The developed by Walumbwa et al. (2008). The other

The quantitative source to measure the authentic leadership of individual clergy was the
Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) developed by Walumbwa et al. (2008).
The other variable examined was pastoral effectiveness based on particular leader
behavioral skills found in the Ministerial Effectiveness Inventory (MEI; Majovski, 1982).


We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

“Identifying variables that contribute to pastoral effectiveness is challenging because
things such as leadership style, personality, ability to preach a good sermon, knack for
increasing membership and revenue, and interpersonal skills seemingly all play an
important role” (Carter, 2009, p. 261). However, according to Butler and Herman (1999),
“…Effective ministers are characterized by certain behavioral leadership skills…and it
is possible to guide a minister-to-be into attitudes that foster care for individuals, a
servant motif, and personal integrity” (pp. 237-238). Butler and Herman’s study on
pastoral effectiveness was self-scored by clergy and other scored by church members
utilizing Majovski’s (1982) instrument. Further, explanation about the MEI is given in an
article by Malony and Majovski (1986). Eaton (2002) also conducted a study of Anglican
clergy utilizing the MEI, but when she conducted her research, she did not include a
clergy self-score.

Even though studies by Majovski (1982), Butler and Herman (1999), and more
recently Barnett (2003) and Scuderi (2010) all utilized both a self-scored and other scored
MEI, or a revised version of the MEI, to evaluate certain sections and divisions of a
church body, the MEI has not been utilized in studies of clergy of the Lutheran Church –
Missouri Synod (LC-MS). However, other instruments have been used, including the
Minister Activities Scale (MAS) and the Clergy Evaluation Instrument (CEI) (Nauss,
1996). Nauss described the history and breadth of minister effectiveness research,
including a detailed description of numerous instruments, noting that while some
effectiveness research of clergy focused primarily on what a pastor does—that leader’s
behavior (doing), other instruments focused on the pastor’s person—who a pastor is
(being). While the CEI covers both aspects in great detail, the MAS focuses primarily on


how a pastor functions as an equipper, evangelist, and preacher. The MEI focuses more
precisely on the personal characteristics of the minister, whether or not that pastor has an
open, affirming style and cares for those in stress and whether or not the minister is a
theologian in life and thought (Aleshire, 1980). Since the MEI focuses more on a pastor’s
person, which is what authentic leadership measures rather than function, this instrument
was utilized for the current study.

Both the ALQ and MEI were utilized to evaluate a portion of the LC-MS Indiana
District pastors who have served their current congregations no less than three years. The
ALQ evaluated the authentic leadership of each pastor, while the MEI evaluated their
pastoral effectiveness. The President of the Indiana District where this study was
conducted believes that three years is a solid measuring point for a pastor in his current
parish. This same leader further indicated that usually the first year for most pastors is a
year when the pastor begins to know the people and they get to know the pastor (D. P.
May, personal communication, March 1, 2011). The Indiana District President also noted
that after three years, the pastor has worked through three liturgical cycles of the church
year, has engaged current congregational leadership, and has seen new leaders take
various offices. Additionally, Butler and Herman (1999) utilized a three-year
measurement in their study when they narrowed their sample of pastors by only testing
those pastors whose congregations received a Great Commission denominational
medallion for at least three consecutive years. While other studies did not specify a three
year point, the years of ministry completed by clergy was gathered and measured
(Barnett, 2003; Belcher, 2002; Scuderi, 2010).


Since the LC-MS ordains only male clergy to serve as full-time pastors, this
research was narrowed. However, this study of authentic leadership may prove applicable
and useful for reflection to the entire LC-MS and its leadership, as well as other
denominational leaders. “…Understanding authenticity may help to identify outstanding
leaders and to foster effective leadership through the design of appropriate training
experiences” (Eagly, 2005, p. 460). It is hoped that this study is a springboard for further
studies which may be replicated in other districts of the LC-MS and other denominations
as well.

A Brief Literature Review

Erickson (1995), Harter (2002) and Hughes (2005) all indicate that the history of
the concept personal authenticity is well documented and may be traced back to ancient
Greek philosophy, being attributed to Socrates. “…The concept of authentic leadership is
perhaps the oldest, oldest, oldest wine in the traditional leadership bottle” (Avolio et al.,
2005, p. xxii). “The words ‘know thyself’ have been etched over the historical edifices
throughout time…even displayed over the entry of the Sun God Apollo’s Oracle of
Delphi temple in ancient Greece” (Hughes, 2005, p. 87). In spite of this, Harter (2002)
noted, “…there is no single, coherent body of literature on authentic-self behavior, no
bedrock of knowledge” (p. 382). Avolio and Gardner (2005) indicated that to know one’s
self is one of the most critical first steps for any leader. They further suggested that the
correlations of positive psychological capital, positive moral perspective, leader self-
awareness and leader self-regulation (which includes relational transparency and positive
modeling or embodying of authentic behavior) are all essential ingredients of authentic
leadership. “We advocate that authentic leadership is such a root construct that transcends


other theories and helps to inform them in terms of what is and is not ‘genuinely’ good
leadership” (Avolio et al., 2005, p. xxii).

Authentic leadership is not an internal ingredient which a leader either possesses
or does not (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005). Instead, it is a quality
which all people may have in varying degrees, ranging from very low to very high, that
can grow, deepen, and develop within all individuals (Chan, Hannah & Gardner, 2005).
Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, and May (2004) speculated that authenticity
exists on a continuum and that the more people grow to truly identify and embody their
core values, the more authentic their identities, preferences, and emotions will be.

We define authentic leadership as a pattern of leader behavior that draws upon
and promotes both positive psychological capacities and a positive ethical
climate, to foster greater self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective,
balanced processing of information, and relational transparency on the part of
leaders working with followers, fostering positive self-development. (Walumbwa
et al., 2008, p. 94)

Authentic leaders are internally motivated to attend to their vocation and “…demonstrate
passion for their purpose, practice their values consistently, and lead with their hearts as
well as their heads” (George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007, p.129).

Authentic leadership incorporates many practical elements including a person’s
purpose, values, relationships, self-discipline, and his or her heart (George, 2003;
Northouse, 2010). While George’s (2003) dimensions of authentic leadership are
pragmatically useful for revealing how authenticity is often exhibited, it is not as
theoretically grounded (Northouse, 2010). Further, this version of authentic leadership is


not quite as measurable as the ALQ. As most psychological constructs fall within a
continuum, so does authentic leadership, which is based theoretically on the assumption
that “core attributes of such leaders can be developed, including moral reasoning
capacity, confidence, hope, optimism, resiliency and future-orientation” (Luthans &
Avolio, 2003, p. 246).
Intrapersonal Elements Within Authentic Leadership

The two main constructs which broadly encompass the subject of authentic
leadership are an intrapersonal element and an interpersonal element (Northouse, 2010).
The four components which undergird authentic leadership are self-awareness,
internalized moral perspective, balanced processing, and relational transparency (Ilies,
Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003). Two of these tend to be more
intrapersonal in nature, self-awareness and an internalized moral perspective, while the
other two, balanced processing and relational transparency, tend to involve more
interpersonal elements which involves engaging other people. However, there is mutual
interplay in the way all these the elements work together at various times. Many who
espouse authentic leadership base these four points on the seminal work of Kernis (2003)
who wrote, “…Authenticity has at least four discriminable components: awareness,
unbiased processing, action, and relational orientation. The awareness component refers
to having awareness of, and trust in, one’s motives, feelings, desires, and self-relevant
cognitions” (p. 13). Moral reasoning is a vital component of the intrapersonal dimension
of authentic leadership (Hannah, Lester, & Vogelgesang, 2005; Kernis, 2003).

Moral reasoning and self-awareness. Moral reasoning for an authentic leader
begins with self-awareness. “Self-awareness is evidenced by the leader’s ability and


motivation to identify and assess the components of these schemas, and have meta-
cognitive oversight with respect to the cognitive processing of self-information during
leadership performances” (Chan et al., 2005, p. 13). The authentic leader is
conscientiously able to consider his or her own thinking, meta-cognition, and vigorously
critique it especially when he or she must process information quickly whether they
interact with others or not. “Self-awareness means having a deep understanding of one’s
emotions, strengths, weaknesses, needs and drives. People with strong self-awareness are
neither overly critical nor unrealistically hopeful” (Goleman, 2004, p. 84).

Self-awareness for the Christian leader is the balanced act of conscientiously
reflecting, pondering, and critically weighing values and accepting what is moral. “Our
relationship with our self—is found in a self-understanding…that is balanced and honest
in light of our true relationship with our triune Creator and redeemer God” (Rodin, 2010,
p. 35). Self-awareness seeks to morally balance values, cognitions and emotions (Avolio
& Gardner, 2005). “The call to authenticity is about knowing ourselves and being
ourselves. It is about discovering, living, and doing the truth” (Neafsey, 2006, p. 51).
Pastors, whether engaged with others or alone, must be authentically aware of
themselves. “Honest self-awareness prompted by the Holy Spirit is one of the greatest
leadership resources we have” (Fryling, 2010, p. 47). However, Gardner, Avolio,
Luthans, et al. (2005) further postulated that, “self-awareness is not an end in itself, but a
process whereby one comes to reflect on one’s unique values, identity, emotions, goals,
knowledge, talents and/or capabilities, often times trigged by external events” (p. 349).
By being self-conscious, a leader is thoughtfully prepared to peacefully and meaningfully
live and be with people. “To be a non anxious presence means to acknowledge anxiety


but not let it be the driver of behavior…It means we are aware of our own anxiety and
the anxiety of others, but we will not let either determine our actions” (Steinke, 2006, pp.

Moral reasoning and balanced processing. According to Kernis (2003), when a
leader receives information or feedback, he or she must objectively digest it by not
distorting, denying, ignoring, or exaggerating it (p. 14). This is why moral reasoning and
balanced processing are critical. Rodin (2010) suggested that honest reflection for a
Christian leader means to remove distortions when sin and selfish motives want their way
within an individual. Further, Neafsey (2006) warned leaders to be conscious of their
shadow side, a Jungian term. This resonates well with Bennis (2003) who wrote,
“Leaders never lie to themselves, especially about themselves, know their faults as well
as their assets, and deal with them directly” (p. 32).

Like most leaders, pastors benefit through honest self-awareness, discovering
through a reflective process how they may have or will contribute to each situation
(Raelin, 2002). However, if a leader is perceived as being defensive or negative when
receiving information from others, without full adequate reflection upon it, the leader
may misinterpret the information, fail to balance his or her thought process, and damage
the ability to build trust with others.

Leadership requires this kind of self-awareness that contributes to confidence in a
proposed course of action, even when others disagree. It requires an awareness of
what precipitates anger or frustration and being willing to manage those feelings
to the benefit of the leadership agenda, and not to personal agenda; such self-
control is a critical asset to institutional leadership. (Aleshire, Campbell, &


Mannoia, 2006, p. 13).