 21, 32.

Mugenda, O.M. & Mugenda, A.G. (2003). Research methods: Quantitative and qualitative

approaches. Acts Press, P.O BOX 45917, Nairobi-Kenya, p.50.

Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership: Creating a compelling sense of direction in your

organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p.3.

Saffold, G.S. (2005), Strategic planning: Leadership through vision, Evangel Publishing

House, Nairobi, Kenya, pp.137, 149-150, 153-154.

Stanley, P. D., & Clinton, J. R. (1992). Connecting: The mentoring relationships you

need to succeed in life, NavPress, Colorado Springs, CO 80935, USA, pp.18, 38-40,

42-44, 216-217.

Warren, B. (1997). “Ten traits of dynamic leaders.” Managing people is like herding cats,

Provo, UT: © Executive Excellence Publishing, pp.89-93.

Williams, M. A. (2001). The 10 lenses: Your guide to living and working in a

multicultural world, Capital Books, Inc. Herndon, Virginia 20172-0605, USA,

pp.15, 21, 23, 25, 29.

Servant Leadership

60

APPENDIX 1

Checklist/Survey Instrument.

Section 1: Personal Data.

1.1 Name: ________________________ Telephone: ___________________

Box: _________________________ Mobile: _____________________

Town: ________________________ Office: ______________________

Fax: ________________________

E-mail:______________________

1.2 What is your gender?

____ Male

____ Female

1.3 What is your age bracket?

____ 25-30

____ 31-35

____ 36 and above

1.4 What is your education status?

____ Primary

____ Secondary

____ Higher Institution (post secondary)

____ University

1.5 Marital Status:

____ Married

____ Single

1.6 How many children do you have?

____ 0-3

Servant Leadership

61

____ 4-7

____ 8-11

____ 12 and above

1.7 How long have you been in this organization?

____ 1-5 years

____ 6-10 years

____ 11 and above

1.8 What do you understand by the term „leadership‟?

1.9 What is your level of experience and practice in leadership?

____ 1-3 years

____ 4-6 years

____ 7 and above

1.10 What is your preferred style of leadership?

____ Relational

____ Transactional

____ Controlling

____ Maintaining

[NB: Relational-looking at people as a valuable asset; Transactional-leadership based on „give

and take‟ principle on both parties; Controlling- putting yourself in a place of a hero, you are

„Mr. right;‟ Maintaining-possessing no slight urge for change.]

Section 2: The role of servant leadership.

2.1 What do you understand by the term „servant leadership‟?

2.2 Can you briefly assess your role in causing change in the organization‟s leadership

structure?

2.3 What role do women play in your organization?

Servant Leadership

62

2.4 What is the ratio of male leaders as compared to female leaders in your organization?

____ 1:1

____ 2:1

____ 3:1

____ Other (specify).

2.5 What are some of your core values in relation to leadership development?

2.6 What is your attitude about competition from other denominations?

2.7 What is your attitude about criticism?

2.8 How is your denominational image in the eyes of government?

2.9 How is your relationship with other church leaders?

2.10 What is the procedure for appointing leaders in your organization?

____ by ballot

____ by show of hand

____ Other (specify).

2.11 How effective is your mentoring program, if any?

2.12 How effective are your church programs in the community?

Section 3: The effectiveness of servant leadership.

3.1 Do you have a specific motivation framework for your leaders?

3.2 How often do you delegate responsibilities to your associates?

____ Every Day or more

____ 2-6 Times a week

____ About once a week

____ About once a month

____ Never

3.3 What tools do you use to assess performance?

Servant Leadership

63

3.4 Do you encourage feedback in your leadership structure?

____ Totally Agree

____ Partially Agree

____ Neither Agree nor Disagree

____ Totally Disagree

3.5 Do you have a specific succession plan for your organization?

____ Totally Agree

____ Partially Agree

____ Neither Agree nor Disagree

____ Totally Disagree

3.6 Who provides leadership when you are away?

3.7 How often do you conduct meetings for decision-making process?

____ Every week or more

____ About once a month

____ About once a year

____ Never

3.8 How do you promote accountability in your church?

3.9 Do you have a specific retirement plan for your leaders?

____ Totally Agree

____ Partially Agree

____ Neither Agree nor Disagree

____ Partially Disagree

____ Totally Disagree

3.10 What do you think must be done in future to develop effective leadership in your

organization?

Servant Leadership

64

APPENDIX 2

Letter of informed consent.

Dear

Thank you for indicating interest in participating in a research project that will examine The

Role of Servant Leadership in churches in Fort Portal- Uganda. I will carry out all research as

part of the requirements for completing a Master of Arts degree in Leadership at Pan Africa

Christian University. The following outlines the study itself and information about your

participation.

Title of Project

The Role of Servant Leadership in Impacting Change in Management Styles and Practice in

Pentecostal churches in Fort Portal- Uganda

Introduction to the Project

The research involves the careful analysis of servant leadership practices. This interaction will

take place in the form of a survey.

The purpose of this research is to provide a working document for implementation of servant

leadership practices in the Uganda churches.

Overview of Your Involvement

Your voluntary involvement in the process will require you to do the following:

Fill out the attached survey, and return it to the researcher anonymously.

There are no external risks to participating in the study. Only you and the researcher will be

privy to the data that is collected. All the raw data will be kept in confidence and you will not

be named in the study, nor will your position or role be identified. The data will not be

available to any outside persons unrelated to this research. All the raw data collected during

the study will be destroyed following the completion of the research project. Your

participation in this research project requires a commitment of no more than 30 minutes. You

may at any time withdraw from the study by simply indicating to the researcher your intention

to withdraw. No evaluative judgment will be made about you if you choose to withdraw from

the study. All raw data will be immediately destroyed.

It is anticipated that the study will benefit the leadership of the Fort Portal churches in

Uganda.

The Survey will be circulated and is to be returned no later than

_______________

Contacts

Thank you for your participation. If you require further information or explanation please

contact me or the MA in Leadership, Head of Department Mr. Benson Katulwa.

Titus Makuma Mr. Benson Katulwa

Candidate, MA Degree MA in Leadership, Head of Department

Pan Africa Christian University Pan Africa Christian University

tmakumas@yahoo.com bkatulwa@pacckenya.com

Servant Leadership

65

Research Consent

I have read and understood the conditions under which I will participate in this study and give

my consent to be a participant.

Name: _________________________________ Date: ____________________

Signature _______________________________

Please initial if you would like to have a summary of the findings upon completion _____

Note: A copy of this form will be retained by the participant for future reference.

Servant Leadership

66

APPENDIX 3

Letter of introduction

January, 30 2009

To whom it may concern

I am inviting you to participate in a research project to Study the Extent to which Servant

Leadership practice is applied by Pentecostal Churches in Uganda. Mr. S.Titus Makuma,

who is carrying out this research, is enrolled in the Master of Arts in Leadership degree

program at Pan Africa Christian University.

To help the students apply what they have learnt in this program, they are required to identify a

service improvement issue in their work related environment, or in the community in which they

live. They are then required to narrow the focus of their topic to a very specific issue that can be

further illuminated by interviewing, or surveying, experienced participants from the identified

organization. Based on the specific question they wish to address, students develop a detailed

interview, or survey procedure.

Enclosed with this letter is a brief description of the project, and an Informed Consent document

that will address any concerns you may have in participating in this research.

Your participation is voluntary and there is no penalty if you do not participate. We are simply

asking for any consideration you may be able to give to further this research. Thank you for your

willingness to share of your expertise, and help our MA students to apply the learning they have

participated in over the last two years.

Each project has been reviewed by, and received ethics clearance from, the Ethics Review

Committee at Pan Africa Christian University. Any comments or concerns resulting from your

participation in the Questionnaire, can be directed to Mr. Benson Katulwa, Head of M.A in

Leadership program, through +254 725 000 260 or, bkatulwa@pacckenya.com

Sincerely,

Benson Katulwa, MA. PhD Candidate

Head of Department, MA in Leadership

Pan Africa Christian University

Servant Leadership

67