Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
Effective church leadership is important in the numerical growth of congregants. As such, the management strategy adopted by a church minister will have a bearing on the growth of membership. Poor administrative practices can lead to a drop in the followership of churches which even started with a large number of devotees. There are many different styles of stewardship that a leader can adopt in controlling church activities. The most common styles are autocratic, despotic, democratic, and Laissez-Faire rules. Indeed the aforementioned techniques used in the handling of church projects are advantageous and, at the same time, disadvantageous because of the evolving nature of religion within the societal context.
Autocratic Leadership
Autocratic leadership strategy in church management strictly relies on the doctrines which are entrenched in the biblical teachings as understood by the church. The beliefs are then used in governing all the processes and procedures within religious organizations. Autocratic leadership design is advantageous for the whole church as it enables quick decision-making by the followers and leaders (Mwenje, 2016). In addition, the autocratic leadership model enables effective management of crises because it always places the church leader in charge of every situation (Mwenje, 2016). The management style also reduces team incompetence among the followers by directly gaining from their leaders knowledge, skills, and church doctrines (Mwenje, 2016). Therefore, autocratic leadership produces a positive impact on church management.
Aside from the advantages that are associated with autocratic leadership, there are also weaknesses of the model. Firstly, the administrative paradigm that is represented by autocracy does not give any room for consultations between the followers and the leaders (Mwenje, 2016). In essence, this may allow for dictatorship to thrive within the church. Secondly, mistrust is easily fanned by the possible assumption by the church ministers that the devotees may underperform without his direct supervision (Mwenje, 2016). Drawbacks of the autocratic style of leadership clearly show that the method is efficient when the church requires quick and reliable decisions from a competent leader.
Despotic Leadership
The despotic style of leadership focuses only on the leader whose personal control over the decision-making process is highly regarded. Though viewed as a negative leadership, this kind of strategy has its own merits. Most importantly, the despotic stratagem of leadership reduces the impact of mistakes if they occur (Mwenje, 2016). This is because the leader is always forced to create a framework for every church project he undertakes. Additionally, this leadership model dictates that the followers must emulate the actions of their leader; therefore, consistency in the management of religious affairs is maintained (Mwenje, 2016). Undoubtedly, this leadership model is beneficial in situations that call for the application of specific doctrines and guidelines.
Since decision-making is based on the personal moral code of a leader, the despotic leadership technique is bound to have its demerits. One such disadvantage is that, in most cases, negative feedback is given by the followers (Mwenje, 2016). Many followers may feel that they do not conform to the modus operandi prescribed by the church leader, and they can decide to leave their fellowship centers. Furthermore, the followers are not allowed to have any form of ownership of the work they do in the church of the dictatorial style (Mwenje, 2016). In the long term, the morale of the devotees is significantly reduced. Certainly, the despotic style makes the methodology more effective in providing short-term solutions to a problem.
Democratic leadership
Democratic leadership style is a shared or participative leadership because it encourages both the followers and the leaders to take personal responsibilities for decision-making. Democracy encourages creativity among members in the church setup because everyone is allowed to participate in any church project. Again, followers who work with democratic leaders tend to build strong relationships in other social spheres (Mwenje, 2016). Besides, the democratic leadership paradigm tends to inculcate the positive value of honesty and commitment in church devotees. As evident from its numerous advantages, a democratic leadership strategy can be adopted by church managers who need to see growth in church membership.
With almost everyone included in the decision-making process, a democratic leadership style can be disadvantageous at times. In cases where one members decision is consistently implemented, other individuals may tend to grow resentful of democracy as a form of administrative practice (Mwenje, 2016). Not only does democratic leadership strategy lead to procrastination by leaders in making important decisions, but it also requires a lot of time to reach a consensus on matters that require urgency in the church (Mwenje, 2016). The diversified ideas make it possible for the best solution to be ascertained, but that is not always guaranteed because the majoritys choice is upheld even if it may not be the best decision.
Laissez-Faire Leadership
An important form of leadership strategy that encourages delegation of duties by leaders to their followers is the Laissez-Faire model. Although this leadership style promotes low levels of productivity in many organizations, it has some advantages worth noting. Most importantly, the leadership practice permits the followers to maximize their leadership prowess (Mwenje, 2016). As team members are delegated duties by their leaders, the methodology allows for the most experienced and skilled devotees to shine, thereby bringing out the best in them (Mwenje, 2016). With divergent perspectives offered, the differences among the views of the members can be discussed, which ultimately makes the church and the leadership stronger.
Whereas there are situations in which Laissez-Faire may be considered appropriate, some circumstances in the church render the strategy ineffective. The leadership practice tends to downplay the role of a leader in a church setting (Mwenje, 2016). Due to a lack of guidance by the leader, some individuals may step in to take leadership roles even if they are unqualified to do so. Laissez-Faire also reduces the cohesiveness of the church members because sometimes the leaders can be portrayed as either disinterested or withdrawn from their duties (Mwenje, 2016). This style is also prone to abuse by the members who have been assigned duties by the leaders as there is a lack of proper oversight from the managers (Mwenje, 2016). The freedom that is created by the delegation of duties to the followers can be used to the advantage of either the leader or the follower at the expense of the church.
Conclusion
In summary, the most common four types of leadership models of autocracy, despotism, democracy, and Laissez-Faire have their strengths and weaknesses because of the nature of religion in evolving society. The advantages and disadvantages of autocracy are grounded on the premise that the leadership depends on the doctrines of the church for their implementation. Effective despotic leadership also relies on the moral code of the individual leader because it is his decisions that are important. Impressively, democratic rule in the management of church affairs can be better managed when the time for decision-making is shortened. Lastly, the Laissez-Faire approach exhibits many demerits, and its application should only be limited to specific situations. None of the other three leadership models fails. Therefore, no single leadership style should be applied to every circumstance in the church, as every administrative rule has its own merits and weaknesses.
Reference
Mwenje, J. (2016). An investigation of the leadership styles of Pentecostal church leaders in Zimbabwe. African Journal of Business Management, 10(3), 55-74. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.