lisa anderson um an a study on perspectivism and leadership development 1217999802849593 8

8/8/2019 Lisa Anderson Um an A Study on Perspectivism and Leadership Development 1217999802849593 8

1/60

AN INVESTIGATION INTO PERSPECTIVISM AS IT RELATES TO LEADERSDEVELOPING LEADERS IN CHRISTIAN CAMPING INTERNATIONAL,

LATIN AMERICA

by

Lisa Anderson-Umana

B.S., Penn State University, 1982Master of Arts, Wheaton College Graduate School, 1993

FINAL PROJECT

Submitted to the facultyin partial fulfillment of the requirements for

ME 9250 Leadership Development and Culture, Jim Plueddemannfor the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYEducational Studies

at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Deerfield, IllinoisJuly 2008


2/60


3/60

iii

CONTENTS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Chapter

1. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background of the problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Statement of hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Definition of terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Conceptual assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Scope and delimitations of the study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Stages of perspective or role-taking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Role taking as a part of transformative learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Role-taking cross referenced with the stages of collectivismvs. individualism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Literature related to leaders developing other leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Brief summary of literature reviewed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Instrumentation and procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27


4/60

iv

Methodological assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Data processing and analysis related to perspectivism (questions 1-13) . . 30

Data processing and analysis related toleadership development (questions 14-24) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Limitations to this study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4. RESEARCH FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Summary of research question and methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Summary of findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Observations of the findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Relationship between Stages and leadership development. . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

General Trends noted in the findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Reoccurring themes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Inferences drawn from the observations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Interpretation of findings in relation to theory and review of literature . . . . 39

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Brief summary of Chapters I, II, III, IV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Discussion points for the next Board of Directorsmeeting (Oct. 15-19, 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Further questions for study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50


5/60

v

ILUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. Broader perspective leaders develop more leaders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Image of an ego-centric individualistic perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3. Image of an in-group (family) centric collectivistic perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4. Image of an ethno-centric collectivistic perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

5. Image of a world-centric individualistic/collectivistic perspective . . . . . .. . . . . . 24

6. Sample score for subject Carlos Baca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

7. Leaders develop leaders at each of the Stages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

8. Sigmoid Curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44


6/60

vi

TABLES

Table Page

1. Negative impact of hidden and null curriculum on CCI/LA's leadership image . . 3

2. Characteristics of New Testament servant leadership (Compiled by Chin 2006) . . . . 8

3. Review of Developmental assumptions regarding human development (Crain, 1985) 11

4. Core assumptions as they relate to leadership and its development . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5. Comparison of the stages of role taking, moral reasoning, and cognitive development . . 15

6. Social-cognitive stages (Selman et al. 1983), cross-referenced with the stages ofcollectivism vs. individualism and leadership (Plueddemann 2008 in press) . . . . . 22

7. Some signs that leaders are developing other leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

8. Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

9. Questionnaire used in study of perspectivism and leadership development . . . . . . . 28

10. Time plan of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

11. Summary of answers related to subjects Stage of perspective and number of actionstaken toward developing other leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35


7/60

1

CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM

Statement of problem

We have no direction. We have little clarity in what our roles are, apart

from the instructors, no one really knows what to do. Spoken by a Panamanian member of

the Association of Christian Camping International, Latin America (CCI/LA).

We do not delegate well, we do it all ourselves just to be sure it is done well.

Moreover, we know what we have to do but since we have not made it explicit, we cannot

really delegate the work to others. Spoken by the team of leaders from CCI/LA in Costa

Rica.

We need new leaders, the ones who have been around a while are ready to

take a back seat but there is no one to take our place so we continue to do what we have

always done. Spoken by CCI/LA leaders from Guatemala and El Salvador.

We are experiencing relational problems amongst our instructors causing a

number of them to desert the team. Shared by the President of the CCI/LA National Board

of Directors in Peru.

These comments were made at CCI/LAs Leadership Summit,May 22-25,

2008, where thirty of its core leaders gathered for four days of inspiration and learning. The

author, who serves as one of six full-time staff members concluded : We are the association

leaders but we recognize we have a leadership problem. We are not performing up to our

own standards of leadership, much less are we developing other leaders who do.


8/60

2

Background of the problem

CCI/LA is an association which differs greatly from a business company. An

association is made up of members who voluntarily pay a yearly due to join. Besides

acquiring a sense of belonging, they receive benefits and are able to give shape to the

association by the expertise and contacts they bring to it. Networking and sharing resources

and ideas are among the key benefits. Of the twenty or so CCI associations around the

world, the majority of their leaders are volunteers and the few staff members are often

missionaries who raise their own support because of the inadequacy of dues and charges for

services to sustain paid personnel. The leadership of a business company is top down and

not dependent on the whims and wishes of volunteers to execute their plans (Bruneau 2008).

CCI/LA decentralized in the early 1990s from being one central office run by

two missionaries to forming national offices in various Latin American countries, held

together by volunteers. This created more dependency on its volunteer leaders and weakened

the central office, thus provoking a greater sense of autonomy and independence among the

National Associations. This, in turn, seemed to feed an already nationalistic fervor causing

some to lose sight of the broader perspective of belonging to CCI Latin America as a whole.

In 1992 CCI/LA embarked on a program to form instructors throughout

Mexico, Central and South America (Anderson 1993). The focus has been to create in each

country where CCI/LA operates a team of instructors motivated and equipped to teach its

core curriculum consisting of five workbooks for forming camp counselors, program

directors and Bible study curriculum developers. Fifteen years of work has yielded 167

instructors, who have taught approximately 400 courses, which have trained 8000 some local


9/60

3

Figure 1 Broader perspective leaders develop moreleaders

perspective

Leaders developed

church or para-church leaders, who as a result have programmed Christ-centered camps for

almost one million campers in eleven different countries of Latin America.

Just like every virtue has its shadow side, every curriculum has its unintended

or hidden curriculum which refers to those unintended outcomes of the explicit instructional

agenda. In addition, what CCI/LA has not taught, which Eisner (1994) calls the null

curriculum, has had some negative consequences. Table 1 describes the manner in which

both the hidden and null curriculum have negatively impacted CCI/LAs leadership image.

Table 1 Negative impact of hidden and null curriculum on CCI/LA's leadership image

Unintended outcomes of CCI/LAs

training curriculum described by

quotes from its leaders

Negative impact on CCI/LAs leadership image

We must protect CCI/LAs name,we do not want our brand stolen ormisused.

This attitude hinders the formation of strategic alliances with thosegraduates of courses who started in CCI/LA but have felt led to branchout into other ministries or set up their own camp related ministries.

We know about camping becausewe are graduates of CCI/LAsInstitute for Forming Instructors.

Response of some campsite personnel: You may know the theory but Ilive and breath camping 24/7. CCI/LA cuts itself off from gaining thevaluable expertise of practitioners.

I am ready and equipped to teachcourses, who needs a NationalAssociation anyway?

CCI/LAs explicit curriculum has focused on training trainers so its nullcurriculum has taught its leaders the relative unimportance of astructure to sustain and support the ministry, i.e. a National Association.

The core of CCI/LA is training,that is what we do best.

CCI/LA has focused on its strengthtrainingwhich is but onecomponent of leadership development (McCauley and Van Volser2004). Networking one camp with another is a core part of being an

association and there are plenty of camps in Latin America who arerunning excellent programs who have never heard of CCI/LA.Therefore CCI/LA does not benefit from them nor do they benefit othercamps through the forum for sharing an association creates.

In CCI/LA we have created ourown camping philosophy and modode procederor way of doing things(Lowney 2003).

Unintentionally this reads: If you do not follow our way of doingthings, it is not as good or second best.Camp leaders may feel forced to choose CCI/LAs way or their wayas if it is a choice between good and bad. Many experienced campleaders reject and rebel due to the projected our way or the highwayand therefore may not get involved in CCI/LA which represents a loss oftheir vital input and participation in the association.

Statement of hypothesis

In light of these problems, the

hypothesis to be studied is: Broader perspective

leaders develop more or better leaders (see Figure1).


10/60

4

Definition of terms

Since the hypothesis guides the research to measure perspective horizons and

the effectiveness of leadership development in the context of Latin America, the following

definitions will be understood:

Culture. The anthropological use of the term refers to the collective

programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people

from another (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005, 400). A somewhat broader definition defines

culture as the more or less integrated systems of ideas, feelings, and values and their

associated patterns of behavior and products shared by a group of people who organize and

regulate what they think, feel, and do (Hiebert 1985, 30).

Whenever reference is made to societies collectively, such as Western or LatinAmerican, the author acknowledges that there is substantial diversity within these regionsand that the use of such terms is justified only for convenience. In addition, identification ofcultural differences between societies inevitably runs the risk of overgeneralization, since nogroup of people is completely harmonious and different groups may share commonalities.Yet the definition of culture itself hinges on the recognition of common values and normsthat bind groups of people together, but which at the same time distinguish them from othergroups. Dimmock and Walter 2005, 107.

Anthropologists (Hall 1981), social scientists (House et al. 2005), business

men (Trompenaars and Turner 1997), educators (Dimmock and Walter 2005) and cultural

experts and consultants (Lanier 2000, Sorti 1999) have observed different cultures and

created categories to describe these patterns of thought and behavior. Hofstede cautions one

to remember that explicit cultural dimensions do not exist in and of themselves, they are tools

which help analyze a situation and may or may not bring clarityone should not reify them.

On the other hand, while cultural features may mask finer points of details and difference,

they enable groups of people to gain identity (Dimmock and Walker 2005, 8).


11/60

5

One of these categories or cultural dimensions describes notions of personal

identity on a continuum of individualism/collectivism.

Collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onward are

integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout peoples lifetime continue to

protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005, 399).

The communitarian culture sees the group as its end and improvements to individual

capacities as a means to that end (Trompenaars and Turner 1998, 59).

In-group collectivism Trompenaars and Turner (1998) added the concept of

in-group collectivism by noting that different individuals feel a greater sense of identification

with different groups, for instance, the Japanese identify strongest with the corporation or

institution, the Irish with the Catholic church, and Latin Americans with their family. House

et al. (2004) further elucidate this distinction by awarding separate scores to institutional

collectivism and in-group collectivism. Their studies reveal that most of Latin America and

African countries tend toward in-group collectivism in which there are close ties among

family members, people are concerned with others, are respectful of authority, and have

fewer rules (House et al. 2004, 473); they are family-centric.

Indivdualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals are

loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family

only (Hofstede and Hofstede 2005, 401). The individualist culture sees the individual as

the end and improvements to communal arrangements as the means to achieve it

(Trompenaars and Turner 1998, 59).


12/60

6

Perspective or role taking. The ability to view the world (including the self)

from anothers perspectiveis explicitly social-interpersonal in requiring the ability to infer

anothers capabilities, attributes, expectations, feelings, and potential reactions. However,

taking anothers perspective implies the ability to differentiate the others view from ones

own, and the ability to shift, balance, and evaluate both perceptual and cognitive object input,

all of which is clearly cognitive. Role taking is a prototypical social-cognitive skill (Selman

1971b, 1722) and it occurs in stages. These stages will be further described in Chapter II.

Perspective horizon. Plueddemann (2008, in press) suggests the existence of

stages of individualism and collectivism in relationship to ones perspective or role-taking.

His chapter entitled Cross-cultural leadership dilemmas in emerging missions: Implications

of individualism and collectivism describes how the worldview of leaders develops in phases

as horizons expand from ego-centric individualism, to in-group (family)-centric collectivism,

to ethno-centric collectivism to world-centric collectivism. Plueddemann illustrates how

just as a stone makes ever-widening ripples in a smooth pond, so the horizons of leaders

grow as their perspectives expand (Plueddemann 2008, in press). The author perceives the

broadening of ones perspective horizon as analogous to how Google Earth works. The

satellite camera zooms in to provide a close-up of a person (ego-centric view), then

progressively zooms out to see the house and neighborhood (in-group--family-centric view),

then it zooms out further still to encompass a view of the entire nation (ethno-centric view)

until finally the camera zooms out to reveal the entire globe (world-centric view). Chapter II

contains further description as to the development of worldview in leaders from this

perspective.


13/60

7

Christian Camping International. Known by its initials, CCI is an alliance of

Christian camping associations throughout the world, helping each association to be more

effective in serving its membership of Christ-centered camps, conference and retreat

ministries, to the glory of God and for the building up of his Church. CCI operates through

19 national/regional associations in more than 26 countries around the world (Bolin 2008).

The regional association in charge of serving the interests and members of the Spanish-

speaking countries of the Americas is called CCI/Latin America, abbreviated CCI/LA. The

author serves as a missionary in the role of Director of Leadership Development for the

region of CCI/LA.

National Association. The regional association of CCI/LA encompasses

twenty some countries that make up Mexico, Central and the Spanish-speaking Caribbean

Islands and countries of South America (Brazil has its own CCI association). Where CCI/LA

operates with a distinguishable team of leaders in a given country is called a National

Association.

The second variable of this studys hypothesis relates to leadership and its

development. Given the number of publications that exist on leadership, it would appear that

each author defines leadership in his or her own unique manner. Leadership is an enigma

a puzzle within a puzzle. It has an I know it when I see it feel, yet there is no single,

comprehensive definition that encompasses all divergent views about leadership (House et

al. 2004, 51).

Biblical definition of leader. Table 2 shows the characteristics of New

Testament servant leadership (Compiled by Chin 2006) as compared with GLOBES

culturally implicit theories of leadership (House et al. 2004).


14/60

8

Table 2: Characteristics of New Testament servant leadership (Compiled by Chin 2006)

# Sevenqualificationsfor leadership:

A leader must

Sevenundesirabletraits

A leader must

Five socialqualifications

A leader is

Six spiritualqualifications

The leader

GLOBEs six culturallyimplicit theories of leadership(a study of the relationship ofculture to conceptions ofleadership)

1 Be abovereproach (1 Tim.3:2; Tit. 1:6-7)

Not beaddicted towine (1 Tim.3:3; Tit. 1:7)

To be the husbandof one wife (1 Tim.3:2; Tit. 1:7)

Should love what isgood (Tit. 1:8)

Charismatic/ Value-based:Visionary, inspirational, self-

sacrifice, integrity, decisive,

performance-oriented. (Thiswas the only universallydesirable leadership style).

2 Have a desirefor the office ofelder (1 Tim.3:1)

Notpugnacious (1Tim. 3:3; Tit.1:7)

Able to manage hisown householdwell (1 Tim. 3:4)

Should not be anew convert (1Tim. 3:6)

Team-oriented: Effective team

building and implementation

of common purpose,

diplomatic.

(This was the second mostdesirable leadership style.)

3 Be temperate (1Tim. 3:2; Tit.1:8)

Notcontentious (1Tim. 3:3)

Not to have anychildren who donot believe inChrist (Tit. 1:6)

Must not carry anyobvious prejudiceand should be justbefore God (Tit.1:8)

Participative: Involve others

in decision making and

implementing.

(This style was seen asacceptable in some societiesand not so acceptable inothers.)

4 Be prudent (1Tim. 3:2; Tit.1:8)

Not in lovewith money (1Tim. 3:3)

To be hospitableboth to believersand unbelievers(Tit. 1:8)

Must hold fast thefaithful Word (Tit.1:9)

Humane-oriented: Supportive

and considerate leadership,

compassion, generosity.


5 Be respectable(1 Tim. 3:2)

Not fond ofsordid gain(Tit. 1:7)

To have a goodreputation withthose outside thebelievingcommunity (1 Tim.3:7)

Should be able toteach (1 Tim. 3:2)

Autonomous: Independent andindividualistic leadership.


6 Have self-control (Tit. 1:8)

Not self-willed(Tit. 1:7)

Ensuring safety and security

of leader, self-centered, status

concerned, face saver.

(This style was universallyundesirable.)

7 Be gentle (1Tim. 3:3)

Not quick-tempered (Tit.

1:7)

This series of lists begs to be reread a second in order to answer the question:

Which part of the Biblical definition of a leader differs from what the Bible expects of every

believer? Almost without exception, every characteristic listed is also required of each and


15/60

9

every growing believer. This comparison highlights two of this studys assumptions outlined

in Table four: (1) indispensable need for spiritual formation in the life of a leader and (2)

every Christian can and should be a leader in some sphere of their lives.

After reading the Globe leadership styles, it is odd to imagine that all of these

styles would not be very desirable, that some cultures view with suspicion a leader while

others glamorize and even idolatrize them.

Depending on how one defines leadership determines how one does

leadership development, which in turn informs those leaders how to develop others in a

similar manner.

Leadership. For the purpose of the study good leadership is the spiritual gift

of harmonizing, enhancing and focusing the spiritual gifts of others toward a common vision

of the Kingdom of God (Plueddemann 2003, 1). Components of Plueddemanns definition

coincide with the tasks of leadership as espoused by the Center for Creative Leadership

(McCauley and Van Velsor 2004, 2) which are setting direction (determining the common

vision), creating alignment (harmonizing and enhancing), and maintaining commitment in

groups of people who share common work (focusing).

Absent from this definition is the dominant worldwide assumption that

leaders have the responsibility and power to control people (Plueddemann 2003, 1). Present

in the definition is the notion that people work best with a common vision (Katzenbach and

Smith 2003) and are driven by that vision as Collins discovered in his level five leaders

(Collins 2001).

Leadership development. In the simplest terms, leadership development is the

expansion of a persons capacity to be effective in these leadership tasks, roles and processes.


16/60

10

How is it done? By a creative combination of three factorsassessment, challenge and

support (McCauley and Van Velsor 2004, 2, 3). McCauley and Van Velsor clarify:

These are the elements that combine to make developmental experiences more

powerful. We know that although leaders learn primarily through their experiences,not all experiences are equally developmental. For example, the first year in a newjob is usually more developmental than the fifth or sixth year. Working with a bosswho gives constructive feedback is usually more developmental than working withone who does not. A training program that encourage lots of practice and helpsparticipants examine mistakes is usually more developmental than one that providesinformation but no practice. Situations that stretch an individual and provide bothfeedback and a sense of support are more likely to stimulate leader development thansituations that leave out any of these elements. You can make any experienceatraining program, an assignment, a relationshipricher and more developmental bymaking sure that the elements of assessment, challenge and support are present (2004,

3).

Conceptual assumptions

Developmentalism as a school of thought undergirds this studys concept of

the various stages of perspective or role taking (Selman 2003; Flavell 1968) as well as

leadership development which believes leadership can be taught (Parks 2005; McCauley and

Van Velsor 2004). The approach that leaders can be taught contrasts somewhat with the

more traditional understandings of leadership which focus on personality or trait

characteristics like charisma, task or skill competence, situation analysis, or transactions of

power and influence. Table 3 outlines the core assumptions of developmentalism as they

relate to the stages of perspective or role-taking.


17/60

11

Table 3 Review of Developmental assumptions regarding human development (Crain, 1985)

1 Human beings develop through a series of stages. Each stage is qualitatively different than the otherstages.

2 The stages are structured wholes, in that they are not just isolated responses but are general patterns ofthought that will consistently show up across many different kinds of issues.

3 Development occurs through an invariant (unchangeable) sequence of stages. They do not skip stages or

move through them in mixed-up orders. Not all people necessarily reach the highest stages; they mightlack intellectual stimulation. But to the extent they do go through the stages, they proceed in order, notskipping stages or mixing up the order.

4 Stages can be characterized as hierarchic integrations, like a pyramid in that they build on one another.People do not lose the insights gained at earlier stages, but integrate them into new, broader frameworks.Each stage is a reorganization of, rather than a mere addition to, the previous stage.

5 Stages are cross-cultural universals. In the case of Kohlberg (1968), he contends that although differentcultures do teach different beliefs, his stages refer not to specific beliefs but to underlying modes ofreasoning, which have remained consistent through testing in other cultures. At the same time, people indifferent cultures seem to move through the sequence at different rates and to reach different end-points.

6 Kohlberg says that his stages are not the product of maturation. That is, the stage structures and sequencesdo not simply unfold according to a genetic blueprint; the forward moving sequence is not wired into thegenes.

7 In the case of Kohlberg, he maintains that his stages are not the product of socialization. That is,socializing agents (e.g., parents and teachers) do not directly teach or transfer to another new forms ofthinking.

8 For Kohlberg, the stages of moral reasoning emerge, instead, from our own thinking about moralproblems. Social experiences do promote development, but they do so by stimulating our mentalprocesses. As we get into discussions and debates with others, we find our views questioned andchallenged and are therefore motivated to come up with new, more comprehensive positions. New stagesreflect these broader viewpoints.

9 In stage development, subjects cannot function mentally, socially or reason morally at a stage more thanone stage beyond their own. Stages cannot be skipped.

10 In stage development, movement through the stages is effected when cognitive disequilibrium is created,that is, when a person's cognitive outlook is not adequate to cope with a given moral or social dilemma.For example, in the area of moral reasoning, the person must feel some conflict or indecision over what isthe right or moral action (Selman and Lieberman 1975).

11 In stage development, since individuals are cognitively attracted to reasoning one level above their ownpresent predominant level, exposure to moral reasoning slightly more evolved than his own may facilitatedevelopment to the next stage (Selman and Lieberman 1975).

12 It is quite possible for a human being to be physically mature but not morally, cognitively or sociallymature.

Table 4 outlines the core assumptions as they relate to leadership and its

development.


18/60

12

Table 4: Core assumptions as they relate to leadership and its development

1 Leadership is not learned through classroom instruction, academic institutions or training coursesbyseminars teaching theories of leadership or learning elaborate management techniques; but throughdisequilibrating experiences (see point #10 in Table 3). Most of the time leadership development ispromoted through what educators call disorienting dilemmas (Mezirow and Associates 1990).

2 Leadership is a spiritual gift mentioned in Romans 12:8, meaning to provide for others or to give aid. The

list of spiritual gifts in I Corinthians 12:28 uses the word administration, or guidance or those who getothers to work together, depending on the translation. The Holy Spirit gives all the gifts necessary toprovide leadership for His people. In an important sense, God is the only leader. We are all His servants(Plueddemann 2008, in press).

3 Every person functions as a leader in some sphere of their life. In the course of their lives, most peoplemust take on leadership roles and participate in leadership processes in order to carry out theircommitments to larger social entitiesthe organization in which they work, the social or volunteer groupsof which they are a part, the neighborhood in which they live, and the professional groups with which theyidentify. The person may have a formal role with a title or they may have an informal role. So, ratherthan classify people as leaders or nonleaders and focusing on developing only leaders, theassumption is that all people can learn and grow in ways that make them more effective in the variousroles and processes they take on (McCauley and Van Velsor 2004, 3).

4 The debate on whether people are born leaders or formed misses the point. No doubt, leadership capacityhas its roots partly in genetics, partly in early childhood development, and partly in adult experience. Thepoint is that people can develop the important capacities that facilitate their effectiveness in leadershiproles and processes (McCauley and Van Velsor 2004, 3).

5 Leadership development and personal development are intricately linked. For the Christian, spiritualformation is personal and character development. Willard defines spiritual formation as the processthrough which those who love and trust Jesus Christ effectively take on his character. Becoming Christ-like never occurs without intense and well-informed action on our part(italics his). This in turn cannot bereliably sustained outside of a like-minded fellowship (2006, 80).Therefore, an underlying assumption is that regular, carefully planned and sustained over time spiritualexercises or disciplines are vital to a leaders development, as has been documented by Lowneys (2003)study of the best practices of the 450-year-old company that changed the world (The Jesuits).

6 Leadership is formed in community. As Willards quote points out, how growth in Christlikeness cannotbe reliably sustained outside of a like-minded fellowship, likewise, there can be no leadership without asense of community. Without community, one merely has gifted individualists doing what is right in their

own eyes. Lone Rangers cannot build on the complementary gifts of others (Plueddemann 2003, 1).7 Being a successful leader in one culture does not guarantee that one will be a successful leader in another

culture given the fact that different cultures have special ways of thinking about vision, strategy, thesituation and worldview (Hofstede 2005). Since leadership is not culture free, but rather culturallydefined. Even if one claims that they are teaching a Biblical model of leadership, they may not realizethat the way they read the Bible is already influenced by their cultural theories about leadership(Plueddemann 2008, in press).

Scope and delimitations of the study

The jury is still out on one definitive, universal, ageless model of leadership

development (Bass 1990) so this study is an initial attempt for CCI/LA to put its ear to the

ground to listen to the voices of those currently involved in leading its National Associations

as well as to listen to a selected number of published voices on leadership development. The


19/60

13

focus zooms in on two aspects: (a) the point of view, perspective or role taking of the

CCI/LA leader currently active in the affairs of their National Association and (b) whether or

not they are presently involved in developing the leadership of others.

Such a brief incursion in the expansive field of leadership only wets the

appetite for further investigation. One may be compelled to read any and everything ever

written on leadership in hopes of finding theHoly Grail, but the one best way is a

yearning, not a fact (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner 1998, 14). The image portrayed in

the ancient fable (Saxe 1887) of the six blind men groping different parts of the elephant in

an effort to discover what kind of animal it was illustrates the point that this side of heaven

we still see dimly (1 Corinthians 13:12), so ones search for understanding leadership should

be done with humility and in cooperation with others around the Globe. This study begins

the walk around the proverbial elephant in the hopes of seeing the multiple aspects in need of

improving in CCI/LAs mission to glorify God by linking the ministry of camping with the

work of the local church and para-church ministries to fulfill to Great Commission; training

leaders in camping.

Chapter II reviews the literature relating to the stages of perspective or role-

taking in human development as well as the purported stages of individualism and

collectivism. Chapter II also contains a brief foray into literature related to leadership

development including cross-cultural approaches. Chapter III briefly reviews the methodology

used for the three activities realized with the thirty-two subjects studied. Chapter IV analyzes the data

gathered from their questionnaires and prayer cards and Chapter V ends with conclusions regarding

the veracity of the hypothesis, conclusions and recommendations for CCI/LA.


20/60

14

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter reviews the literature related to the variables of the study:

(1) Perspective or role-taking: Studies done by Selman (1971a, 1971b, 1976, 2003) and

Flavell (1968, 1969) on the stages of perspective or role-taking will be reviewed as well as

Meizrow (1990) and Brookfields (1987) view on perspective transformation.

Plueddemanns (2008 in press) stages of collectivism and individualism as they relate to

perspective-taking will also be outlined.

(2) Leaders developing leaders: Research done by the Center for Creative

Leadership (McCauley and Van Velsor 2004) regarding leadership development will be

reviewed together with several other approaches (Lowney 2003; Plueddemann 2008 ).

Mention will be made of the research related to the cross-cultural nature of leadership

development of Hofstede and Hofstede (2005); Derr et al. (2002); of the Globe Study of 62

Societies (House et al. 2004); Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1998); and Dimmock and

Walker (2005).

The author recognizes the inability to do justice to these voluminous works

given the limited scope of this study. Their inclusion points to the fact that while noHoly

Grail for cross-cultural leadership development exists, nonetheless, substantiated overarching

principles do exist which would be perilous to ignore.

Stages of perspective or role-taking

Flavell (1968) and Selman (1976) have done extensive research in role taking

or taking anothers perspective. Their research identifies role taking to be an age-related


21/60

15

social-cognitive skill that can be observed in an ontogenetic sequence of

stages (Selman, 1971b). The influence of Piaget is apparent in Kohlbergs (1968) and

Flavells (1968) work in formulating a developmental sequence of the childs orientations of

thought relative to some aspect of the social domain, for Kohlberg it was on moral judgment

stages and for Flavell and Selman, it was on role-taking.

Although Kohlbergs research focused on moral reasoning, his findings led

him to strongly emphasize that higher levels of moral thought require the ability to take the

role of another. Stage three and above (i.e. conventional morality) are based in large part on

role taking, or taking the perspective of other people (Selman, 1971a, 81, 88). Selmans

study (1971a) supports this general hypothesis by indicating that reciprocal role taking (a

higher stage of role taking) is a necessary condition for the development of conventional

moral thought.

Cognitive development, moral reasoning and role taking are interrelated.

Table 5 contains a summary of Selmans stages of role taking, Kohlbergs stages of moral

reasoning and Piagets stages of cognitive development.

Table 5: Comparison of the stages of role taking, moral reasoning, and cognitive development

Four Stages of role taking (Selman 1971a,

1971b, 1976, 2003)

Five-six Stages of moral reasoning

(Kohlberg 1968)

Four Stages of cognitive

development (Piaget 1936)

There are no parallel stages in social-cognitive or moral reasoning due to the veryyoung age represented. Piagets first stage, however, does start at birth.

The ages cited are the approximate age of emergence, they show development levelsand not exact time a given level appears.

Stage 1: Sensorimotor (birth to

2 years)

The sensorimotor stage begins birth, and lasts until the child isapproximately two years old. Athis stage, the child cannot form

mental representations of objecthat are outside his immediateview, so his intelligencedevelops through his motorinteractions with hisenvironment.


22/60

16


1971b, 1976, 2003)


(Kohlberg 1968)


development (Piaget 1936)Stage One: Preconventional stage

Obedience and punishment orientation:Might makes rightMotivation is to avoid physicalpunishment and give in to or defer topower. This stage has an egocentricdeference to superior power or prestige,meaning the child assumes thatpowerful authorities hand down a fixedset of rules which he or she mustunquestioningly obey. The mainconcern is with what authorities permitand punish (Crain 1985, 119).

Stage Zero Egocentrism

Egocentrism refers, in part, to the youngchilds (ages two to five years) inability toperform role-taking operations. Role taking

as a skill does not really become functional(accurate) until middle childhood, butwhich shows distinct beginnings as youngas ages three or four. However, this earlyrole taking is rudimentary and inaccurate(Selman 1971b, 1722).One perspective existsnot his oranothers, since he cannot differentiateother viewpoints. The child may have asense of other, but fails to distinguishbetween the thoughts and perceptions ofother and self (Selman 1971b, 1733).Good is what I want. Bad is what I do notwant. (Selman 1976, 313)

Motives or intentions are not relevant orconceived of (Selman 1971a, 82).

Stage OneNonreciprocal role-takingEmerges at roughly ages six to seven.Person is aware that there are motives andintentions of others but cannot project whatthey might be (Selman 1971a, 82, 88).Person may say: I cannot read his mind.But, this level reasoning is immature inthat it goes no farther than understandingthat the others view is different than onesown.

Able to see what he might do for others inorder to win them to his side (Selman1976, 313).The differentiation of selfs and othersviewpoints is made. You are aware othersmay have a different point of view, but it isnot clearly separate from your ownperspective (Selman 1976, 315).Childs sense of self is distinguished fromother, but he fails to see any commonalityof thoughts between self and other (Selman1971b, 1733).

Stage Two: Preconventional stage

Naively egoistic (hedonistic)

orientation.

At this stage children recognize thatthere is not just one right view that is

handed down by the authorities.Different individuals have differentviewpoints (Crain 1985, 120).Interpersonal reciprocity or instrumentalexchange: The EgoistYou do for me, Ill do for you orYou scratch my back, Ill scratchyours.Justice is an eye for an eye, asvengeance is considered a moral duty.

Stage Two: Preoperational (2 t

6/7 years)

The preoperational stagetypically lasts until the child is

six or seven. According toPiaget, this is the stage wheretrue "thought" emerges.Preoperational children are ableto make mental representationsof unseen objects, but theycannot use deductive reasoning

At this age, according to Piagetchildren acquire representationskills in the areas mentalimagery, and especiallylanguage. They are very self-oriented, and have an egocentri

view; that is, preoperationalchldren can use theserepresentational skills only toview the world from their ownperspective (Dawson andMedler).

Stage Two Self reflective role taking

By approximately ages eight to eleven,most children are capable of articulating asecond reflective level that includes anunderstanding both that the self as subjectcan look inward in a self-reflective manneron psychological events (feelings,thoughts, motives) and that humansinteract on the basis of their capacity forrealizing the reciprocity of shared

Stage Three: Conventional stage,

Good-boy orientation.Orientation to approval and to pleasingand helping others, often called theTyranny of the They.Age range: Usually entering into teenyears, most people end up here with theacceptance of the rules and standards ofones group.There is a shift from unquestioning

Stage Three: Concrete

operations (6/7 to 11/12 years)The concrete operations stagefollows, and lasts until the childis eleven or twelve. Concreteoperational children are able touse deductive reasoning,demonstrate conservation ofnumber, and can differentiatetheir perspective from that of


23/60

17


1971b, 1976, 2003)


(Kohlberg 1968)



Stage Two Self reflective role taking

(cont.)

knowledge or subjective experiences

between persons (Selman, et. al. 1983,82).The actor can attribute a solution to theother by using her own ability to putherself in a hypothetical situation. Sheprogresses to inferring what the othersview is by imagining what her own wouldbe under the others circumstances(Selman 1971b, 1730).Child attributes his own ideas to otherbecause he hypothetically puts himself inothers position, but sees other as havinginterests similar to his own (Selman 1971b,1733).

Flavell (1968) noted a shift between ages8-10 toward a progressively less egocentricview and towards a progressively greaterability to use role-taking skills in solvinginteractional problems. However, Selmannotes that this stage, although moreintegrated and complex than the previouslevels, it is still egocentric in the sense thatthe child does not really account for the

particularothers different perspectivethat is, the child naively assumes othersthoughts to be the same as his own would

be if he were in the others situation(Selman 1971b, 1733).

Stage Three: Conventional stage,

Good-boy orientation (cont.)

obedience to a relativistic outlook and to

a concern for good motives. Theybelieve that people should live up to theexpectations of the family andcommunity and behave in "good" ways.Good behavior means having goodmotives and interpersonal feelings suchas love, empathy, trust, and concern forothers (Crain 1985, 122).Right is conformity to the stereotypicalbehavioral, values, expectations of onessociety or peer.

Stage Three: Concrete

operations (6/7 to 11/12 years)

(cont.)

other people.

As opposed to Preoperationalchildren, children in the concreoperations stage are able to takanother's point of view and takeinto account more than oneperspective simultaneously.They can also representtransformations as well as statisituations. Although they canunderstand concrete problems,Piaget would argue that theycannot yet perform on abstract

problems, and that they do notconsider all of the logicallypossible outcomes (Dawson anMedler).

Stage Three Mutual or reciprocal role

taking

Emerges at roughly ages twelve tofourteen.Child is aware that other has perspectivesbased on her own reasoning which may ormay not be similar to her own. She canweigh the perspective of self and of others(Selman 1976, 315).

The actor can infer the others choice by

imagining what the others point of viewis, but he further indicates an awarenessthat the other may make his choice on thebasis of other factors like personality,hypothesized trickery, or othercharacteristics of the situation himself isunaware of. Whereas at Stage 1, the actorsays he is unable to know what the otherwill choose, at Stage 3, the actor implies

Stage Four: Conventional stage, Law

and order: The Good Citizen

Authority and social-order-maintainingorientation: Orientation to doing dutyand to showing respect for authority andmaintaining the given social order for itsown sake (Selman 1971a, 80).The person makes a moral decisionfrom the broader perspective of thesociety as a whole. Stage 1 answers mayconcur with Stage 4s, but the reasoning

behind their answers differs greatly.Regarding the famous Heinz moraldilemma, they both say its wrong tosteal. Stage 1 reasons it is wrongbecause stealing can get a person jailed,whereas, Stage 4 respondents, in contrast,have a conception of the function of lawsfor society as a whole--a conception whichfar exceeds the grasp of the youngerchild (Crain 1985, 121).

Stage Four: Formal operations

(11/12 to adult)

Formal operations is the finalstage. Its most salient feature isthe ability to think abstractly.

Children who attain the formaloperation stage are capable ofthinking logically and abstractlThey can also reasontheoretically. Piaget considered

this the ultimate stage ofdevelopment, and stated thatalthough the children would stihave to revise their knowledgebase, their way of thinking wasas powerful as it would get.It is now thought that not everychild reaches the formaloperation stage.


24/60

18


1971b, 1976, 2003)


(Kohlberg 1968)



Stage Three Mutual or reciprocal roletaking (cont.)

that his hesitation in making an attribution

is not due to a general inability to imputeanother persons thoughts and feelings, butis due rather both to his inaccuracy as arole taker and to the presence of variousunknown influences (Selman 1971b,1731).

Reciprocal role taking is the realizationthat others are making judgments on thebasis of his own actions and intentions ashe is on the basis of his own cognizance ofothers intentions and actions (Selman1971a, 90).

Development of reciprocal role-takingability implies an increasingly accurateperception of what another will do in agiven situation, and specifically of howones own actions will affect the attitude ofanother toward oneself (Selman 1971a,80).

Stage Five: Postconventional or

principled morality stage

Social Contract and Individual Rights:

Few reach this stage, most not prior to

middle age.At stage 5, people begin to tend totheorize, asking questions like: "Whatmakes for a good society?" They stepback from their own society andconsider the rights and values that asociety ought to uphold.Stage 5 respondents basically believethat a good society is best conceived asa social contract into which peoplefreely enter to work toward the benefitof all. They recognize that differentsocial groups within a society will havedifferent values, but they believe that all

rational people would agree on twopoints. First they would all want certainbasic rights, such as liberty and life, tobe protected. Second, they would wantsome democratic procedures forchanging unfair law and for improvingsociety (Crain, 1985).

Stage Four Third-person and

generalized other level role taking

Emerges at roughly ages fifteen toeighteen.

Selman (2003) describes the person as

being able to understand his or her ownperspective in the context of multipleperspectives.Socially the person displays interdependentsharing of vulnerabilities and self-identities. Their social perspective isintimate, in-depth and societal.

Stage Six: Postconventional stage

Conscience or Universal principle

orientation:

Stage 6 individuals are rare, likeMohandas Gandhi, Jesus of Nazareth,Gautamo Buddha, Martin Luther King,

Jr.They define the principles by whichagreement will be most just. Only whenan individual right is clearly at stakedoes violating the law seem justified,which would form the rationale for civildisobedience.However, in his latter years, Kohlbergdeemed this stage more theoretical andhas dropped stage 6 from his scoringmanual (Crain 1985).

Stage Four: Formal operations

(11/12 to adult) (cont.)

Developmental psychologists

also debate whether children dogo through the stages in the wathat Piaget postulated. WhetherPiaget was correct or not,however, it is safe to say thatthis theory of cognitivedevelopment has had atremendous influence on allmodern developmentalpsychologists (Dawson andMedler)

Given the relationship of Selmans work with social awareness and

perspective-taking, additional attention will be given to integrate it with other theoretical

constructs.


25/60

19

Role taking as a part of transformative learning

Reflection on ones own premises can lead to transformative learning

(Mezirow and Associates 1990, 19). Selmans Stage Two is self-reflective in nature, and

Mezirow and Associates put forward that by far the most significant learning experiences in

adulthood involve critical self-reflectionreassessing the way we have posed problems and

reassessing our own orientation to perceiving, knowing, believing, feeling, and acting

(1990, 13). One might suppose that only Stage Two is necessary for transformative learning

to occur within the individual. However, transformative learning also speaks of meaning

schemes and meaning perspectives which take into account the richness and growth

provoked by interacting with others, which then presupposes adults to be at formal cognitive

operations as well as Selmans Stage Three reciprocal role-taking.

Critical reflection, as defined by Brookfield (1987) requires the individual to

be in Stage Two if not Stage Three of role taking.

The development of critical thinking in adult learners is the developing of anawareness of the assumptions under which we (and others) think and act. Criticalthinking comprises two interrelated processes:1. Identifying and challenging assumptions2. Imagining and exploring alternatives(Brookfield 1987, ix).

When Mezirow speaks of perspective transformation, he shares Brookfields

definition of critical thinking with the addition of an action component. He insists on the

individual acting on the new perspectives gained in order for transformative learning to

occur. Likewise in the arena of social development, there is an intricate interplay between

social understanding and social behavior (action). Selman quotes Piaget (1978) who pointed

out that knowledge must occur on the plane of action before a child can fully understand

any social or logical concept on the plane of conscious thought and reflect on it (Selman


26/60

20

1983, 99). Flavell and Wohlwill (1969) argue that concepts are constructed as the child puts

them into practice. The role of acting on new perspectives gained through self and other

reflections appear to play a pivotal role in learning both for the child and the adult.

It is not enough to just perceive another perspective or role. In order to fully

apprehend it, action must be taken, either to act in compliance with this new perspective or

react against it. Meek (2003), in her description of knowing uses the term laying out as

when you fling yourself out to grasp a frisbee. To really know in Polanyis (1966) tacit

model of knowledge, requires tacitly connecting thefrom (i.e. the broader perspective

acquired) and that to which one attends (i.e. a leadership decision or action).

Role-taking cross referenced with the stages of collectivism vs. individualism

The studys hypothesis is that the more developed leaders are in their

perspective (moving from ego-centric, to in-group (family)--centric, to ethno-centric, finally

to world-centric), the more and better they develop other leaders. The previous and

following Tables should be read with that Selman, et al.s warning in mind.

Its one thing to have the theoretical constructs all neatly laid out in a developmentalhierarchical manner but behavior in real life is not as qualitative and distinct as itappears on paper. It should be remembered that although the use of the theoreticalconstruct of developmental levels paints a picture of behavior as qualitative anddistinct, this is a theoretical simplification (Selman 1983, 98).

Selmans et al. (1983) research on role-taking include an analysis of how

children get what they want at each stage through what he calls negotiation strategies. The

individuals communicative competence and their negotiation strategies pursuant to a task in

a natural setting were assessed and related to a certain stage of role-taking. How a leader

gets things donefor example, pushing versus demanding versus asking politely,

negotiation strategies (social behavior) relates to their level of social-cognitive


27/60

21

understanding. Through listening to what a leader says, one could identify what level of

social understanding or perspective taking they are at. For example, if one heard speech

demonstrating their ability to step back and take a second-person perspective of their own

subjective experiences and objective behavior, as well as an ability to articulate an

understanding of reciprocity of thoughts, feelings, and expectations between persons, one

could infer they were at least at Stage Two (Selman, et. al. 1983, 84, 88).

Table 6 lays out in column one Selmans research results from studying the

negotiation strategies of children at each stage of role-taking, parallel to that in column two

are Pluedemanns (2008 in press) stages of individualism and collectivism, and column three

contains Plueddemanns corresponding implications for leadership


28/60

22

Table 6: Social-cognitive stages (Selman et al. 1983), cross-referenced with the stages of collectivism vs.

individualism and leadership (Plueddemann 2008 in press. Used by permission.)

Levels of negotiation

strategies related to the

stages of social-cognitive

development (role taking)

Cultural variables (Stage of

perspectivism) (individualism vs.

collectivism)

How a leader may lead

Negotiation strategies atStage ZeroEgocentric

Strategies express theactors raw will in asituation. They do notindicate that he or she isat all reflective aboutwhat he or she says ordoes. Neither does he orshe reflect on the otherspoint of view.He is unable to see theperspective of hisfollowers, the only point

of view that exists is hisown. He leads to get whatis good for him and willnot lead unless there ispersonal benefit.Followers are meant to dothings for him, to be niceto him, to do as he says(Selman, 1976, 314).

Ego-centric individualism

The size of the ripple-circle for anew-born baby is extremelysmall. The whole universe istied up in the egocentric,existential here-and-now. SinceGod intended for babies to beegocentric, one does not blamethem for being narrowlyindividualistic, a perfectlynormal stage of development.Immaturity is not a problem forbabies, but will become a serious

challenge if individualsexperience no personaldevelopment, they may get stuckin egocentricism.

Ego-centric individualism

Leaders at this stage assume that the organizationexists for their benefit. While appropriate for an infant,it will always lead to strife when found in adult leaders.They may claim to be servant leaders, but in fact theyserve others for their own selfish ends. In John 10 Jesusdescribed bad shepherds as those who abandon thesheep when the wolf comes because they care nothingfor the sheep. It seems that many shepherds are notgood leaders because they primarily care forthemselves. As ego-centric leaders climb the ladder ofsuccess, they often climb over or dislodge others on theladder.

At this stage, why they may not develop the leadership

of others:They do not have time to develop others except if itbehooves them. They can get what they need done bythemselves and see no need to delegate, besides, theyare convinced they can a better job themselves.

Negotiation strategies at

Stage OneNon-

reciprocal role-taking

Strategies express a one-way understanding ofnegotiated interaction inthat mostly they expressonly the actors needs orwishes in the situationwithout reference orinquiry about the needs orwishes of others. There isa tacit or explicit one-wayrelation with authorityinsofar as the adults orauthoritys point of view

defines the situation forthe actor.

In-group (family)--centric

collectivism

Children begin to see the worldthrough the eyes of parents,siblings, grandparents and othersin the household. The ripples inthe pond of their worldviewexpand outward to include boththe nuclear and extendedfamilies. As children learn theyare not the center of theuniverse, their egocentricismdevelops into a broaderfamily-centric perspective. Theindividualism of babyhood

moves into a narrowcollectivism of the in-group orfamily.

In-group (family)--centric collectivism

While family-centric leadership is an improvement

over ego-centric, the limitations become evidentthrough the us versus them mentality. Pastors seekto grow their little church through competition withother churches. A youth pastor may have a passion forthe youth in the church, but not have a vision for howthe youth ministry fits into the broader vision of thewhole church. In missions organizations, turfprotection, or the desire to see ones own departmentor committee gain resources to the detriment of otherdepartments is all too common. Leaders seekadvantage for their circle even if this means hurting thelarger organization.

At this stage, why they may not develop the leadershipof others:

They all have too many commitments as it is. They arepreoccupied dealing with their own concerns todevelop outside leaders. Besides, there are plenty oftheir in-group leaders to get things done. Moreover,they tend not to trust those outside the family or in-group.


29/60

23







collectivism)



Stage TwoSelf-

reflective role-takingStrategies demonstratethat the actor has anawareness of otherindividuals as having theirplans, opinions, feelings,and behaviors that impacton those of the self. Thisincludes strategies thatfind out what others wantto do, communicatingwhat the self wants in anonbinding manner. Also,this level describes ways

of working together andattending to others needsand wishes, working withothers to achieve onesown objectives.When the issue regardstheir family interests, theyoperate at a higher levelof moral reasoning. But, ifthe issue does not pertainto their social group, theyuse an instrumentalorientation.

Ethno-centric collectivism

The horizons of young teensgrow ever wider to include peersoutside their familyotherfamilies, neighbors, distantrelatives and those inneighboring towns.In-group(family)--centric collectivism

expands into ethno-centricism ,the viewpoint that all the peopleone knows are the center of theuniverse. An ethnocentricviewpoint is broader than afamily or ego-centered universe.One might suspect that most

collectivistic societies areethnocentric. There are probablylevels of ethnocentricism,moving from the narrowcollectivism of ones family, to

ones village, to ones clan, toones state, to ones country, toones race. There may bedozens of ever-expandingethnocentric circles as theripples in the pond expandoutward, or as the Google Earthcamerazooms out (see Figures

2-5).

Ethno-centric collectivism

The ethnocentric leader has a much broader perspectivethan theIn-group (family)--centric collectivismleader. A pastor may see the church as one of the manyin the community and seek the good of the wholedenomination. They may form alliances with churchesin the community and become interested in globalpartnerships. The ethnocentric leader has severelimitations though. If these pastors seek to reach out tothe rest of the world, they will do so from theperspective of the leadership values of their ownculture and assume that what they have learned aboutsuccessful churches will apply to all cultures. Thisattitude can cause tensions with global church-to-church partnerships, with each pastor thinking their

cultural values are universal. The ethnocentric pastorof a mega-church in one culture may assume that theirprinciples of success are effective in any culture.The danger of collectivism is that it inevitably createsan usthem mentality. One treats people in theircircle with respect and care, but those outside the circleare often the enemy deserving of being cheated andoppressed.

At this stage, why they may not develop the leadership

of others:

They are a world unto themselves, promotingleadership only as it benefits the good of their

denomination or organization, assuming the rest of theworld can learn from their successes.


Stage Three: Mutual or

reciprocal role-takingStrategies includenegotiations that expressan awareness of thecomplexity of the actualinteraction process and ofthe individuals owntheory of interaction in anatural setting. There is

an explicit awareness ofgroup processes and ofmultiple levels ofmeaning in thecommunication process.

World-centric or Theo-centric

It is not possible for merehumans to see all the people ofthe world as God sees them, butone can try.John 3:16 For God so loved theworld Gods horizonsincorporate individuals, families,and all nations in a world-centriccollectivism which avoids theus versus them mentalitythe

temptation to love our friendsand hate our enemies. It ishumanly impossible for meremortals to obey the commandsof Jesus and love ones enemies.


To see the world from Gods perspective is theo-centric collectivism. Because Theo-centric collectivismis uncommon, the leader who begins to see the worldfrom this perspective might seem like an individualistgoing against the crowd. But the person would be a

principle-centered individualist-collectivist, not an ego-centric individualist,.

Leadership development at this stage:

The world-centric leader will look out for the good ofthe individual, family, clan and nation, but in thecontext of seeing the bigger picture. From a biblicalperspective the world-centric leader will see fleetingglimpses of the world from Gods perspective andapproach a theo-centric perspective. The theo-centricleader will care for individuals and seek the good of


30/60

24







collectivism)



Stage Four Third-

person and generalizedother level role-taking

Interpersonal negotiationstrategies are acollaborative integrationof relationship dynamics,involving commitment.


their organization, but not at the expense of hurtingother groups.

This level of reasoning and leading no doubt takingdivine intervention, as one is almost like a prophet,indeed, the person no doubt, operates at Kohlbergslevel five or six in their moral reasoning.

Figure 2 Ego-centric individualist perspective. Figure 4 Ethno-centric collectivistic perspective.

Figure 3 In-group centric collectivistic perspective. Figure 5 World-centric individualist/collectivistic

perspective.


31/60

25

Literature related to leaders developing other leaders

What are the signs that a leader is developing other leaders? This relates to

the second variable of this studys hypothesis: Broader perspective leaders develop more or

better leaders. This question serves as a filter for selecting salient points from the

publications chosen by the author. A disclaimer is merited at this point. Given the sheer

volume of books and articles available in electronic form and in printed form on the subject

of leadership and given the narrow scope of this study, only a random sampling of

publications were chosen by the author.

In order not to ignore the substantiated, overarching principles of leadership

development that do exist and to inform the author as to what to look for in the data gathered

from CCI/LAs leaders, Table 7 contains clear signs that will indicate leaders are developing

other leaders.

Table 7 Some signs that leaders are developing other leaders

# What are the signs that a leader is developing other leaders? 1 The leader meets regularly with them for purposes of growth.

While mentoring and modeling came in different styles and forms, it remained the most significantleadership development influence expressed by the leaders. Formal education was seen as valuable by theleaders, yet the informal and relational aspects of mentoring provided powerful living examples ofministry from which to learn. Due to the personal impact of mentors in their own lives, most leadersexpressed their own commitment to mentoring, as many have intentionally sought to reinvest their owntraining into the lives of others (Information gleaned from 15 ethnographic interviews of culturally diverseChristian leaders, Smith 1999, 32).

2 A leader identifies and unlocks others latent leadership potential.It is a lesson of experience that all men are more delighted and more moved by what they find out forthemselves. Hence, it will suffice just to point, as with the finger, to the vein in the mine, and let each onedig for himself (Lowney 2003, 287).

3 A leader with a multi-cultural view encourages other leaders to shed their cultural baggage that arekeeping them in cultural shackles.

For Latin Americans, author Soza 1998, points to the residuals of passivity and underachievement left bythe Spanish conquistadores. Using other imagery, Bentley (2002) advocates Latin American leaders doinghonest appraisal in order to shed ones own cultural wineskins that hinder using the new wine skins in orderto operate successfully in todays new globalized economy (Friedman 2005).

4 A leader expands the worldwide horizons of those being developed.Many leaders mentioned exposure to different cultural contexts and worldviews as a key component oftheir personal leadership development. Not only does cultural exposure expand leaders vision of God,


32/60

26

but it also teaches them to ask different and more relevant questions while stretching and burdening theirhearts for peoples not their own. Leaders noted that such cultural exposure contributed towards theirministry vision formation, helped them develop personal independence as well as dependence on God andothers, and taught them new ways of thinking and leading (Information gleaned from 15 ethnographicinterviews of culturally diverse Christian leaders, Smith 1999, 32).

5 The leader prompts their fellow leader to progressively greater degrees of self-awareness, recognizing that

one reaches outward from ones center, so caring for the center (ones self) is a core aspect of leaderformation. For the Christian, Christ in us is our hope of glory. Although filled with sin and deceit, Godchooses to dwell within the unique individual he created. Self-awareness for the Christian holds theparadox of discovering both the depths of ones self-deception and the heights of ones dignity and worth,as one made in the image of God. The Arbinger Institute (2002) pinpoints the destructive effect of self-deception and betrayal on the leaders life. Self-assessment is one of the three cornerstones of the Centerfor Creative Leaderships (2004) approaches to leader development. The 450-year Company of Jesus(JesuitsLowney 2003) started their leadership training with thirty-days of intensive spiritual exercisesdesigned among other things to foster self-awareness of ones weakness, strengths, values and worldview.Two thousand years of church history show the utter necessity of incorporating the spiritual disciplines intothe life of a leader who leads outward from the center (Willard 2006). So, a sure sign that a leader isenhancing the leadership of another is the prompting the incorporation of spiritual disciplines in their lives.

6 A leader guides another to critically reflect on lifes experiences and grasp the value of that practice.The underlying assumption is that every experience, good and bad, is a gift from God, brimming withlessons and significance if one is willing to shift through them like a miner searching for gold.

Brief summary of literature reviewed

Chapter II contains an overview of literature related to the stages of role-

taking, the stages of individualism/collectivism as they relate to leadership and leadership

development and a brief list of signs that would indicate that a leader is developing the

leadership of others.


33/60

27

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Subjects

The subjects were thirty-two Christian Camping International, Latin America

leaders, representative of eight National Associations in addition to the Central Office. All

the subjects are graduates from at least one or more of the training courses CCI/LA offers.

Twenty of the thirty-two are recognized instructors, graduates of CCI/LAs Institute for

Forming Instructors. These thirty-two people make up approximately half of the active

leaders in CCI/LA. The remaining twenty to thirty national leaders were unable to attend for

various reasons, like financial constraints, inability to be free from responsibilities both at

work and at home, and for some, lack of interest. Table 8 provides further details of the

thirty-two subjects.

Table 8: Subjects

Totalnumber Gender Age ranges Number of yearsinvolved with CCI/LA Countries represented

16 females 1 - 20-25 years 2 - 0-1 year 8 - Honduras 6 - Costa Rica

16 males 8 - 26-35 years 4 - 2-4 years 5 - Mexico 1 - Peru

17 - 36-50years

5 - 5-10 years 5 - El Salvador

6 - 51+ years 16 - 11-20 years 2 - Guatemala

32

5 - 21+ years 5 - Panama

Instrumentation and procedure

At CCI/LAs Leadership Summit,May 22-25, 2008, thirty-two of its top

leaders gathered for four days. On the second evening of the assembly, the author applied a

pen and paper questionnaire found in Table 9.


34/60

28

Questionnaire regarding CCI AL and its leaders

Leadership Summit III, May, 2008

Complete name: Country: Age: Gender:

Length in years of your active involvement with CCI AL: Church

Your specific involvement with your NationalAssociation:

Your responsibilities with your church:

Table 9: Questionnaire used in study of perspectivism and leadership development .

1. If someone asked you to write your vision of camping, what would you write?

2. If you went to live in another country, what factors would you look for in the church you attend?

3. If someone gave you $50,000USD with no strings attached, how would you spend it?

4. If you did not have to have a job, how would you use your time?

5. If you have children or nieces/nephews, what are your greatest aspirations for them?

6. If you could solve the most pressing problems in your country, which problems would you tackle andhow would you proceed to solve them?

7. What do you do for fun on a regular basis?

8. What movies have you liked? And why do you like them?

9. What books have you read lately?

10. Where have you traveled to and why?

11. What stories are you currently following in the news?

12. What do you watch on T.V. with certain regularity?

13. On the basis of what criteria will you vote for the president?

14. Are you writing something to inform or educate others?

15. How many books have you loaned or shared with others? To who? What are the books about?

16. How many people are in your email address book (approx.)?

17. How many people are in your cell phone directory (approx.)?

18. What computer/internet programs do you have and use to communicate with others?

19. Do you meet regularly with anyone or with a group of people? Who are they?

20. How would you define the purpose of your meeting together?

21. Do you sense that anyone intentionally meets or interacts with you on a regular basis? Who is it?

22. What would you consider his or her purpose to be in meeting with you?

23. If you were to purposefully develop the leadership of someone, who would that be?

24. For what purpose or goal would you develop their leadership?


35/60

29

The entire group of thirty-two participants gathered in a large room and for

ninety minutes realized two activities.

Activity One: A four by six inch card was given to each participant. They

were asked to write out a prayer, to pray for whatever was on their heart and mind; no further

indications were given, even though more instructions were solicited. After all were finished

writing, the cards were collected and set aside.

Activity Two: A two-page legal size paper questionnaire was handed out to

each individual. They were given as much time as they needed to complete the twenty-four

questions. Questions one through thirteen attempt to determine the stage of the subjects

perspectivism. Questions fourteen through twenty-four attempt to ascertain the subjects

concrete actions related to leadership development.

Table 10 indicates the time line for the research activities connected with the

study.

Table 10: Time plan of research

April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008

Hypothesis formed,methodology created

XQuestionnairesapplied, data gathered

XData finding analyzed XFinal paper writtenand conclusions drawn

X

Methodological assumptions

Unobtrusive methods were used to investigate the veracity of the hypothesis,

which was to measure the perspective horizons of the leaders currently serving in CCI/LA

and to measure their effectiveness in leadership development.


36/60

30

Webb et al. (1966) outlines three sources for unobtrusive measures for

nonreactive research: (1) physical traces; (2) archives; (3) direct but unobtrusive

observations. This study employs a type of direct but unobtrusive observations. The

questionnaire attempts to connect apparently unrelated sources of information in order to

discover insights into the breadth of their perspective and ascertain whether or not they were

intentionally or unintentionally developing the leadership of others.

These measures were intended to cause as little reaction in the subjects as

possible. These leaders know the author well, some for as long as 10-15 years, many are

close friends. In the Latin American culture the friendship factor might create a dynamic

whereby in their desire to please, they would try to guess what answer is being sought and

then try to provide it.

The other reason an indirect approach was chosen is due to the difficulty of

answering questions like: How broad are your perspectives? How would one expect a leader

to respond without skewing their very answer as the subject would naturally want to appear

as broad-minded as possible? Or, how effective are you at developing leaders? Asking

such direct questions would require far too much explanation to fully understand what

exactly is being inquired, which in turn, would tend to condition their answers as well.

Data processing and analysis related to perspectivism (questions 1-13)

The author read the questionnaires twice. The first reading consisted of

reading each persons questionnaire from start to finish, taking note of general trends and just

getting a general feel for the data. The second reading entailed taking one questionnaire in

hand and for questions one through thirteen placing a code beside the answer for each

question according the following criteria:


37/60

31

Figure 2 Sample score for subject Carlos Baca.

Subject: Carlos BacaWorld-Theo

individualistcollectivism

Ethno-centricismcollectivism

In-group-(Family)-centriccollectivismP

ers

pective

Ego-centricindividualism

1 2 3 4 5

Key actions taken

Egocentric individualism stage: The answer focuses on ones personal benefit. In-group-family-centric collectivistic stage: The answer shows an interest or intentionto benefit the group of people with whom they most identify, ie. Extended family, orchurch, immediate work.

Ethno-centric collectivism stage: The answer showed a broader outward focus, a

reaching out to benefit a larger group like their denomination, region or nation. World-centric or Theo-centric individualism-collectivism stage: The answerdemonstrates an equal portion of attention towards the individuals needs or concerns aswell as the bigger world-wide picture.

Data processing and analysis related to leadership development (questions 14-24)

Just like for the first series of questions, the author read the questionnaires

twice. The first reading consisted of reading each persons questionnaire from start to finish,

taking note of general trends and just getting a general feel for the data. The second reading

entailed taking one questionnaire in hand and for questions fourteen through twenty-four

placing a code beside the answer for each question according the criteria of the number of

actions taken in pro of leadership development. The focus of the criteria is establishing

whether the individual is taking any concrete action towards (a) being discipled or developed

as a leader and (b) developing leaders.

The questions are designed to discover five key actions.

1. Meeting with mentors.2. Meeting with disciples or potential leaders.3. Sharing written resources.4. Writing resources for others benefits.5. Efforts to be in communication with others.

An average score regarding their

appropriate stage of perspectivism was

estimated for each subject along with the

number of concrete actions they take. If the

score were to be plotted on the figure used to

illustrate the hypothesis, it would look like Figure 6: Sample score for subject Carlos Baca.


38/60

32

Limitations to this study

It is impossible to sort out all the factors that contribute to leaders developing

leaders, role taking (perspectivism) may well be only one of many contributing factors. In

addition, it is impossible to isolate and test just role taking. Selman et al. (1983) himself used

a combination of methods like reflective one-to-one int

lisa anderson um an a study on perspectivism and leadership development 1217999802849593 8

Documents