Monday, March 21, 2011

REASONS TO OPPOSE THE ATTACK ON LIBYA

REASONS TO OPPOSE THE ATTACK ON LIBYA
By: Silver Kayondo


– Humanitarianism is a pretext for action which actually seeks to establish a new Libyan government which shares western neoliberal economic ideology

– The attack on Libya is a military operation in support of the army of the Interim National Council in its civil war with the Libyan government

– The attack on Libya is motivated by Libya's resource wealth and the opportunities for
western corporations

– The attack on Libya is hypocritical in light of western support for other dictatorships and western state's own history of attacking civilian populations

– There been no concern expressed by western governments regarding the racist violence of the rebels towards the large black african population in Libya. Blacks are fleeing Libya in terror, in fear of attacks from rebels. As of 17th March, the International Organisation for Migration reports that 300,000 migrants have fled Libya with 13,000 stuck at the border.


The attack on Libya has been conducted under the pretext of humanitarian intervention to protect civilian populations but it is actually an intervention in a civil war in support of the rebel army. The Benghazi-based rebel Interim National Council is committed to a neoliberal agenda of economic reform, privatisation and opportunities for Western corporations.

UN resolution 1973 makes no mention of the rebel council but the use of the resolution to impose a onesided ceasefire is clearly supportive of the rebels. The rebels had no reason to abide by a ceasefire. The destruction of the Libyan government's military equipment, including ground vehicles, is also clearly of assistance to the rebels. Whilst the resolution forbids the use of an “occupying force” is does not prohibit the
use of ground troops, it is possible that ground troops, particularly special forces may be used to fight alongside a rebel army.

The UN resolution allows “all necessary measures”. Implementation of the resolution and decisions as to what is necessary is left in the hands of those carrying out military action. The resolution does not call for regime change but allows supporters of the resolution to pursue such an aim. Following the passing of the resolution, all the key supporters of the resolution spoke of the need for Gaddafi to go.

The bombardment of Libya is in stark contrast to the treatment of many other regimes, in the Middle East and elsewhere, who have attacked civilians in recent years. Considering the history of western powers in the region it is hard not to see motivations of economic self-interest and greed behind the veil of humanitarian concern. When humanitarian concern is so selectively directed it seems blatant hypocrisy.

Where was the enforced no-fly zone during Israel's brutal Operation Cast Lead? Where was the west's humanitatarian concern for civilians being bombarded from the air in Gaza in 2008-09, when hundreds of noncombatants were being killed by Israeli warplanes in furtherance of an illegal occupation?

Where is the enforced no-fly zone in Pakistan, where missile attacks from US drones have killed many hundreds of civilians?

Where is the humanitarian concern for civilians in Bahrain, where the dictatorial regime is allowed to violently repress the local uprising without condemnation and with the military aid of Saudi Arabia, another western armed dictatorship?

Humanitarian concern is a selective policy that is subordinate to issues of economic and strategic self-interest. The west has a long history of supporting dictators when it is in their interests to do so and then switching allegiance when they see a successor who they can better do business with. The Interim National Council is the successor to Gaddafi who the west can do business with.

This not about democracy or revolution. We will not hear the western leaders calling for democracy or revolution in other Arab states. The military coalition against the Libyan government includes the antidemocratic dictatorships of United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

This is about oil. The west fears a long drawn out conflict with Libya. They have no desire to impose an embargo on Libyan oil. An embargo would keep oil prices at a high level at a time when, particularly given the state of the global economy, this would have major adverse consequences.


THE WEST & THE INTERIM NATIONAL COUNCIL - PLOTTING BEFORE THE ATTACK...

4th March - The Independent newspaper reported that the UK were to send experts to give military advice to the opposition forces in Libya.1

5th March - The Interim National Council (INC) announced its official establishment in the city of Benghazi and declared itself “the only legitimate body representing the people of Libya and the Libyan state”.2

6th March - The international development minister Alan Duncan, a former oil trader, warned the price of crude oil could double due to the unrest in the Middle East. He said, "I've been saying in government for two months that if this does go wrong, £1.30 at the pump could look like a luxury. 200 dollars is on the cards if... anyone is reckless and foments unrest. It could be very serious. If crude oil doubles, you're going to have a serious spike (in petrol prices). Try living without it for a week."3

7th March - The Independent newspaper reported that Obama had requested Saudi Arabia to supply the rebel army with weapons.4 On the same day it was revealed that SAS soldiers and MI6 agents had been in Benghazi with the rebels. This came to light when the soldiers and secret agents flew from Benghazi to meet up with a MI6 field officer at a nearby farm. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said, “I can confirm that a small British diplomatic team has been in Benghazi. The team went to Libya to initiate contacts with the opposition”.5 A source from UK special forces told the Telegraph newspaper that the MI6 agents were carrying a personal letter from David Cameron to the rebels.6

10th March - France formally recognised the INC and said it would shortly be sending an embassy to Benghazi.7 Sarkozy's office said that France is keen to help the INC "politically”.8 The same day, a UK Foreign Office spokesman told Reuters “The interim council are valid interlocutors, with whom we wish to work closely. We've made it clear that Gaddafi must go now. We are working closely with international partners to achieve this.”9

Both Hillary Clinton, William Hague and other western government representatives also met and spoke with Mahmoud Jibril and other representatives from the INC in the days leading up to the attack on Libya.10 What was the purpose of the numerous meetings? Was it to plot a military attack with the aim of creating a new client state and protecting and expanding western economic interests in Libya?


WHO ARE THE INTERIM NATIONAL COUNCIL?

The INC consists of former government officials and members of the Libyan establishment who are colluding with the US, UK and France to achieve power. Members of the interim council include:
- Abdul Jalil, former justice minister
- Abdul Hafez Ghoga, former president of the Libyan Bar
- Ali Issawi, former ambassador to India and also former minister of economy, trade & investment
- General Abdul Fattah Younis Obaidi, the former interior minister
- Mahmoud Jibril, former chairman of the National Economic Development Board

Mahmoud Jibril has been acting as the INC's special envoy and has been negotiating with western leaders. A leaked US diplomatic cable dating from November 2009 reveals the American embassy view of Mahmoud Jibril as "a serious interlocutor who 'gets' the US perspective".

"He is also not shy about sharing his views of US foreign policy, for example, opining that the US spoiled a golden opportunity to capitalise on its 'soft power' (McDonald's, etc) after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 by putting 'boots on the ground' in the Middle East. As for opportunities for U.S. companies, Jibril said Libya was "opening widely and very fast" and that the world economic crisis had not hit Libya. He characterized the economy as being "in a liquid phase, and not yet solidified," with many opportunities for foreign companies willing to take the risk to come here. He recommended U.S. firms focus on strategic projects, i.e., ones that touch people's lives, such as education and healthcare. Libya would also need help managing facilities, such as airports. He contrasted Libya to the Gulf area, which he thought would remain unstable for the next ten years due to tensions with Iran. Libya, on the other hand, has a stable regime and is "virgin country" for investors.”11

The writer is a Law student at Uganda Christian University, a researcher, a social and political commentator influenced by Pan-Africanist thinking.

______________________
1 THE GUARDIAN, 4th March 2011,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/04/libyan-opposition-leaders-advice

2 NATIONAL INTERIM COUNCIL, 5th March 2011,  http://ntclibya.org/english/about/

3 LONDON EVENING STANDARD, 4th March 2011,  http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23929117-petrol-prices-may-hit-pound-2-at-pumps.do

4 THE INDEPENDENT – America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels, March 7th 2011,  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/americas-secret-plan-to-arm-libyasrebels-2234227.html

5 THE GUARDIAN, 8th March 2011,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/07/sas-mi6-released-libya-rebels

6 THE TELGRAPH, 8th March 2011,  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8367824/Libya-MI6-officer-seized-in-SAS-mission-fiasco-wascarrying-letter-signed-by-David-Cameron.html

7 BBC NEWS – Q&A: Libyan National Council,  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12699785

8 THE GUARDIAN , 10th March 2011,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/10/libya-uprising-gaddafi-live

9 THE GUARDIAN, 10th March 2011,  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/10/libya-uprising-gaddafi-live

10 BBC NEWS, 15th March 2011,  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12741414

11 THE TELEGRAPH, 31st January 2011,  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/libya-wikileaks/8294558/HEAD-OF-LIBYAN-THINK-TANK-OUTLINES-HUMANDEVELOPMENT-STRATEGY.html

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Are we heading for ''Republic Dynasties'' in Africa?

In the past 10 years, four sons have succeeded their fathers directly as presidents. For others, it hasn’t been easy, writes Mwaura Samora.
The political culture of dynasties is very much alive in Africa even where there are no kingdoms. In Uganda the opposition has claimed that President Museveni is grooming his eldest son Lieutenant Colonel Kaneirugaba Muhoozi, 36, to succeed him.
Museveni has already placed his presidential guard under the Special Forces, an elite army unit commanded by Colonel Muhoozi. The Special Forces is tasked with, among other duties, guarding the Lake Albert oil fields. In its ranks include commando, infantry, artillery and air force units.
“Already there has been an outcry from Ugandans about the president’s habit of putting his relatives in strategic positions,” opposition defense spokesman Hussein Kyanjo told Newswatch magazine. “What President Museveni has done confirms Ugandans’ worst fears. He is making the Ugandan presidency monarchical and is clearly anointing his son to succeed him”.
But Army spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Felix Kulayigye has defended Muhoozi by saying: “He has equal right like you and I and he didn’t chose to be born to a person who was later to become president of Uganda. He’s an individual Ugandan with rights, including contesting for the presidency if he wants”.
After the Presidential Brigade Guard was placed under his charge, the UK and US trained Lt. Col. Muhoozi is now said to have the sweeping powers of any commander-in-chief.
However this elevation did not come as a surprise since in recent years the Ugandan head of state seems to have developed a penchant for appointing his kinsmen to high office. The president’s stepbrother General Caleb Akandwanaho (Salim Saleh) is the senior presidential advisor on defense, brother-in-law Sam Kutesa is the foreign affairs minister, daughter tary to the president and the first lady’s nephew Justus Karuhanga is the president’s private secretary for legal affairs.
First Lady Janet Museveni is the minister for Karamoja region while her relative Hope Nyakairu is the finance under-secretary at Uganda’s State House.
Not alone
But President Museveni is not alone in the game. Although Swaziland, Lesotho and Morocco are the only de facto monarchies in Africa, the culture of dynastic political succession is breeding a class of “republican kingdoms”.
“Rulers prefer sons over alternative figures more inclined to hasten the succession through assassination or coup attempts. Concern about assassination by son is less in a hereditary successional arrangement than if the designated successor is a high ranking official of the existing regime,” writes Jason Brownlee, a political scientist.
Hereditary succession is common in autocratic regimes whose long-serving rulers have cultivated strong personality cults by eliminating rivals and hoarding power around themselves and a clique of elites. With no institutionalised power structures outside the leader, the state security machinery is used to whip the masses into accepting the preferred successor.
Africa has seen four sons of former heads of state ascend to power in the past 10 years, three of them inheriting leadership directly from their fathers. Ali Bongo of Gabon and Faure Gnassingbe of Togo succeeded their long serving fathers in bloody and hugely discredited elections.
In DRC, Joseph Kabila was appointed at the tender age of 28 by the military to replace his father who was assassinated in 2001. In Botswana President Ian Seretse Khama, son of the country’s founding father, came to power after the former head of state abdicated before the end of his term.
The street protests that toppled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak are said to have been triggered by, among other things, the prospect of his three-decade rule being extended through his son Gamal.
The fact that Mubarak was grooming his son to succeed was so obvious that some quarters in the west and the donor community were already warming up to his presidency.
“To the IMF and the World Bank, a few European capitals and even certain sectors of Washington Gamal looks like the future of the Arab World,” wrote The Weekly Standard, an American opinion and analytical magazine.
But with 60 per cent of Egyptians living on less than $2 a day, Gamal’s economic wizardry was far from evident. Now a Mubarak presidency is history following a successful uprising.
Inspired by the fall of Mubarak at the hands of unarmed citizens, Libyans have risen against Col Muammar Gadaffi. Despite the dictator’s vow to crush the revolt and die “a martyr” in his home soil, protesters are in control of eastern regions of Libya.
Although not officially endorsed for several years, it has been rumoured that Gadaffi’s son Saif l-Islam is the strongman’s most preferred successor. When protests broke out two weeks ago, Saif came out strongly declaring the regime will “fight to the last bullet” to stop the uprising.
Appointed by his father to the highly visible role of negotiating with the West and heading a number of key organisations in Libya, the 39 year-old London School of Economics graduate is so influential in Libyan politics that analysts believe he played a critical role in persuading Gadaffi to abandon the ambitious nuclear weapons program in 2003.
Described by many in his homeland as confident, charismatic, outspoken but sometimes naïve, Saif is also known for tinkering with liberal political concepts alien to his father’s Jamahiriya system like creating a constitution, instituting political freedoms and free-market reforms. To defend his deviant philosophies, most of which have rattled the older generation of the ruling elite, Saif used to explain that he was he was merely expressing the hopes of ordinary Libyans.
However when a revolt broke out a fortnight ago, Saif’s democratic pretensions disappeared. He is now leading an onslaught against rebels in eastern Libya.
But with people driven revolution reportedly less than 100 kilometres from the capital Tripoli it’s very unlikely that the “King of Kings of Africa” will have the opportunity and time to impose the scion on Libyans.
In Senegal President Abdoulaye Wade has similar plans. His son, Karim, “already holds the Senegalese government’s most senior position, as what the Dakar press calls ‘Super-minister’ in charge of International Cooperation, Air Transport and Infrastructure. But on 4 October, he added yet another string to his bow by taking over the most strategically vital – and potentially most lucrative – portfolio to become Energy Minister,” writes Africa Confidential.

Tuesday, March 8, 2011

The Concept of Servant Leadership


Kayondo M Silver
Uganda Christian University Honours College
Bachelor of Laws and concurrent Diploma in Leadership 


Abstract
This paper seeks to discuss how adopting the concept of Servant Leadership would be beneficial to the Community at Uganda Christian University. Consideration of and comparison with other leadership styles like autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire will also be taken into account during the course of discussion.
Introduction
The phrase ‘‘servant leadership’’ was coined by Robert K Greenleaf[1] in ‘‘the servant leader’’, an essay he first published in 1970.[2]
Servant Leadership is a practical philosophy supporting people who serve first in their life and work and then, as a way of expanding that service to individuals and institutions, they choose to lead, whether in a formal position or not. In either capacity, they encourage collaboration, trust, foresight, listening, and the ethical use of power. Servant-leaders also have the courage to become the change they wish to see in the world.[3]It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. This is sharply different from the person who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions.[4]
Servant Leadership has also been defined as a lifelong journey that includes discovery of one’s self, a desire to serve others, and a commitment to lead.[5]
Since Greenleaf’s death in 1990, his propounded concept of servant leadership has gained increasing acceptance in the leadership and organizational literature as largely evident in Covey, 1994; Laub, 2003; Russell & Stone, 2002 and many other scholarly works.

However, it’s imperative for me to note that since we come into leadership with who we are, Servant-leadership begins with the desire to change oneself. Once that process has begun, it then becomes possible to practice servant-leadership at an institutional or community level because there are vivid examples of those who have grossly abused the whole concept of servant leadership due to various misconceptions they held about this leadership style. (Enroth, 1992; Farnsworth, 1998) Albeit this abuse, the chief aims of Servant Leadership are the desire to serve and developing the potential of followers.[6]

Leaders with different kinds of personality and temperament can acquire the servant leadership style but some personalities are more compatible with the Leadership style than others. For example, individuals who are very generous, compassionate, and interested in helping others are more likely to be attracted to Servant Leadership than those who are very authoritarian and egotistic.

The origin of this leadership style is secular, and has its roots from reading fictional work in 1958, but albeit this background, Greenleaf’s definition of leadership is the clearest statement of his belief that the needs of followers are holy and legitimate and the leaders’ use of power arises from the consent of the followers who willingly, and without any form of coercion or duress allow to be led by that leader they have vested the power and authority in towards  a well defined and given vision that the leader has for the community, institution or organization.
 This style is so relevant and held with very high esteem in many Christian circles and organizations (Millard, 1995; Winston, 2003). It’s a reflection of the style of Jesus Christ and has scripture back up. This is seen in Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 20:25-28 
25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”[7]
This was furthermore illustrated in John 13:3-17. As Jesus knelt to wash his disciples’ feet, he provided an indelible example for generations of leaders to follow. In order to lead, one must serve others.
The Characteristics Servant Leaders have been outlined by Larry Spears[8]and these include; Listening receptively, Acceptance of (and empathy with) others, Foresight and intuition, Awareness and perception, Highly-developed powers of persuasion, Ability to conceptualize and communicate concepts, A healing influence upon people and institutions, Ability to build a sense of community in the workplace, and Practice contemplation and Willingness to change.[9] These ten characteristics of servant-leadership are by no means exhaustive, but they serve to communicate the power and promise that this concept offers to those who are open to its invitation and challenge. Leadership experts and scholars such as Bolman and Covey have associated themselves and fully concurred with these characteristics as essential components of Servant Leadership. However, Servant Leadership may be considered as an outgrowth of participative leadership which advocates empowerment and involvement of many members of the organization, institution or community.[10]Servant Leadership also shares some of the same characteristics with transformational leadership. For example, Bass specifically points out that servant leadership is close to the transformational components of inspiration and individualized consideration.[11]Servant Leadership is also similar to steward leadership because both emphasize the need to replace self-interest with service to others as the basis for using power.[12] What sets servant leadership apart is that in addition to its service-oriented leadership style, it also practices situational leadership.[13]
The following are the benefits that would accrue from the adoption of the concept of servant leadership in leading to the community of Uganda Christian University. However, they are based on an assumption that the aforementioned leadership style is exhibited in its true sense/form and consistently practiced over a long period of time.

It would encourage the development of new leaders in the community. This is because the leaders would support and mentor their followers to assume the leadership positions. This would encourage the development of a new cadre of leaders who can offer good leadership to the community. This is not the case with some leadership styles like autocracy where the ‘‘leaders’’ control and exploit their followers. Servant-leaders believe that people have an intrinsic value beyond their tangible contributions as followers. As a result, the servant-leader is deeply committed to the growth of each and every individual within the institution or community. The servant leader recognizes the tremendous responsibility to do everything possible to nurture the growth of his/her followers.

Servant leadership would be a good control measure against corruption. There have been a number of corruption scandals especially in the students’ guild office. One notable point in case is where one Kenneth Mulemi, the former Minister of education was suspended by the University disciplinary committee and ordered to refund 2.6 million shillings he misappropriated while holding office.[14]Servant leadership encourages truthfulness and honesty, and matters of financial accountability are not exceptional. This would promote the reputation of the University Community and promote efficient use of resources.

Such a leadership style would facilitate the development of self-management in the community. This is attributed to the fact that both the leaders and followers know their role and what is expected of them in the discharge of their duties, and everyone would work diligently to fulfill their duties and responsibilities. Blanchard notes that Servant-leadership is all about making the goals clear and then rolling your sleeves up and doing whatever it takes to help people win. In that situation, they don't work for you, but as a leader, you work for them.[15]

Servant Leadership would encourage the development of a wide variety of skills and abilities in the Uganda Christian University Community. This is because the leadership style demands a lot of skills like excellent interpersonal skills, communication skills, and strong inner qualities so as to influence followers towards the leaders’ vision. This is not the case with other authoritarian leadership styles which promote barbaric and primitive ‘‘skills’’ like use of intimidation and force to attract recognition and loyalty from followers.

Servant Leadership would promote peace and harmony in the community since it encourages open, truthful, and honest communication between the leaders and the followers. University policies would easily be communicated and discussed while the followers give true feedback about the policies and the quality of service delivery. Due to the inefficiency in this aspect, the University has witnessed some demonstrations from the students’ fraternity. A notable example was on March 26th2009 when students demonstrated against what they saw as an unfair tuition policy.[16]

It would provide a more fertile ground for the development of Uganda Christian University as an institution. This is because all the leaders and followers would put aside their personal and selfish agenda and pursue the common goal of developing the institution. This would be a positive development since both the leaders and the followers offer their best effort to realize this development. Larry Spears propounds that the servant-leader senses that much has been lost in recent human history as a result of the shift from local communities to large institutions as the primary shaper of human lives. This awareness causes the servant-leader to seek to identify some means for building community among those who work within a given institution. Servant-leadership suggests that true community can be created among those who work in businesses and other institutions.[17]

Servant leadership would build the self esteem and encourage individual growth of all the leaders and followers. As Blanchard notes, Servant leadership is easy for people with high self-esteem. Such people have no problem giving credit to others and have no problem listening to other people for ideas. They have no problem in building other people up and they don't feel other people's success threatens them in any way. . . . Servant leadership builds self-esteem and encourages Individual growth while obtaining the organization's objectives.[18]

Furthermore, Servant Leadership would promote humility in the community because the servant leaders would see themselves as servants and stewards and voluntarily humble them to serve others. Jesus tells us that, ‘‘the greatest among you will be your servant.  For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.’’[19] One of the greatest problems in our community is pride, and servant Leadership would be a good avenue to weed it out among both the leaders and the followers.

It would encourage empathy in the community since servant leaders are empathetic not only to their followers but also to the entire community at large. They understand the weaknesses and problems of their followers and community members and also empathize with them. This trait has sometimes not been exhibited in the Uganda Christian University community. For example, a first year Law student was told to leave the University premises because of an alleged fees balance of Shs 27,000.
In another case of a similar nature, two students from the Information Technology department were also told to leave the university after they were denied full registration for defaulting by balances of Shs 5,000 and Shs 20,000 respectively.[20]Clearly, on these two occasions, the University leaders were unfair to these students. The money in question was too little to warrant dead semesters for the students. Larry Spears once said that most successful servant-leaders are those who have become skilled empathetic listeners.

The adoption of servant leadership would help the Uganda Christian University community members put into practice what their religion (Christianity) professes. This leadership style is compatible with and complementary to Christian doctrines and dogmas of love, honesty, and truthfulness, among others. Since the majority of the people in the community are Christians, such a leadership style would create avenues for them to put their faith into practice through manifestation of love, care, and empathy to even those of low rank or those whom may have been labeled as ‘‘insignificant’’ members. This would be a powerful tool for spiritual growth and practical Christianity.
It would also encourage and promote the ethical standards in the community since servant leadership requires strict observance of the established ethical norms of society. This would promote the external image of the whole community. On some occasions, some members of the Uganda Christian University Community have expressed unethical conduct. For instance, one of the members of the teaching staff was exposed by one of the media houses for taking nude photographs.[21] This of course gives a bad example to the students and tarnishes the image of the entire community. Servant Leadership demands that Leader, followers, and all members of the community should hold themselves in a respectful manner.

However, much as Servant Leadership would to the greatest extent be the most appropriate leadership style at Uganda Christian University, it is also associated with some loopholes.
It involves high risks, because by adopting a humanistic and empowering approach, it may provide an opening for some unscrupulous, scheming, and ambitious individuals to exploit the situation for selfish gains. Once such people penetrate the system and acquire leadership positions, the entire community would feel the pinch of their unscrupulous dealings, and if they are not detected and weeded out in time, the institution may collapse tremendously.
It is difficult to implement Servant Leadership unless the senior management have undergone a personal transformation and are totally committed to Servant Leadership. As an old African adage says, a fish begins to rot from the head; the same can be said of leadership. Once the very top people are not committed to the cause of servant leadership, little or no impact would be made on the lower leaders, followers, and all members of the community and thus, the entire scheme would be a failure.

Servant Leadership is also hard to implement if the leaders are inexperienced and feeling insecure because they would fear to lose their positions to their junior followers and since Uganda Christian University is a young institution established in 1997, this would be detrimental to its growth and development.

By and large, the above would be the benefits of adopting the Servant Leadership style to the Uganda Christian University Community. As Kouzes and Posner point out, Leaders we admire do not place themselves at the center; they place others there. They do not seek the attention of people; they give it to others. They do not focus on satisfying their own aims and desires; they look for ways to respond to the needs and interests of their constituents. They are not self-centered; they concentrate on the constituent. Leaders serve a purpose and the people who have made it possible for them to lead. In serving a purpose, leaders strengthen credibility by demonstrating that they are not in it for themselves; instead, they have the interests of the institution, department, or team and its constituents at heart. Being a servant may not be what many leaders had in mind when they choose to take responsibility for the vision and direction of their organization or team, but serving others is the most glorious and rewarding of all leadership tasks.[22]















SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bass, B. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership Studies
Blanchard, K., & Hodges, P. (2003). The Servant Leader: Transforming your Heart, Hands & Habits. Nashville, Tennessee: J. Countryman.
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco, CA Berrett-Koehler Publishers
Enroth, R. M. (1992). Churches that Abuse. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. E. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the stage for empirical research. Journal of Leadership Studies
Frick, Don M. (2004). Robert K. Greenleaf: A life of servant leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A Journey into the nature of legitimate power and Greatness. New York: Paulist Press
Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness (25th anniversary Ed.). New York: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf, R.K. (2003). The servant-leader within: a transformative path New York: Paulist Press.
James Kouzes and Barry Posner on Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It.
Larry Spears; Practicing Servant Leadership
Internet sources
Newspapers
Weekly Observer 30th March 2009
The Standard; Uganda Christian University’s Community Newspaper 11th -05-2010



[1] Robert K. Greenleaf (1904-1990) was the founder of the modern Servant leadership movement. He was born in Terre Haute, Indiana
[2] . According to his essay, Essentials of Servant Leadership, Greenleaf’s most important work, Servant Leadership (1977/2002), is subtitled A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power & Greatness.

[3] What do we mean by Servant Leadership? http://www.amca.com/sl/index.html
[4] Robert K Greenleaf; Supra, 2
[5]Centre for Servant Leadership at the Pastoral Institute in Georgia
[6] Supra 2
[7] New International Version
[8] Larry Spears served as the President and Chief Executive officer of the Robert K Greenleaf centre for Servant Leadership
[9] Larry Spears; Practicing Servant Leadership pg.3-6
[10] McMahon, J. T. (1976). Participative and power equalized organizational systems. Human relations, 29
[11]Bass, B. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership Studies, pg 33
[12] Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
[13] Blanchard, K., & Hodges, P. (2003). The Servant Leader: Transforming your Heart, Hands & Habits. Nashville, Tennessee: J. Countryman.
[14] The Standard; Uganda Christian University’s Community Newspaper 11th -05-2010
[15] Ken Blanchard: Servant Leadership, The Management Forum vol 4 number 3.
[16] Weekly Observer 30th March 2009
[17] He highlighted this as one of the characteristics of the servant leaders.
[18]  Ken Blanchard, Convene (February 1998) p75.

[19] Matthew 23:11-12 (New International Version)

[20] Supra, 16
[22] James Kouzes and Barry Posner in Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It.

Understanding Leadership


Understanding Leadership

Leadership definitions

There are almost as many different definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept (Bass, 1981). Each emphasizes different issues. For example some emphasize the importance of a leader's character and integrity in building up the trust necessary for the leadership to be exercised over a period of time.  Some of the common ideas that others include in leadership definitions include; exerting influence, motivating and inspiring, helping others realize their potential, leading by example, selflessness and making a difference.
John C Maxwell: In the Book 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, John Maxwell sums up; "leadership is influence - nothing more, nothing less." This moves beyond the position defining the leader, to looking at the ability of the leader to influence others - both those who would consider themselves followers, and those outside that circle. Indirectly, it also builds in leadership character, since without maintaining integrity and trustworthiness, the capability to influence will disappear.
Peter Drucker: In the forward to the Drucker Foundation's book; "The Leader of the Future" a  leader is defined as: " a leader is someone who has followers." To gain followers requires influence (see John Maxwell's definition) but doesn't exclude the lack of integrity in achieving this. Indeed, it can be argued that several of the world's greatest leaders have lacked integrity and have adopted values that would not be shared by many people today.
Warren Bennis:  defines leadership is the management of 4 things:  attention, meaning, trust and self (Warren Bennis, 1984). Warren Bennis' definition of leadership is focused much more on the individual capability of the leader. "Leadership is a function of knowing yourself, having a vision that is well communicated, building trust among colleagues, and taking effective action to realize your own leadership potential."
§  Attention: leaders are the kind of people to whom others are really drawn because of their vision, dream, a set of intentions, or agenda. They have a sense of commitment which attracts people to them. They command other people’s attention. Leaders manage people’s attention through a compelling vision.
§  Meaning: To make their dreams apparent leaders must communicate their vision to align people with it. Leaders make ideas tangible and real to other people, so that they can get behind them.
§  Trust: Trust is essential to organizations. Without it no organization can work. The main determinant of trust is reliability or constancy.
§  Self: Knowing ones skills and developing them effectively. Without managing self leaders can do more harm than good. Incompetent leaders can make life worse. Management of self is the appropriate deployment of one’s capacities. Part of it is positive self- regard where people know their talents, nurture them and discern their strength within the organization.
Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester: Leadership is "the process of influencing the behavior of other people toward group goals in a way that fully respects their freedom." The emphasis on respecting their freedom is an important one, and one which must be the hallmark of Christian leadership. Jesus influenced many diverse people during his ministry but compelled no-one to follow Him.
Hershey Blanchard (1985):  Leadership is an influence process and thus a leader's style of leadership should be situational.  For example more directive behaviour would be used for supervising people with low ability and commitment while a more supportive behaviour would be used for people with high ability and commitment. 
Paul Born, (2000): Leadership is ENERGY. It is the ability to create, build, direct and focus energy within a defined or undefined situation.  It is most active in chaos seeking order.
Peter Senge, (2000): Leadership is a focus on leader as designer, teacher and steward. Ultimately, leadership then builds an organization where people are continually expanding their capabilities to shape their future.  Thus, leadership is most responsible for learning. 
Greenleaf (1991): Leadership is Servant Leadership.  The leader focuses on serving others, encouraging and fostering their full potential in a model taught by Jesus Christ.  But this is not passive leadership!
Peter Block (1993): Leadership is a fashion that must end and be replaced by citizenship.  Citizenship is our capacity to create for ourselves what we had sought from our leaders.
Clinton, J. R (1985): 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.  This is contrary to the popular notion that a leader must have a formal position, a formal title, or formal training
Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson:  The art of influencing an individual or group, regardless of the rationale.
Kouzes and Posner:  The ability to mobilize people towards a shared vision, while encouraging individual development in the process.
Komives, Lucas, and McMahon:  A relational process of people to­gether attempting to accomplish change or make a difference to benefit the common good.
Bass:  Conceived as the focus of group processes, as a matter of per­sonality, as a matter of inducing compliance, as the exercise of in­fluence, as particular behaviors, as a form of persuasion, as a power relation, as an instrument to achieve goals, as an effect of interaction, as a differentiated role, as initiation of structure, and as many combinations of these definitions.
As can be seen through this final definition, leadership can be illus­trated through a variety of different elements. Each of these pieces helps to define leadership from different angles. By working on skills and knowledge associated with any of these factors, one can improve his or her leadership potential. Effective personal leadership development begins with simply being aware of the intricacy of leadership, and being willing to explore these intricacies.
Part of what makes leadership vague and difficult to define is the wide variety of aspects that are included in various leadership defini­tions. But a good working definition of leadership includes three impor­tant components. The act of leadership must be:
A group phenomenon- A leader can’t practice leadership without at least one person (follower, constituent, employee) supporting him or her. Leaders are defined by the fact that they are leading or directing oth­ers towards a specific path. Leadership involves a process of which a large part is the fundamental leader – follower relationship. Without that process (and relationship), there is no leadership.
Directed by a goal- The leader must be leading the group toward an objective that followers believe in. Another aspect that defines leadership is the progression toward a shared goal. Over the last several years, leadership has turned from primarily leader-centered goals to more follower-centered goals. Leaders have found it is much easier to motivate others towards a belief or action they believe in.
Organized in a hierarchy- No matter how tight or loose the leading structure is, there is always some type of arrangement needed within the leader-follower relationship. A final aspect that defines leadership is the presence of structure. A leader-follower relationship with no structure is merely chaos; struc­ture provides the organization needed for successful goal attainment. It should be noted, however, that diverse situations require different types of structure to be the most effective.
The instrument of leadership is the self: It is what we do with ourselves that makes a difference. Leadership development is self development. The quest for becoming better a leader is first an inner quest to discover who you are. Leaders can get derailed unless they know their weaknesses as well as their strengths. There is need to pay attention to the strengths. Learning to lead is a lifelong process. It is not possible to separate leadership from the person leading or the person leading from those being led
Credibility is the foundation of leadership: Leadership is a relationship between those who aspire to lead and those who chose to follow. Followers want to believe in their leaders, to trust them and that they are interested about the direction each one of them is headed. If people do not believe in the messenger, they won’t believe the message. Values and beliefs are at the core of personal credibility. To be credible leaders must know who they are and what they stand for
Leaders focus on the future: Being forward looking is what separates leaders from other credible people. Leaders must be able to gaze across the horizon of time and imagine that greater things are ahead. They must foresee something out there however vague. Leaders must engage their people in a dialogue about the future when people can clearly see how they fit into the image of the future, then they are inclined to want to go there
The legacy leaders leave is the life they lead: Exemplary leaders know that people are moved by deeds. People expect leaders to show up, pay attention and to participate directly in the process o getting extraordinary things done. Leading by example is how leaders make their visions and values tangible. It is how they provide the evidence that they are personally committed. Leaders are judged by how they spend their time, how they react to critical incidents, the stories they tell, the questions they ask and answer…. The golden rule of leadership is “ DWYSYWD- Do what you say you will do”
Change is the work of leadership: Leaders guide others through adversity, uncertainty, hardship, disruption, transformation, transition, recovery, new beginnings and other significant challenges. Leadership is about seeking to disturb the status quo and awakening new possibilities in times of constancy and complacency: Only challenges produce the opportunity for greatness
The Relational Foundation to Leadership- Understanding how important relationships are to leadership greatly improves leadership development. There is a basic relational foundation to all leadership, and it is shaped by three basic principles:

Knowing

Being

Doing

• Yourself
• How change occurs
• That others may have a different view than you do

• Ethical
• Principled
• Open
• Caring
• Inclusive
• Socially responsible acts, consistently and congruently
• Community participation
• Actions based on your commitments and passions
     Leadership Myths
     Myth 1. Leadership is a rare skill. The belief that leadership is a rare skill was rooted in early leadership theory that claimed that leaders had certain characteristics that made them different from the average individual. Ironically, these skills were generally found in individuals with money or prestige—or those born into leadership positions. What makes this statement a myth is that leaders can be found in a va­riety of situations—from the top CEOs of businesses, to that volunteer at the soup kitchen, to a layman at church. A large number of leaders are needed in a variety of situations across society—and looking at leaders only in heroic or positional leadership positions is a narrow and misguid­ed way of judging leadership. Although great leaders may be rare, every­one has leadership potential.
Myth 2. Leaders are born not made. Similar to Myth 1, the belief that leaders are born not made is directly tied to early leadership theory that established leaders as great, charis­matic heroes who were often born into leadership positions. This belief plays into the assumption that great leaders are born with a unique genetic makeup, as if their future leadership role was fated or inherited. Individuals born as princes, princesses, lords, dukes, etc., were groomed for and ultimately assumed leadership positions—maintaining the caste system in Europe and other locales. What disproves this myth is that history tells us there were terrible kings and queens—individuals who didn’t know the first thing about being ef­fective leaders. The truth is that most leadership competencies and skills can be learned. Leadership education is fundamentally based upon the premise that most leadership knowledge and skills can be taught and that although certain individuals have tendencies to excel at some leadership skills—being particularly good at public speaking, for example—many leadership skills and competencies can be learned and improved upon.
According to Clinton JR In his book “The making of a Leader” they are both born and made. This is because;  
  • We are all born –its people what do before they die that matters. Everyone can be a leader in some particular aspect.  God equips us with the gifts and temperament to be all he wants us to be.
  • Leadership is not contained in a gene any more or any less than other pursuits. Leadership is not a place or position and not a secret code.
  • Leadership is an observable set of skills and abilities. Some people are obviously better at it than others. But essential leadership qualities and practices also must be learned.  (That's why you are in this lecture series).
Myth 3. Leaders are created by extraordinary circumstances and great events. In history we can find numerous examples of individuals who stepped into leadership positions during great events such as wars, demonstrations, social movements, etc., who ended up being noted as some of the greatest leaders in history. The old saying “what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger” illustrates how trouble can make us stronger people, but that doesn’t mean that great events are necessary for leadership development. The truth is that leaders are just as likely to be found participating in the everyday workings of your local community as they are leading a civil rights movement. Emer­gent leaders are also common – those individuals who see a need within a leadership situation (i.e. committee, organization, etc.) and step up to take charge. Leaders are needed in every aspect of society, and it is more likely that you will acquire your leadership training through a traditional educa­tional or training arena than by leading a group to war.
Myth 4. Leadership exists only at the top of an organization. Look at any major organization today and you will see a plethora of “leaders”—COOs, CEOs, and CFOs. Often, the larger the organization, the more of these “leaders” you will see. If we think about the definition of leadership for a moment, we realize that these positional leaders are just the most apparent in an organization—the leaders we hear the most about. Although many organizations house a large number of positional leaders, generally the larger the organization the more opportunities there are for leadership at all levels. Large organizations may have thou­sands of leadership opportunities available, from positional leadership arrangements (i.e. managers, directors, etc.) to informational leaders or informal opinion group leaders. Just because you don’t hold an official title doesn’t mean that you can’t influence others in your organization; sometimes, you may even have more influence than those higher up.
Myth 5: Leaders are charismatic. Some leaders are charismatic, but a majority are not. Charisma can be defined as “a special magnetic charm or appeal.” Charisma has been a characteristic of some of the great leaders—John F. Kennedy, Mar­tin Luther King, Jr., Mohandas Ghandi, to name a few. However, if you think of the vast majority of leaders you have been exposed to in your life, most of them are probably all too human. They may be well dressed or dowdy; articulate or inarticulate; charming or dull. There may be nothing in terms or personality, speech, or style that sets them apart from other individuals. Although some may claim charisma is something individuals are simply born with, a more likely possibility is that charisma is a result of the leadership pro­cess. Constituents grant effective leaders their respect, which creates an “attraction” between them. Thus, while some noted leaders can be described as very charismatic, a more accurate goal for effec­tive leadership should be to develop a mutual relationship of respect between yourself and your followers.
Myth 6: A leader controls, directs, prods and manipulates others. This myth may be the most damaging of all. Power, manipulation, control—all of these terms have negative connotations. Although power has a direct relationship with leadership, leadership is not so much the exercise of power over others as it is the genuine empowerment of others. Sharing power, as a leader does when empowering his or her constituents, actually helps to create synergy, a mutually advantageous situation for all parties involved. Leaders embody true (and much more effective) leader­ship by pulling rather than pushing; by creating achievable expectations and rewarding progress; by enabling others to use their own initiative.
Leadership by itself can be considered an intimidating and complex subject. However, once you break it down and focus on different as­pects, you will find it a bit more straightforward.

Functions of Leadership
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B. Z. (2003), The Leadership Challenge. Jossey-Bass San Francisco USA.
The five Practices of Exemplary Leadership
Modelling the way- It is the behaviour of the leader that is more important than the title that he holds. To gain commitment and achieve the highest standards, the leader must model the behaviour expected of others. To model effectively, the leader must first believe in something and stand up for those beliefs. This therefore requires that the leader must first find his /her voice by clarifying their personal values and then expressing them in a way that is authentically their own. However eloquent speeches about values are not enough. The deeds of the leader are far more important words in expressing how serious the leader is about what they are saying. The deeds and the words must be consistent. The leader goes first by setting the example through daily actions that demonstrate their deeply committed beliefs. Modelling the way is essentially about earning the right and the respect to lead through direct individual involvement and action. People first follow the person, then the plan.
Inspiring a shared Vision- Leaders are people who have absolute and total personal belief in the dreams they have. They are confident in their abilities to make extraordinary things happen. Every organization or social movement begins with a dream. Leaders are people who envision the future. They gaze across the horizon of time, imagining the attractive opportunities that are in store once the constituents arrive at the final destination. Leaders have a desire to make things happen, to change how things are, to create something that no one else has ever created before. Leaders cannot command commitment, they only inspire it. Leaders enlist others in a common vision. To enlist others in a vision, a leader must know the constituents and be able to relate to them in ways that energize and uplift them. People must believe that their leader understands their needs and has their interests at heart. Only through intimate knowledge of their dreams, hopes, aspirations, visions, and values is the leader able to enlist support. Leadership is a dialogue and not a monologue. Leaders breathe life into the hopes and dreams of others and enable them to see exciting possibilities that the future holds. Leaders forge unity of purpose by showing constituents how the dream is for the common good
Challenge the Process- Leaders venture out. Those who lead people to greatness seek and accept challenge. Whatever the challenge, all involve a change from the status quo. Not one person can claim to do their personal best by keeping things the same. All leaders challenge the process. Leaders are pioneers- people who are willing to step out into the unknown. They search fir opportunities to innovate, grow and improve. But it is not possible for the leader to be the only innovator. The primary contribution of the leader is to search for opportunities is in the recognition of good ideas, the support of those ideas and the willingness to challenge the system in order to get new products, processes, services and systems adopted. Leaders know that innovations and change require them to experiment and take risks. The way to deal with potential risks and failures of experimentation is to approach change through incremental steps and small wins. Little victories when piled on top of each other build enough confidence to meet even the biggest challenges. By building incrementally, the leader strengthens commitment to the long –term future. Risk and experimentation are always accompanied by mistakes and failures. The key that unlocks the door to opportunity is learning. Great leaders are great learners. The leader must therefore create a climate in which people can learn from their failures as well as successes.
Enable others to Act- Dreams do not become reality through the actions of a single leader. Leadership is a team effort. Exemplary leaders enable others to act. They foster collaboration and build trust. Collaboration should not be restricted to a small group of loyalists, but must include peers, managers, customers etc – all those who have a stake in the vision. The leader needs to involve in some way everyone who must live with the results, and ensure that it is possible for others to do good work. Leaders also understand that no one does his or her best when they are weak, incompetent or alienated. They understand that those who are expected to produce the results must feel a sense of personal power and ownership. They therefore work to strengthen others to deliver on the promises they make. A leader cannot hoard the power he she has but gives it away.  The leader must trust others and give them more discretion, more authority, and more information.
Encourage the Heart- Climbing to the top is arduous and long. People become exhausted, frustrated and disenchanted. They are often tempted to give up. Leaders encourage the heart of their constituents to carry on. Genuine acts of caring uplift the spirits and draw people forward. Encouragement can come from dramatic gestures or simple actions. It is part of the leader’s job to recognize contributions by showing appreciation for individual excellence. Leaders also celebrate the values and victories. Celebrations are not about fun and games, although there is a lot of fun and games when the leader encourages the hearts of others. Celebrations must be done with authenticity and from the heart, in order to build a strong sense of collective identity and community spirit that can carry a group through extraordinary tough times.
Functions
Practices/commitments
Challenge the process
1. Search for opportunities;
2.  Experiment and take risks
Inspire a shared vision
1. Envision the future;
2. Enlist others
Enable others to act
1. Foster collaboration;
2. Strengthen others
Model the way
1. Set the example ;
2. Plan small wins
Encourage the heart
1. Recognize individual contribution;
2. Celebrate accomplishments

Contrasting managers and Leaders
Management: Managers get things done through their organizations. Mary Parker Follett described management as “the art of getting things done through people”. Peter Drucker says that managers give direction to their organizations, provide leadership and decide how to use organizational resources to accomplish goals. Getting things done through people and other resources and providing direction and leadership are what managers do. Thus management is defined as follows:
Management is the attainment of organizational goals in an effective and efficient manner through planning, organizing, leading, and controlling organizational resources
There are two main ideas in this definition;
·         Four functions of planning, organizing, leading and controlling
·         The attainment of organizational goals in an effective and efficient manner

The Four Management Functions
·         Planning- This defines where the organization wants to be in the future and how to get there. Planning means defining goals for future organizational performance and the tasks and use of resources needed to attain them.  A lack of planning or poor planning can hurt an organization’s performance.
·         Organizing – typically follows planning and reflects how the organization tries to accomplish the plan. Organizing involves the assignment of tasks, the grouping of tasks into departments and the allocation of resources to departments
·         Leading – provides leadership for employees to achieve organizational goals. Leading means communicating goals to employees throughout the organization and infusing them with the desire to perform at a high level. Leading involves motivating entire departments and divisions as well as individuals.
·         Controlling – means monitoring employees’ activities, determining whether the organization is on target toward its goals and making corrections as necessary. Managers must ensure that the organization is moving toward its goals. Controlling often involves using an information system to advice managers on performance and a reward system for employees who make progress towards goals.
Contrast with Leadership

Posner and Kouzes (1987) The leadership Challenge Jossey- Bass Publishers San Francisco USA.
Managers
Leaders
  • Root origin of word “manage” is a word meaning “hand” so managers handle
  • Honor stability
  • Control through systems and procedures
  • Focus on control and maintenance of the status quo

  • Root origin of the word “lead” is the word meaning “to go” and thus leaders are people who could be said go first. Are pioneers
  • Thrive on change
  • Exercise control by means of a worthy and inspiring vision of what might be
  • Understand that you empower people by expanding their authority
  • Practice disciplined passion

Warren Bennis (1989) On becoming a leader Addison – Wesley Publishing Company USA.
The main difference between leaders and managers is the difference between those who master the context and those who surrender to it. There are other differences as well and they are enormous and crucial
Managers
Leaders
  • Administers
  • Is a copy
  • Maintains
  • Focuses on systems and structure
  • Relies on control
  • Has a short term view
  • Asks the questions how and when
  • Has his eye always on the bottom line
  • Imitates
  • Accepts the status quo
  • Classic good soldier
  • Does things right
  • Innovates
  • Is an original
  • Develops
  • Focuses on the people
  • Inspires trust
  • Has a long range perspective
  • Asks what and why
  • Has his eye on the horizon
  • Originates
  • Challenges the status quo
  • Is his own person
  • Does the right thing

Leadership Development
Leadership Training and Development - According to Clinton JR; the necessity of having to learn leadership qualities and practices leads to the concepts of leadership training and development.
o   Leadership training refers to the narrow part of leadership development that is focused primarily on learning leadership skills. 
o   Leadership development is a broader term that refers to all of life’s processes affecting/and shaping a leader.
How long does the “leadership development” process take? How does it happen? It takes a lifetime because God develops a leader over a lifetime.  That development is a function of events and people to impress leadership lessons upon a leader (processing), time, and leader response.  Processing is central to the theory.  According to this theory God uses different situations, circumstances and many other things (both good and bad) to teach potential leaders lessons for life and leading others.  These processes take a whole life time. The result depends on the response of the learner to the lessons given by God. For these reason some leaders do not become what God had purposed for them because they are not able to understand and/or go through the training for the expected result. These lessons can be grouped into a number of common processes that characterize a leader’s life. It is this major groups that are called phases. For each phase God is using certain major processing in order to achieve a particular purpose in a leaders life. According to Clinton there are six major phases of leadership development.





Phase
Name
Main things involved
1
Sovereign Foundations
God providentially works foundational items into the life of the leader-to- be. Personality characteristics, experiences (good and bad) and time context will be used by God to form the leader’s character. The building blocks are in place (character traits are embedded- which will be used by God in future. Sometimes the traits are related to the spiritual gift mix)
2
Inner-Life Growth
The leader usually receives some kind of training (either by doing ministry, apprenticeship, a mentorship or a formal training experience. Often it is informal and related to ministry. The leader to be learns by doing in the context of the organization. The basic models of learning are by imitation modeling, informal apprenticeship as well as mentoring. Sometimes the training is formal in training institutions. In the process the person gets ministry experience. The real training is in the heart of the leader-to- be or inward  where God is doing some growth testing and not outward
3
Ministry Maturing
The leader gets into ministry as the prime focus of life and may do some further training through self-study projects or workshops. The major activity is training.  Most people want to enter into this phase (ministry) too quickly. However in the earlier phases (1 & 2), God is working in the leader (not through the leader). Most emerging leaders do not recognize this because they only evaluate productivity, activities, fruitfulness etc, but God is quietly and in unusual ways trying to get the leader to see that one ministers out of what one is.
4
Life Maturing
The leader identifies and uses his or her gift-mix with power. There is mature fruitfulness. God is working through the leader using imitation modeling.  God uses the leader’s life as well as gifts to influence others. His is a period when giftedness emerges along with priorities. God uses the leader to bear fruit and to influence others.
5
Convergence
The leader is moved by God into a role that matches gift-mix, experience, temperament, and even geographical location.  Convergence produces the very best a leader has to offer. It frees the leader from ministry in areas in which there is no gift and also enhances and uses the best that the leader has to offer. Not many leaders experience convergence (many are promoted to roles that hinder their gift-mix; also few leaders minister out of what they are: their authority usually arises from a role).
6
After glow/
Celebration
Where the leader celebrates his life even after going out of active leadership roles.




Factors influencing leadership style
Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. From a very classical autocratic approach to a very creative, participative approach, not everything old was bad and not everything new was good. Different styles were needed for different situations and each leader needed to know when to exhibit a particular approach. Leadership strategies define every leader's personal leadership style. Many adopt some of these in achieving the organization's goals and objectives
Basic leadership styles
Leadership style 
Characteristics
Sometimes the most effective style to use When:

Not all bad  but Should not be used When:

Autocratic Leadership Style

• The classical approach
• Manager retains as much power and decision-making authority as possible
• Does not consult staff, nor allowed to give any input
• Staff expected to obey orders without receiving any explanations
• Structured set of rewards and punishments
• Greatly criticized during the past 30 years
•Gen X staff highly resistant
• Autocratic leaders:
•Rely on threats and punishment to influence staff
• Do not trust staff
•Do not allow for employee input
§  New, untrained staff do not know which tasks to perform or which procedures to follow
§  Effective supervision provided only through detailed orders and instructions
§  Staff  do not respond to any other leadership style.
§  Limited time in which to make a decision
§  A manager’s power challenged by staff
§  Work needs to be coordinated with another department or organization


§  Staff become tense, fearful, or resentful
§  Staff expect their opinions heard
§  Staff depend on their manager to make all their decisions
§  Low staff morale, high turnover and absenteeism and work
§  stoppage

Bureaucratic Leadership Style

• Manages “by the book¨
• Everything done according to procedure or policy
• If not covered by the book, referred to the next level above
• A police officer not a leader
• Enforces the rules

Most effective When:
§  Staff performing routine tasks over and over
§  Staff need to understand certain standards or procedures.
§  Safety or security training conducted
§  Staff performing tasks that require handling cash

Ineffective  When:
§  Work habits forms that are hard to break, especially if they are no longer useful
§  Staff lose their interest in their jobs and in their co-workers
§  Staff do only what is expected of them and no more
Democratic Leadership Style

• Also known as participative style
• Encourages staff to be a part of the decision making
• Keeps staff informed about everything that affects their work and shares decision making and  problem solving responsibilities
The leader
A coach who has the final say, but gathers information from staff before making a decision
• Produce high quality and high quantity work for long periods of time
• Staff like the trust they receive and respond with cooperation, team spirit, and high morale

The democratic leader
Develops plans to help staff evaluate their own performance
• Allows staff to establish goals
• Encourages staff to grow on the job and be promoted
• Recognizes and encourages Achievement
Not always appropriate
• Most successful when used with highly skilled or experienced staff or when implementing operational changes or resolving individual or group problems
Most effective When:

  • Wants to keep staff informed about matters that affect them.
  • Wants staff to share in decision- making and problem-solving duties.
  • Wants to provide opportunities for staff to develop a high sense of personal growth and job satisfaction.
  • A large or complex problem that requires lots of input to solve
  • Changes must be made or problems solved that affect staff
  • Want to encourage team building and participation


Democratic leadership should not be used when …
• Not enough time to get everyone’s input
• Easier and more cost- effective for the manager to make the decision
• Can’t afford mistakes
• Manager feels threatened by this type of leadership
• Staff safety is a critical concern

Laissez- Faire Leadership Style

• Also known as the “hands- off¨ style
• The manager provides little or no direction and gives staff as much freedom as possible
• All authority or power given to the staff and they determine goals, make decisions, and resolve problems on their own

An effective style to use …
• Staff highly skilled, experienced, and educated
• Staff have pride in their work and the drive to do it successfully on their own
• Outside experts, such as staff specialists or consultants used
• Staff trustworthy and experienced

Should not be used …
• Staff feel insecure at the unavailability of a manager
• The manager cannot provide regular feedback to staff on how well they are doing
• Managers unable to thank staff for their good work
• The manager doesn’t understand his or her responsibilities and hoping the staff cover for him or her

Factors that influence Leadership style
D’Souza, Anthony (1989) Leadership: A trilogy on leadership and effective management. Paulines Publications Africa. Nairobi
Four important sources of influence determine the behaviour patterns that leaders will follow.
Personality of the leader
1.      Value systems- How strongly do they feel that individuals should share in decision making how convinced are they that the officials paid or chosen to assume responsibility should personally carry out the burden of decision-making what relative importance do they attach to organizational efficiency and personal growth of subordinates.
2.      Confidence in group members – leaders differ in the amount of trust they have in other people. After considering the knowledge and competence of a group in dealing with problems, leaders may (justifiably or not) have more confidence in their own capabilities than in those of group members
3.      Leadership inclinations- leaders differ in the way they function most comfortably. For example directive leaders issue orders and resolve problems easily. Some leaders operate best in a team role where they continually share functions with subordinates
4.      Feelings of security in uncertain situations- Leaders who release control over the decision-making process reduce the predictability of the outcome. Leaders with greater needs for predictability and stability are more likely to “tell” or “sell” than to “join”. Tolerance for ambiguity is a key in peoples manner of dealing with problems.

Personality of group members- Before deciding how to lead groups, leaders also need to understand the influence of personality variables. Generally leaders permit groups greater freedom if the following conditions exists
a.       if members have a relatively high need for independence
b.      if members have a readiness to assume responsibility
c.       if they have a relatively high tolerance for ambiguity
d.      if they are interested in the problem and feel that it is important
e.       if they understand and identify with the goals of the organization
f.       if they have the necessary knowledge and experience to deal with the problem
g.       if they expect to share in decision-making
Nature of the Task - This includes;
1.      The problems themselves
o   Do the members have the needed knowledge? Do the complexities of the problems require special experience, competence or one- person solution?
2.      The Pressure of time
The more leaders feel the need for immediate decisions, the more difficult to involve other people. Situations may arise needing immediate decisions, but some organizations operate in a state of crisis or crash programming
Nature of Environment
1.      Structure of the organization. Organizations have values and traditions that influence the behaviour of the people who work in them. These values and traditions are communicated in many ways such as through policy pronouncements, public statements and job descriptions. Some organizations put heavy emphasis on the leaders abilities to work effectively with people
2.      Outside pressures – these pressures include the social, economic, and political situations, even labour unions.