These next two leadership styles are opposite in many ways, at least in how they function. Both can make things happen, but through entirely different methods.
The underlying practice of transactional leadership is an “I will do this if you will do that” contract between a leader and their followers. It has its roots in the old-school attitude of leaders that employees aren’t inherently self-motivated to do good work, so it is necessary to promise an enticement or punishment to make people want to work hard. This, of course, is the negative approach to what can be a mutually-beneficial arrangement between managers and employees. Modern transactional leaders are goal- and rewards-oriented and results-driven within a reciprocal relational context. They have good negotiation skills and the desire to attain satisfaction on both sides of the employee contract. The setting of objectives and monitoring and controlling outcomes are still part of a positive transactional relationship, but caution must be observed so that followers don’t feel that they are outranked by their leader, even if they are. It’s important that everyone plays by the same rules. In the best-case scenarios, all parties feel that they are a valuable part of the effort that is performed by different, but equal, participants, avoiding what Standish called “social Darwinism,” in which only the strongest deserve to rule.
Transactional leadership can be a positive experience between the pastor and the people who mutually agree to objectives and goals, methods and practices, and rewards for everyone who contributed to the successful collaborative effort. Unfortunately, this type of leadership can fall back into the negative attitudes of its roots when the leader holds a “with rank comes privilege” mindset.
The opposite leadership style is laissez-faire, because the pastor does not overtly instruct others to do as they say. This type of leader uses delegation and hands-off supervision when dealing with staff, lay leaders and volunteers. Though this may be an acceptable style in an established church that has many structures and practices in place, the lead pastor may be considered disengaged and dispassionate. A church can function with a laissez-faire leader for a short time and remain moderately effective; however, for long-term growth, this style of leadership will become too casual an approach and people will fade away as they find another church and leader that they perceive as more exciting.
As stated, both transactional and laissez-faire pastors can make things happen, but often not to the extent that more inspirational and positive styles can achieve. The good thing is that both of these can improve with the addition of the humility factor, as the following impact descriptions provide.
* * *
IMPACT: When the humility factor is added to the leadership style of Laissez-Faire, the humble pastor outcome is that, while keeping their laid-back approach to management, this leader becomes highly relational and quietly serves others on the team. Followers may still desire a more dynamic approach, but will appreciate the fact that their leader cares for them.
IMPACT: When the humility factor is added to the leadership style of Transactional, the humble pastor outcome is that self-awareness and brokenness will provide the leader a gentler approach to achievement. They will still have a contractual approach to leader-follower relations; however, they will manage with greater empathy and a softer touch.
* * *
Please remember to sign up for my email list on my website at www.johnplastow.com and on social media at www.facebook.com/johnrplastow, www.twitter.com/@jplastow, and www.linkedin.com/johnplastow.