Power
in the Church and The Army
by Lieut.-Colonel
Janet Munn "Not so with you" - Matthew 20:26
Power.
How is power handled in the Christian church?
Consideration
will be given to Jesus’ leadership example relative to use of
power, the spiritual and social power of clergy and church
leaders, the dangers as well as positive potential therein.
Finally, an examination of power, trust, and
transparency will be explored.
Power in the Church – Jesus’ Example
Linda Bond, current international leader of The Salvation
Army, in her lectures on spiritual authority, establishes
Matthew 20:26 as foundational for the Christian leader
regarding the use of power. These
words of Jesus to his disciples, “Not so with you” are set in
contrast to the domineering use of power demonstrated by
Gentile leaders, who “lord it over” their subordinates (Mt
20:25-26 TNIV).
Further, Bond emphasizes that a truly Christian paradigm
relative to use of power never involves exercising power “for
one’s own authority but for those under it” (Bond 2011).
Jesus demonstrated this in his foot washing (John 13)
and is expressed by Paul in the kenosis hymn (Philippians 2:
5-11).
Bond applies this in the context of The Salvation Army, a
Christian organization with a quasi-military structure and a
clear hierarchy.
She makes the point that this approach to the use of power
transcends any formal structures, roles, or personalities but
is rather the appropriation of Jesus Christ’s own nature (Bond
2011).
Referencing Jesus’ example of servant-leadership Hill confirms
Bond’s point: “It
is true that servant-leader behaviour flows only from
servant-leader attitudes, and attitudes are notoriously
unamenable to legislation. They have to be caught as well as
taught” (Hill 2006, 305).
Power in Church Leadership – It’s Real
According to Beasley-Murray much of the power held by a
“minister” is based on position
(Beasley-Murray
1998, 90). The
officer’s commission and ordination, calling, office, and
authority to teach and lead in mission all add social power
though these would vary greatly by
culture.
The author insightfully adds, “in
an almost unparalleled manner, ministers are given freedom to
enter into people’s homes in the course of pastoral care and
to have access into their lives” (Beasley-Murray
1998, 90).
Further reinforcing the reality of clergy power, McIntosh
reminds us:
“Leaders have the power to cast either shadow or light by the
exercise of their leadership, thus creating the ethos in which
others must live” (McIntosh 2007, 47).
The Power is Real – Some Cautions
Paul A. Rader, retired international leader of The Salvation
Army, raises an important point regarding the self-emptying of
Philippians 2:
Rowan Castle comments: "A self-emptying and sacrificial
commitment to any task should only be in submission to God
himself. Any
leader requiring this level of submission should think
seriously about the position in which they place themselves
and the level of loyalty they demand.
As spiritual leaders we should be concerned that a
'kenotic' (self-emptying) devotion be directed towards God and
God alone" (Holiness
Incorporated).
(Rader 2011)
Bond, Rader, and Castle address the challenge of a Christlike
use of power, servant leadership, and the dangers of a
hierarchical religious quasi-military structure such as The
Salvation Army has.
Similarly, Salvation Army officer Harold Hill
encourages safeguards for leadership in order to prevent abuse
of power to which all leaders are vulnerable.
Further, Hill, in referencing Salvation Army context,
believes that abuse of power is “especially hard to prevent in
a hierarchical system” (Hill 2006, 303).
What follows was offered as a warning to The Salvation Army
when it was still in its infancy (1898) regarding the use of
power in a hierarchical Christian organization.
The exhortation is entirely relevant today and came
from a Salvation Army senior soldier/member:
Now, autocratic authority, and in military form, is surely
a remarkable thing in a religious organization. It seems to me
that such authority makes its appeal to fear rather than to
love. It tends to summary action and to the suppression of
legitimate opinion. It
will not bend to compromise; it dare not admit mistakes. And
in the present case, however wise and good our leaders may be,
mistakes occur, offences arise, injustice is sometimes done.
(Hollins 2010, 48-49)
Power Can Be Good
- So Use It
Power is real and its use by Christian leaders has influences
both divine and human, as well as relevant cautions as
outlined above.
It is argued that power in itself is morally neutral, but
takes on a moral dimension based on human agency.
Power can be used creatively or destructively, to heal
or to damage relationships, to liberate or to oppress,
depending on the one exercising it (Beasley-Murray 1998,
144-145).
However, there is much goodness to be released through godly
leadership.
Christian scripture forms and frames the foundational view of
power for those in church leadership.
For example, it is from the opening chapters of the
bible that we first learn that God purposefully gave power to
humankind to exercise responsibly (Gen 1:26).
God’s own power is used for creation and recreation
through redemption so powerful even to bring life out of
death. His Spirit
in human beings provides that same power (Acts 1:8; Romans
8:11).
In defiance of secular social science as the model of bases of
social power Simons recognizes that spiritual authority is
never to be coercive nor reward based, except the reward of
the power to live a holy life (Marshall 2008, 114;
Beasley-Murray 1998, 150).
However, the necessity of non-coercion does not at all
indicate abdication of one’s divine calling to lead.
Rather than using the intrinsic social power given
through ordination for selfish aims, it can be argued that
with power comes moral responsibility, and that responsibility
is not simply avoidance of actions and activities that harm,
but also to refuse to
neglect the potential good to be done as empowered Christian
leaders. All
the powers of one’s calling to Christian leadership are to be
rallied in service to others, a calling to servant-leadership,
but a calling to lead nonetheless.
We are reminded that to neglect such an opportunity and
responsibility for positive use of power is still a misuse and
abuse of power (Beasley-Murray 2008, 149-150).
Whatever the niceties of theological interpretation as far as
ordination is concerned, one thing is certain:
if today’s churches are to face up today to the
challenges offered by contemporary culture, then it
desperately needs leaders who will think through those
challenges and who will offer strategies for enabling their
churches to fulfill Christ’s mission today.
If such strategies are to be effective, then churches
will need leaders who will help enable them to make the
necessary changes to their life in order to adopt the
necessary strategies. (Beasley-Murray 1998, 146)
The empowerment of the Lord, His calling upon the lives of
those in Christian leadership and the great need of the times
require nothing less.
Power Can Be Dangerous
Coercive use of social power is evident among Christian
leaders. Consider
the following:
When spiritual leaders declare categorically what they
conceive to be the truth in moral or spiritual matters and
allow for no questioning, no inquiry, and no discussion, they
are using task authority in a spiritual situation.
And when they classify any contrary views or
alternative interpretations as rebellion against anointed
authority, they are also misusing task authority. (Marshall
2008, 115)
There are enough examples of the abuse of power in the church
either directly or indirectly as described by Marshall for us
to recognize it.
The familiarity of Marshall’s description raises questions.
How is it possible for dedicated, hard-working,
Christian leaders to devolve into using the power of their
office coercively?
At a personal level McIntosh notes in that
many Christian leaders are:
Leaders who need to have success to validate themselves
are driven to acquire these things [rewards] and are willing
to pay virtually any price to do so . . . Because ambition is
so easily disguised in Christian circles and couches in
spiritual language, the dysfunctions that drive Christian
leaders often go undetected and unchallenged until it is too
late.
(McIntosh 2007, 20-21)
The result, while tragic, is predictable, leading to “a loss
of spirituality and
to loss of touch with one’s own morality” (Schaef and Fassel
1988, 135-136).
Over one hundred years ago Hollins
cautioned those in power in The Salvation Army against these
very things stating:
The demands in the Salvation Army, physical and otherwise,
are very severe . . . We however, seem to be working up to the
extreme limit of our powers of endurance; we leave no margin
of strength; we lack some element of calm; we have scarcely a
green place for rest and recuperation. (Hollins 2010, 51)
The implications for personal spirituality and morality are
serious as referenced by Schaef, Fassel and McIntosh (Schaef
and Fassel 1988, 135-136; McIntosh 2007, 20-21).
Power, Trust, and Transparency
Trust is defined as belief that those on whom we depend will
meet our (positive) expectations of them and it becomes an
issue when others have power over something that is important
to us
(Shaw 1997, 22).
A proliferation of rules indicates an effort to control
or exercise power over others (Schaef and Fassel 1988,
164-165). Even
from a managerial viewpoint procedures of a low-trust
organization are known to include extensive rules and
regulations (power over people), secrecy and non-transparency
(information power), and the making of decisions without
consultation, communication, or explanation (power in
isolation) (Shaw 1997, 123).
In essence, the abuse of power is about depriving others of
their power. It
creates emotional climates where trust is impossible and
“conditions for personal growth are severely limited”.
A subtle and damaging abuse of power is to discourage
the thinking capacity of others (Beasley-Murray 1998, 10).
In expressing the need for transparency in the early Salvation
Army Hollins rightly states, “Bad men and bad institutions
rightly fear examination, but the Salvation Army is sound
enough and strong enough to profit by an honest exchange of
opinion amongst its members in their councils and
publications” (Hollins 2010, 46-47).
To conclude this section we turn our attention again to the
direct example of Jesus who “shows us the way, leading us as
he did by love which respected the other and the decisions
they chose to make, some of which must have grieved his heart”
(Beasley-Murray 1988, 8).
Keeping power positive -- Accountability
Power. Does power
corrupt? Does it
have to? What can
be done to safeguard the proper use of power?
In an effort toward a positive use of power Janeway recommends
“a boundary, both to the abuse of power and to our fear of it”
(Janeway 1980, 93).
One boundary to the abuse of power is
accountability, defined as “the sense that one’s actions are
personally identifiable and subject to the evaluation of
others” (Keltner 2003, 278).
Following the sobering abuses of power and of human rights
during World War II, the United Nations set forth a Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 in which the need for
vigilance on the part of national governments was made clear.
“The obligation to protect requires States to protect
individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The
obligation to fulfill means that States must take positive
action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights”
(Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
Nearly sixty years after the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, The Salvation Army International Social Justice
Commission was established in 2007 with comparable intentions
-- to impress the urgent needs of powerless people upon world
leaders. One
means to this end is through the development of its
relationship with the United Nations.
In this relationship:
The Salvation Army engages with those who can effect
policies and programmes that will ease the burdens on and
enrich the lives of millions around the world . . . The
Salvation Army supports and cooperates with efforts to
recognize human rights, root out corruption in business and
government, promote fair trade, and preserve and protect the
environment . . . The Salvation Army seeks to promote economic
justice . . . [and] is pledged to use its own power wisely and
well in relation to all who receive its services, who belong
to it, who work for it or who collaborate in its mission. (The
Salvation Army International Position Statement)
Many questions arise regarding this noble pledge – “to use its
power wisely and well in relation to all”.
What are the specific measures in place to ensure that
The Salvation Army is living up to this commitment,
particularly in relation to the proper use of power by
Salvation Army leaders?
In what ways do our structures assess and support the
pledge to proper use of power?
The Power Paradox
Keltner points out the
paradox of power.
On the one hand,
the skills most important to obtaining power and leading
effectively such as empathy, social intelligence, and
attentiveness to the needs of others tend to deteriorate once
people have power.
He notes that “once people assume positions of power,
they’re likely to act more selfishly, impulsively, and
aggressively, and they have a harder time seeing the world
from other people’s points of view” (Keltner 2007-2008).
Lammers and Stapel give force to Keltner’s view
concluding that the possession of power increases
dehumanization.
Dehumanization is defined as the process of “denying essential
elements of ‘humanness’ in other people and perceiving them as
objects or animals” (Lammers and Stapel 2011, 114).
Hill reminds us that:
Power is the shadow side of servant leadership, and must
be recognised, faced up to and incorporated knowingly and with
boundaries if it is not to usurp total control.
Without structural safeguards, all talk of
servanthood too easily becomes an instrument of spiritual
abuse.
(Hill 2006, 304)
The power paradox requires vigilance from the broader
community against the corruptive effects of power and the
potential for mistreatment of others thereby.
The results of
this social research indicate the increased need for
accountability the more empowered a person becomes.
Accountability – Who Needs It?
Joannides offers a definition of accountability:
“the interplay between demanding and giving of reasons for
conduct based on common rules for justification” (Joannides
2007, 439).
In addressing the territorial leadership of The Salvation Army
USA Central Territory in June 2011, Paul A.
Rader connects the divine and the human aspects of power in
the church in contending that Salvation Army power structures
assume holiness in its leaders as well as its followers.
He admits that this likely has not been a safe
assumption, indicating a point of vulnerability relative to
the appropriate use of power within the Army in the relative
lack of accountability of empowered persons by those not
vulnerable to misuse of power by those same people.
Our safeguards are chiefly in matters of financial
management not in matters of personal accountability as to use
of power (Rader 2011 and Johannides 2007, 439).
It seems strange that we are explicit when it comes to
financial matters but not when it comes to personal
accountability as to the use of power in relation to the
treatment of people.
Marshall honestly observes, “When those who are exercising
authority are not themselves living in obedience to a higher
authority – what happens?
What comes out is not authority at all, but will-power,
emotional pressure, or forceful argument” (Marshall 2008,
107). Rader
urges:
Army leaders, whatever the constraints within which they
must operate, will continue to have considerable authority to
act independently and sometimes, arbitrarily.
It is all the more critical that we know ourselves
accountable to the Highest Authority as Paul did.
"Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which
the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.
Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with
his own blood" (Acts 20:28).
It is his
flock purchased with his blood that we are privileged
to shepherd, His Body within which we serve by grace alone.
We must never forget it. (Rader 2011)
The contrast between Rader’s warning for accountability to
leaders of “the flock” and Barna’s research on the state of
the same, is striking (italics added):
We essentially do not have an intelligent and reliable
means of holding pastors accountable to perform as leaders of
the flock.
Beyond being in the pulpit a specified number of
times, conducting himself properly with members of the
congregation and managing staff meetings as they occur, few
standards exist by which the pastor’s
performance is examined.
(Barna 1993, 146)
Regarding accountability of church leaders relative to use of
power Beasley-Murray bluntly calls pastoral accountability a
myth. In his
view, pastors generally have few restrictions put upon them.
“Put crudely, provided they ‘pay the rent’ by
conducting . . . services and visiting some key members” they
can get away with whatever they wish (Beasley-Murray 1998,
57-58).
Accountability – Speak Truth to Power
Common sense may dictate that where there is trust there is no
need for accountability.
Marshall argues for just the opposite, that trust
necessarily creates accountability.
But to who are leaders responsible or accountable for
the way they use power?
Marshall pushes for a 360 degree accountability matrix
for Christian leaders – with the people who have trusted them
-- subordinates, peers and superiors (Marshall 2008, 150).
Speaking from the vantage point of a typical church
member Hollins notes, “If
a person is given a regulating voice in anything, his interest
is deepened, his sense of responsibility quickened, and
whatever of wisdom or experience he possesses is placed at the
public service” (Hollins 2010, 49-50).
Hill contributes with clarity to the request for such
an accountability matrix within The Salvation Army:
Political systems often incorporate checks and balances to
prevent abuse of power . . . It would be helpful if ways could
be found of making [accountability] flow both ways, so that
those in the hierarchy owed a duty of transparency and
accountability to those below them as well as to those above.
(Hill 2006, 304)
One can only imagine the damage prevented and the
strengthening of Christian witness by such an approach to
accountability in the church and especially among empowered
leaders.
Power Distance – Closing the Gap
In social science research, power has been considered a
corrupting force in organizations. However, in a recent study
that assumption has been challenged.
Tjosvold et al. have demonstrated that the relationship
between high and low power people
can be cooperative not competitive and that high power people
can use their power to be of help and support to low power
people. This in turn has a positive impact on the views of the
high power people toward the low power people, namely that
they are capable and appreciative.
This is in contradiction to one aspect of Mulder’s
power distance reduction theory, specifically the downward
power distance mechanism - that is the tendency of the more
powerful “to increase and maintain the distance between
themselves and the less powerful” (Extra 1982, 419).
The results of Tjosvold et al. “suggest limitations to
traditional organizational power theories that assume a
competitive context between the powerful and those subject to
power. Cooperative goals appear to be an important basis for
developing the positive face of power in organizations”
(Tjosvold et al. 2005, 645).
In other words, even among secular social scientists there is
research evidence of both the positive inclination toward
downward power distance reduction and of its benefits to the
entire community practically and in terms of attitude changes.
Marshall’s observations from a Christian leadership
perspective regarding power distance reduction are analogous
to those of Tjosvold et al. (2005).
First, Marshall speaks from the perspective of
empowered church leadership as to the dangers of power on the
leaders themselves:
The distance that status establishes between leaders and
people encourages arrogance by subtly inducing in the leaders,
the sense that they somehow belong to an elite superior to
other people.
From there it is a short step to believing that they ought not
to be challenged or questioned, or that the standards and
moral restraints that apply to other people do not apply to
them. (Marshall 2008, 89)
Then, in unity with the findings of Tjosvold
et al. Marshall throws down the gauntlet to church
leaders to intentionally “dismantle the status syndrome”.
Marshall gives personal example of his inner dialogue
in status dismantling with the questions, “Is this [privilege]
intrinsic or extrinsic to my job?” or, “Do I really need this
to do my job properly or is it a disposable extra?” (Marshall
2008, 92-93). If
the privilege or perk in question is not intrinsic to the
work, Marshall sees the temptation to seduction, vanity, and
lust for power.
Thus concluding, “That I would rather be without” (Marshall
2008, 93).
Checks on Power -- Application
There is much to be said by way of application in response to
the preceding study as it relates to safeguarding the
appropriate use of power.
At this point a few specific ideas are proposed ranging
from individual to organizational.
Beasley-Murray offers several specific recommendations
regarding checks and balances to the Christian ministers’ use
of power. These
include: Creation of a detailed pastoral job description
agreed between leader and church that will be the point of
reference for an annual appraisal by local leaders; commitment
to regular spiritual direction; adopting a personal code of
ethics to strengthen self-control; and working under
supervision such as counsellors do (Beasley-Murray 1998,
150-151, 153, 156,159).
These are all applied on an individual level.
Shaw agrees in concept but goes further and offers some
suggestions organizationally.
First, Shaw recommends such an accountability matrix at all
levels of leadership and management (not just for the
individual pastor), recognizing that a double standard in such
things breeds suspicion and works against trust
(Shaw 1997, 159, 161).
Additionally, the culture of an organization (or
church) can unwittingly motivate people to misuse power based
on what they reward.
This was also indicated by Schaef and Fassel (1988) in
their study of addictive organizations.
Where misuse of power is evident by individuals Shaw
calls for an organizational audit, as he believes that “rarely
are individuals’ actions completely independent of a larger
set of cultural norms and practices” (Shaw 1997, 165).
Every level of a given organization would be examined
including leadership, structure, performance expectations and
organizational rewards (Shaw 1997, 165).
Conclusions
Perhaps Janeway is of most help in creating a mind-set in
response to the content of this study.
For Janeway, one of the most potent “powers of the
weak” is that of
disbelief.
Namely, “the capacity to imagine alternatives to accepted
roles and behaviour” (Janeway 1980, 160).
From a Christian framework we
disbelieve that
human motives cannot be sanctified resulting in positive use
of power by leaders in the church.
This confronts the social dominance orientation
that causes people to accept inequality and the justifications
behind them. It
refuses to accept the hierarchy-enhancing myths that
legitimize misuse of power (Schmitt 2003, 162-165).
By this means “the weak” begin to create the 360
accountability matrix encouraged by Marshall and Hill
(Marshall 2008; Hill 2006).
We have seen such
disbelief demonstrated through social scientists in
several ways. The
research of Tjosvold et al. asserts
disbelief in the
notion that high power people uniformly protect the power
distance between them and low power people. Rather, they
demonstrate the opposite – that high power people can use
their power for the betterment of others, can experience
changes of attitude toward low power people, and can
intentionally reduce the power distance between them.
If this is true of people in a corporate business
context in an atheistic communist culture like China, surely
we can disbelieve what is any context and culture, including
our own – and even across the gender gap.
Finally, the work of Chen et al. informs us that motives have
a significant impact on behavior, including the way in which
power is used.
Importantly, people tend to use power in more socially
responsible ways when they are communally oriented.
This presents hope for restoration of positive use of
power in collectivist cultures (Triandis 1995) where the
challenges of social dominance orientation and large power
distance are enormous.
These findings relative to communal commitment and
positive use of power also confront the self-serving
motivation for power use in individualistic cultures.
The integral nature of Christian leadership lived out in
community is supported by these social research findings as
well.
Nouwen summarizes well these conclusions regarding appropriate
use of power in the church:
Therefore, true ministry must be mutual.
When the members of a community of faith
cannot truly know and love their shepherd, shepherding quickly
becomes a subtle way of exercising power over others and
begins to show authoritarian and dictatorial traits . . . The
world in which we live -- a world of efficiency and control --
has no models to offer to those who want to be shepherds in
the way Jesus was a shepherd.
Even the so-called 'helping professions' have
been so thoroughly secularized that mutuality can only be seen
as a weakness and a dangerous form of role confusion.
The leadership about which Jesus speaks is of
a radically different kind from the leadership offered by the
world.
It is a
. . . leadership which is not modeled on the
power games of the world, but on the servant-leader, Jesus,
who came to give his life for the salvation of many".
(Nouwen 1989. 44-45)
REFERENCES
Barna, George. 1993.
Today’s pastors. Ventura, CA: Regal, 146.
Quoted in Paul Beasley-Murray,
Power for God’s sake:
Power and abuse in the local church (Carlisle:
Paternoster Press, 1998).
Beasley-Murray, Paul. 1998.
Power for God’s sake.
Power and abuse in the local church. Carlisle: Paternoster
Press.
Bond, Linda. 2011.
Spiritual Authority.
Lecture presented at The Salvation Army International
College for Officers and Centre for Spiritual Life
Development, August 2, 2011, London, England.
Cairns, Jan, ed. 2008.
Power - use & abuse: Exploring the issue of "power" in the
Church and in The Salvation Army.
Vol. 4 of
Windows of opportunity. The
Salvation Army Tri-Territorial Theological Forum, Australia
Eastern Territory, Australia Southern Territory, and New
Zealand, Fiji and Tonga Territory.
Chen, Serena, Annette Lee-Chai and John Bargh. 2001.
Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of
social power. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 80 (2): 173-87
http://proxy.ashland.edu:2077/ejc/pdf.cgi/Chen_Serena.pdf?issn=00223514&issue=v80i0002&article=173_roaamoteosp
(accessed September 9, 2011).
Extra, Jan.1982.
Book Review of Omgaan met macht: Ons Gedrag Met Elkaar En
Tegen Elkaar, Mauk Mulder, Amsterdam, Elsevier,
1977. THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF POWER, Sik Hung Ng, London,
Academic Press (European Monographs in Social Psychology 21),
1980. European Journal of Social Psychology, 12: 419–424.
French, John R. P. and Bertram Raven. 1959. The bases of
social power. In
Studies in Social Power, ed. Dorwin Cartwright, 150-167
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
http://resource.udallas.edu/132/bases_of_social_power.pdf
(accessed June 13, 2011)
Hill, Harold. 2006.
Leadership in
The Salvation Army. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster Press.
Hofstede, Geert. Gert Jan Hofstede and Michael Minkov. 2010.
Cultures and
organizations: Software of the mind, intercultural cooperation
and its importance for survival.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hollins, John. 2010.
A note of warning.
Journal of Aggressive Christianity,
70: 46-53.
Originally published in The Contemporary Review. 1898.
436-445. http://www.armybarmy.com/pdf/JAC_Issue_070.pdf.
(accessed June 29, 2011).
Janeway, Elizabeth. 1980.
Powers of the weak.
New York: Knopf.
Joannides, Vassili. 2009. Accountability and ethnicity in a
religious setting: The Salvation Army in France, Switzerland,
the United Kingdom and Sweden.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Paris (received by
email August 15, 2011).
Keltner, Dacher.
The Power paradox.
Greater good: the science of a meaningful life.
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/power_paradox/
(accessed September 1, 2011).
Keltner,
Dacher, Deborah Gruenfeld and Cameron Anderson. 2003. Power,
approach and inhibition.
Psychological Review 110 (2): 265-284.
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/dacherkeltner/docs/keltner.power.psychreview.2003.pdf
(accessed June 12, 2011).
Lammers, Joris and Diederik A. Stapel. 2011. Power increases
dehumanization.
Group Process &
Intergroup Relations
14(1) 113–126
2011.
http://gpi.sagepub.com/search/results?fulltext=lammers&submit=yes&journal_set=spgpi&src=selected&andorexactfulltext=and
(accessed July 20, 2011).
Marshall, Tom. 2008.
Understanding leadership.
Lancaster, UK: Sovereign World Ltd.
McIntosh,Gary and Samuel Rima. 2007.
Overcoming the dark
side of leadership. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Mulder, Mauk,
Peter Veen, Theo Hijzen, and Peggy Jansen.
1973. On
power
equalization: A
behavioural example of power-distance reduction.
Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology
Vol.
26,
No. 2, 151-158.
Nouwen, Henri. 1989. In
the name of Jesus. Crossroads, 44-45. Quoted in Paul A.
Rader, Follow my example.
Paper
presented at the USA central territorial executive council of
The Salvation Army (Chicago, Illinois. June 2011).
Percy, Martyn. 1996.
Words, wonders and power: Understanding contemporary Christian
fundamentalism and revivalism.
London, UK: Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge.
Rader, Paul A. 2011.
Follow my example.
Paper presented at the USA central territorial
executive council of The Salvation Army, June 2011, Chicago,
Illinois.
The Salvation Army International Positional Statement – The
Use of Power.
http://www1.salvationarmy.org/IHQ/www_ihq_isjc.nsf/vw-sublinks/73C75C683BCC7AD3802578180079E9D5?openDocument
(accessed June 13, 2011).
Schaef, Anne Wilson and Diane Fassel. 1988.
The addictive
organization. New York: HarperCollins.
Schmitt, Michael. 2003. Attitudes toward group-based
inequality:
Social dominance or social identity?
British Journal
of Social Psychology, 42, 161–186
http://proxy.ashland.edu:2077/ejc/pdf.cgi/Schmitt_Michael.pdf?issn=01446665&issue=v42i0002&article=161_atgisdosi
(accessed June 12, 2011).
Shaw, Robert Bruce. 1997.
Trust in the
balance: Building
successful organizations on results, integrity and concern.
San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc.
Tjosvold, Dean,
Haifa
Sun
and Paulina
Wan.
2005. An experimental
examination of social contexts and the use of power in a
Chinese sample. Journal
of Social Psychology 145(6): 645-61.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16334512?log$=activity
(accessed June 13, 2011).
Triandis, Harry C. 1995.
Individualism &
collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
United Nations
Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml (accessed June 29,
2011).
Van der Leeus, Gerhardus van der Leeus, 1967.
Religion in Essence and
Manifestation, vol. I, Gloucester, Peter Smith Publishers,
191. Quoted in
Martyn Percy,
Words, wonders and
power: Understanding contemporary Christian fundamentalism and
revivalism (London, UK: Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, 1996).
Van Kleef,
Gerben A., Christopher
Oveis, Ilmo
van der Löwe, Aleksandr LuoKogan, Jennifer Goetz and Dacher
Keltner. 2008. Power,
distress, and compassion: turning a blind eye to the suffering
of others.
Psychological Sciene: A Journal of the American Psychological
Association 19(12): 1315-22.
|