CHAPTER 5
inspirational influence desired by the ruling elders, and that strategic activation into optimally leveraged individual and team leadership strengths will become a prized and greatly anticipated reality. It is hoped that as the enhancement of this particular
leadership echelon occurs, vision completion for severely fractured parts of MCWC and the St. Louis urban region will follow suit.
Evaluation of the Project Goals
The goals were realistic and logically connected. In the past, numerous efforts to teach, inspire, motivate, and activate leaders in other essential areas have been
ineffective or unsustainable. Hence, the Leadership and Management Council has met one dismal failure after the next because of uninformed, futile, and irrelevant approaches to assessing, improving (equipping), and leveraging the strengths of individual and team leaders at this level of MCWC and throughout other leadership and team ministry areas.
Thus, the following four project and seven inter-related intervention goals were strategically established.
Goal 1
The first goal was to specifically identify and accurately assess the personal leadership strengths and weaknesses of the members of the MCWC Leadership and Management Council. Established reputable assessment tools were used to determine the competency strengths and weaknesses of the required council members with respect to general leadership literacy, emotional intelligence, communication styles, and leadership personas, strengths, and scalable proclivities in four common areas identified by Trent and Cox in Leading from Your Strengths.
This goal was met, in part, when 86.3 percent of the invited members of the MCWC Leadership and Management Council took the required assessments (see appendices 1-7) and attended and participated in the instructional intensives (see
appendices 8-9). Because of miscommunication and volatile schedules, about 41 percent
of the members did not take the ancillary assessments, which would have yielded a more comprehensive picture of the actual health of the members of the council. Thus, the ability to dialogue and work on personal and team strengths on a more in-depth level have been hindered considerably. Intentional work at this point in the council’s collective leadership journey is imperative for maximum results if the current and perpetual vision thrust is to be realized (i.e., church revitalization, whole church discipleship, and effective and fruitful disciple-making in the urban St. Louis region where they serve).
Goal 2
The second goal was to increase the self-awareness of both individual and team strengths and weaknesses of the members of the MCWC Leadership and Management Council. After goals 1 and 3 were accomplished, personal interviews were conducted to present and discuss all assessment results with each member of the MCWC Leadership and Management Council and the senior staff pastors of MCWC.
This was perhaps the most successful accomplishment, amidst all the project goals. The nearly 90 percent of the council participants who attended the seminar intensives and took the required assessments seemed to benefit most from the subsequent personal engagement, despite some derelict responses to the reading, book review, and reading log assignments.
During the personal interviews with the select participating members of the council, key discoveries and focused deliberations regarding the results of the EHSA and the LFYSA proved to be paradoxically reassuring, disturbing, challenging, and settling.
Repeatedly, comments and requests were expressed by various council members for more involvement with this material and process in view of the positive and enlightening results (see appendix 13). Given the positive influence of the enlightened self-awareness, and the encouraging results of pertinent aspects of the pre-tests and post-tests, I anticipate
leveraging this positive gain for years to come.
Goal 3
The third goal was to develop and implement an academically-credible and contextually-relevant intervention based on the known and discovered strengths and weaknesses of both the individual council members and the collective council profile indicated in the results of goal 1.
This goal was perhaps the most substantial (though somewhat concealed) gain for the MCWC Leadership and Management Council. Initially, about 25 to 33 percent of the members thought their engagement in the intervention would prove futile. However, by week 3, this was no longer the posture. The positive change in attitude and atmosphere was almost tangible. As mentioned, about 86.3 percent of the targeted council members attended 80 percent of the sessions, thus fulfilling their attendance requirement and they genuinely and enthusiastically participated when present. The motivation to learn seemed to be enhanced and it is anticipated that much fruit will be the result of this intervention.
Near the end of the six-week period, various members were asking about the next steps in the curriculum. Although this goal followed goal 2, it integrally informed and influenced the accomplishment of goal 2 (see appendices 8-16).
Goal 4
The fourth goal was to initiate a better leveraging strategy going forward, based on the identified strengths and the ameliorated or alleviated weaknesses of the MCWC Leadership and Management Council members. The desired results of the successful completion of this goal were improved leadership relationships and more strategic deployment into appropriately matched roles.
This goal was minimally but significantly accomplished in that vigorous preliminary discussions among the council and later the senior staff pastors ensued. The latent increase in self-awareness aspect accomplished was foundational and catalytic in that it inspired a new level of interest and seemed to enhance current receptivity to follow the strategy set forth for improved leadership relationships, leadership education, and
practical training. Judging from the verbal affirmations, each participant seemed to shift from the deteriorated state of simply tolerating each other to more genuine inquiries into who and what the team needs to be and do to facilitate vision and mission fulfillment in and through MCWC of St. Louis.
The Correlated Intervention Goals
As stated previously, the primary goals for the intervention (in tandem with the doctoral project purpose and goals) were as follows: first and foremost, the intervention was created to be a reliable and replicable tool that would help me (the senior pastor), the presbytery (executive board), and the various members of the council to accurately identify and relevantly address the perceived awareness of essential leadership competency strengths on both individual and team levels. Going forward, this is precisely what has been accomplished. In fact, two of the panelists (both Ed.D.) have already requested the final approved draft of this doctoral ministry research project for their perusal and use.
Second, the intervention included time to interface and communicate in depth with each council member, personally (as the senior pastor/project director/seminar instructor/facilitator) about the accuracy of their perceptions and any differences that surfaced. The accomplishment of this goal is difficult to measure in terms of actual impact;
nonetheless, it was mutually beneficial for initial and re-bonding among council members.
Additionally, the findings are being used to inform and influence me the identification of essential next steps for individual and team leadership growth.
Third, it was my aim to ascertain a realistic sense of the council members’
awareness of personal and team limitations and weaknesses, as well. The accomplishment of this goal was more apparent while in dialogue with the participants in personal interviews. However, hints of its accomplishment were evident in the group discussions as well and a careful overview of some of the results of the pre- and post-tests.
Fourth, based on the findings, a more comprehensive picture of the prevalent
related to project goals 2 and 3—particularly as the intervention transpired during that six-week time period.
The next order of business was to begin creating a contextually sensitive curriculum and a reputable process for launching contextually relevant and transformative leadership improvement initiatives. Although this intervention goal was not achieved, it appears the foundational groundwork laid will ensure the fruition of this goal in the future.
Sixth, it was also important to identify, present, discuss, debate (if necessary), and establish the qualitative differences the MCWC Leadership and Management Council team would cite and espouse between the biblical, pluralistic, and secular perspectives on the topics explored with respect to strength-based leadership and the common competency strengths every leader needs. This intervention goal was significantly accomplished.
However, the only evidence suggesting its accomplishment was the enormous time devoted in lecture and subsequent group discussions and the subtle but significant percentage changes key facets of the PAPLCA and the PATLCA noted in the comprehensive intervention summary (see appendix 13). Twice (during week 2 and week 4), certain topics had to be postponed to address the interest in this differentiation. In fact, one of the evaluators (a Ph.D. in an historic secular university) privately expressed his appreciation for the forthright, intentional, and critical approach I engaged to clearly establish the biblical perspective on these influential perspectives and practices.
Finally, this seminar was created with the hope that it would help all participating members of the council gain the initial knowledge essential to use this assessment tool and begin strategically thinking about improving their weaknesses and leveraging their strengths such that they could jointly facilitate healthier (close-knit) leadership relationships and accomplish vital team and congregational vision and mission goals through the process recommended by Trent and Cox. Success with this goal was primarily evinced through the increased relational communication and smoother practical ministry efforts engaged among the council members themselves.
For all intents and purposes, every intervention goal was reasonably
accomplished, with the exception of establishing a comprehensive contextually effective curriculum. The establishment and fulfillment of these specific project and related intervention goals was wise in that it proved to be a more realistic and effective starting place for identifying the priority concerns, addressing the primary issues, acknowledging the prevalent personal and team strengths, overcoming the individual and team weaknesses, and eventually leveraging the council’s strengths toward optimal development,
performance, and results.
Strengths of the Project
Given the severely weakened state of MCWC’s Leadership and Management Council members’ relationships and feeble accomplishments it should be obvious that the project was contextually relevant and strategically timed. I was not sure the MCWC congregation could survive another year in the state of deterioration they had been enduring.
Second, completing the project provided the council and other interested parties with a replicable tool especially for non-seminary trained leaders serving in non- denominational urban churches. Non-denominational churches are the fastest growing congregations in America.1 While some of the larger denominations are regrouping for growth, the trend seems to be in this direction for the foreseeable future. Given the diminishing uniformity of doctrine and allegiance to denominational structures and systems, one of the many challenges these entrepreneurial leaders and congregations will have is assessing, improving, and leveraging the competency strengths of their current and future leaders in this widely diversified and loosely affiliated context of the church.
Hopefully, this tool will be of benefit to many of them.
1Scott Thumma, “A Report on the 2010 National Profile of U.S. Nondenominational and Independent,” Hartford Institute for Religion Research, accessed December 18, 2017,
Third, this project forced a more realistic approach to preserving relationship sensitivity combined with the ever-competing results-oriented inclinations prevalent in leaders and teams alike. Trent and Cox’s work was very instrumental in fostering this approach.
Finally, engagement in the project seemed to motivate and inspire all who satisfactorily completed the LSIs. Despite the initial reticence expressed and felt in the Leadership and Management Council of MCWC, there emerged a revived sense of faith and expectation among the participants about the potential and possibility of mission completion and vision fulfillment. The project was a great morale booster positioning the members of the council to make progress with highly motivate faith.
Weaknesses of the Project
Unfortunately, the leadership intensives initially required considerable lecturing to establish a biblically faithful and theologically sound framework essential for
determining practical ministry strategies. A few of the evaluators recommended that more dialogue be engaged in future settings as this material and others are presented. The challenge, however, is to find a way to accomplish this directive with non-seminary educated volunteer leaders. Often, discussion-as-teaching approaches in the past have resulted in highly opinionated exchanges with well-meaning persons who lack the biblical or theological perspective essential for more fruitful deliberation, collaboration, and action.
While the MCWC Leadership and Management Council has a few seminary graduates, and two collegiate-level biblical studies and ministry graduates, most of the council members, though having earned college degrees, lack formal theological and ministerial education and training. Thus, the discussions are often stalemated and unfruitful with respect to desired goals and objectives for the council’s collaboration. Nonetheless, participating in this project has had a positive impact on some members’ confidence to engage in discussions when attempting to establish a biblically-sound theological
to offer insights and critical analysis, properly navigating certain impasses sometimes makes some form of lecturing mandatory.
A second weakness, therefore, was that the sessions were short on substantive dialogue, cross pollination, and synergistic interaction.
Third, there was a definite need to have spent more time dealing with the pros and cons of the common grace concepts. The related metacognitive, affective, and potentially syncretistic influences of the common grace concepts on crafting strategies and establishing sound practices and wise tactics require vetting and scrutiny to ensure the strategic development and deployment of biblically-faithful strength-based leaders in the urban church, non-seminary trained leadership context.
Another critical observation was the unstable administrative process.
Communication was frequently challenging. More specifically, the timing of the electronic communication was too late for some and too soon for others. Also, it was hard to strike a balance regarding when and how to follow up on the reception of messages and securing commitments for participation. Understandably, establishing a healthy administrative system was also difficult given the unpredictable lifestyles and schedules of most of the members of the council. Relatively few (12.5 percent) of the required attendee-participants are full-time paid staff. An additional 12.5 percent are part-time paid staff. The remaining 75 percent, along with the part-timers, are gainfully employed elsewhere. Thus, strategic planning, collaborative dialogue, and timely execution were limited by and subject to the priorities of other entities. This also contributes to the static in the communication aspect of the unstable administrative process.
Fifth, the MCWC presbytery and the Leadership and Management Council are dealing with morphing generational demographics on the council. There is an aging middle age to early senior adult population (busters and boomers) in the majority, and energetic, tech savvy millennials who do not speak the same language in this administrative culture
and some who have diametrically-opposed work ethics. These diverse factors have given rise to very significant misinterpretations in the MCWC context.
As is common in a morphing and diverse context, few leadership development and ministry goals and objectives get accomplished—which lends itself to limited visible results. Thus, there remains a low-grade pessimism, simmering passive aggressive approach to ministry at times, and a recalcitrant low-key skepticism that the council has failed to fully address or overcome through this intervention.
The project does not clearly reveal anything beyond the perceived and actual self-awareness of the individual leaders’ strengths and limitations. Although this
awareness is significantly influential, little in terms of practical strategy was established beyond this awareness during the intervention. Although attempts were genuinely made to immediately enhance council relationships, time did not allow opportunities to measure relationship building or to launch essential galvanizing and long-term efforts beyond a cursory level.