Expected Outcomes #
It is expected that there will be difficulty finding qualified participants in this study. There are two groups necessary to conduct the research. Group a) are the leaders. Their profile will be that of 1) ordained ministers who 2) own a smartphone (or similar technology); 3) have an interest in participating in the research; 4) are willing to undergo training necessary to implement the smart transformational discipleship model; and 5) are willing to pursue candidates as disciples. Group b) are participants 1) interested in being disciples; 2) own a smartphone (or similar technology); 3) interested in participating in the research.
However, it is still realistic to believe that these criteria can be meet. I say this because I serve as the president of a professional ministerial association. Our membership is more than 16,000 ministers. Additionally, it is the purpose of ministers to fulfill the great commission, which is to go and make disciples (Matthew 28:19).
Scheduling is sure to be an issue for some. The participants and the ministers will have to make time for their interactions. While this may seem like a task, it is still very possible to accomplish. This is because interactions are to be not less than ten minutes, but not more than twenty. Ten minutes will be closer to the average, with twenty being the exception. Taking ten minutes out of twenty-four hours to devote to personal enrichment is not very much to ask. Nevertheless, it will require commitment.
There are likely to also be some who start out with positive intentions to participate but will not be able to complete the project because of unforeseen circumstances. These may be due to personal, health, work, or technological issues. An exit survey should be used to collect data on those who fall into this category. By so doing, these circumstances can be factored into the overall results of the survey responses.
Similarly, I anticipate that there will be some who initially agree to participate but find that their expectations are not met. There is a plethora of reasons this may occur. Because expectations are the results of individual perceptions, subjective experiences, attention, and interpretation of meanings, it is not possible to list all of the possibilities. However, there are a few which seem most probable. 1) A complete misunderstanding of the meaning of discipleship. 2) Not realizing that participation is synchronous via smartphones. 3) Participants not keeping the rule to make the sessions focused on nothing else but God and interaction with their minister –in other words, participants may be tempted to multitask.
These possible outcomes will be anticipated. The ministers will seek to minimize these negative possibilities from the beginning. Additionally, questions about the understanding of these expectations will be structured in the initial survey of participants. Also in the concluding survey, participants will be asked if any of these issues occurred during their participation. These results will also be considered with the analysis of the data and compared/contrasted with/against the overall results of the Likert scale.
Other potential obstacles may arise from nonresponses, which are described as participants not responding to the final survey. These may be categorized into two failures to act: 1) nonresponse nonresponses to one or more questions on the survey; or 2) nonresponse to the entire survey (Groves et al., 2009).
Chapter 5: Discussion #
When applying leadership to a situation it is necessary to consider the 1) desired outcome; and 2) the context in which it will be initiated. This purpose of this study is to implement the principles of transformational theory (specifically the four I’s) to a worship focused discipleship model, aimed at utilizing smart phones as a replacement to face to face communication. Specifically, this research seeks to determine if transformational leadership can be effectively applied via these channels to develop meaningful discipleship relations. This objective will be considered successful if respondents find that their experiences led them to deeper commitments to God.
I have been experimenting with this concept since February of 2014. I have seven people participating regularly in “worship sessions”, three of which engage daily. So far, my observations have been favorable. I anticipate that this study will also result in favorable outcomes. One reason is simply because church attendance is declining at a slow but constant rate. At present, only 5% of Americans claim to attend weekly services with regularity (Lipka, 2013). This decline does not seem to be an indication of a loss of faith, or interest in God because 79.5% of the US population still identify themselves as Christians (Hackett & Grim, 2011). My explanation is that people need churches to meet them on new terms.
From the literature review it is established that mobile technology is being embraced globally, with 83% even using smart phones or tablets to access the Internet. Further, 96% of US citizens claim to have regular access to cell phones (Blumberg & Luke, 2011). I find this true even from personal observations in ministry. Recently, I discovered a small group of homeless people who live under a bridge in the city where I live. I have been maintaining a ministry level relationship with them by means of text messaging because two of them have mobile devices.
Additionally, I have been exchanging emails with a fellow minister who has recently become homeless. He continues to update me of his progress by means of his smart phone.
With these matters in view, I anticipate that at the very least, people will be enthusiastic about trying the proposed approach toward discipleship. It will offer them the freedom to participate in spiritual growth on their schedules, in the places they find most accessible, and in ways with which they have become comfortable with communicating. As a result, it follows that they will not have to schedule nor afford the costs of traveling, nor determine the suitable attire for the occasions of meetings, nor the time it takes to make such arraignments. I think these savings in time and expenses, accompanied by the freedom of scheduling will at the very least offer an intriguing openness to the process.
Limitations #
Limitations of the research exist in at least several areas. 1) There is the realistic possibility that relations between the ministers and disciples could result in a dependency on leaders to facilitate their spiritual empowerment (Kark, Shamir & Chen, 2003). 2) There is the possibility of deception in the expectations set for disciples, which could result in their exploitation if there are leaders with wrong motives, or pseudo-transformational practices. (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999). 3) There is the possibility that participants may have some other objective for participating and maintaining the attention of ministers other than those set forth in the research. Future research is possible for the testing of disciples who have been led by the ministers which were the subject of this proposal.
8 of 8 #
Research Proposal for Master of Science in I/O Psychology:
National Association of Christian Ministers
Developed Under Supervision of Dr. L. Faibisch
9/19/2014
References #
APA. (2010). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. American Psychological
Association (APA). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
Accenture. (2012). Mobile Web Watch Internet Usage Survey 2012: Convergence Era –
Accenture. Retrieved May 18, 2014, from http://www.accenture.com/us-en/Pages/insight-mobile-web-watch-2012-mobile-internet.aspx
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1985). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Third Edition.
Barnet, T., & Simmering, M. (2006). Motivation and Motivation Theory. In M. M. Helms (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of Management (5th ed., pp. 563-566). Detroit: Gale. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3446300191&v=2.1&u=minn04804&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=7ee67bf7cf093e00ac855e5d48bcf65b
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Bass (1985) Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press, New
York.
Bass (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational
leadership. U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria, VA.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational
leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-217. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00016-8
Behnke, S. (2006). APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct: An Ethics
Code for All Psychologists…?. Ethics Rounds, 37(8), 66. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep06/ethics.aspx
Betts, S C (Jan 2004). Resolving a paradox between mentoring, LMX and charisma: a process approach to leadership development.(leader-member exchange)(Report). Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 8, 1. p.111(15).
Blumberg S. Luke J. (2011). Wireless Substitution: Early release of estimates from the National
Health Interview Survey, National Center for Health Statistics, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr061.pdf
CASRO (2014) Code of Standards and Ethics for Market, Opinion, and Social Research.
Retrieved September 20, 2014, from http://www.casro.org/
Chung-Kai, L., & Chia-Hung, H. (2009). The Influence of Transformational Leadership on the Workplace Relationships and Job Performance. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 37(8), 1129-1142. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Deluga, R. (1994). Supervision trust building, leader-member exchange and organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 67(4), 315-326. Retrieved from Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection database.
Discipleship. (2002). In MacMillan dictionary of the Bible. Retrieved from
Frederick, T. V. (2008). Discipleship and spirituality from a Christian perspective. Pastoral
Psychology, 56(6), 553-560. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11089-008-0148-8
Geisinger, K., Spies, R., Carlson, J., & Plake, B. (2007), The Seventeenth
Mental Measurements Yearbook. http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mmt&AN=test.2827&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Giampetro-Meyer, A., Brown, T., Browne, M., & Kubasek, N. (1998). Do We Really Want
More Leaders in Business?. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(15), 1727-1736. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.
Glasser, J. K. (2002). Factors related to consultant credibility. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice And Research, 54(1), 28-42. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.54.1.28
Google in North America study, 2010. ThinkWithGoogle.com
Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J. Jr., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, M., Singer, E. S., & Tourangeau, R. (2009). Survey methodology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Jones, G. R., George, J. M., and Hill, C. W. L. (2006). Contemporary management (4th ed.). Boston: Irwin.
Kath, L. M. (2007). Trust. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 837-839). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Reference. Kauffman, R. A. (2004). Discipleship. Christianity Today, 48(7), 57. Leithwood, K. A., & Poplin, M. S. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership.
Educational Leadership, 49(5), 8-12.
Leedy, P.D., & Ormrod, J.E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design (10thed.). Pearson
Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Lipka, M. (2013). What surveys say about worship attendance – and why some stay
home. Retrieved August 15, 2014, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2013/09/13/what-surveys-say-about-worship-attendance-and-why-some-stay-home/
Locander, W., & Luechauer, D. (2006). Trading Places. Marketing Management, 15(3), 43-45.
Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.
Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam (1996). Effectiveness correlates of
transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly.
Norazah, M. S. (2013). Students’ dependence on smart phones. Campus – Wide Information
Systems, 30(2), 124-134. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10650741311306309
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications. ISBN: 9781452203409.
Pounder, J. (2008). Transformational leadership: Practicing what we teach in the management
classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 84(1), 2-6.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Organizational behavior (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Rogers, R. & Riddle, S. (2006). Trust in the Workplace. The Catalyst, 35(2), 13.
Schafer, D. (2005). Leadership Role and Expectations and Relationships of Principals and
Pastors in Catholic Parochial Elementary Schools: Part 2. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry & Practice, 9(2), 230-249. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Schuh, S. C., Zhang, X., Egold, N. W., Graf, M. M., Pandey, D., & van Dick, R.
(2012). Leader and follower organizational identification: The mediating role of leader behavior and implications for follower OCB. Journal Of Occupational And Organizational Psychology,85(2), 421-432. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02044.x
Strategic Direction (2008) Pepsi versus coke: An unhealthy obsession? (2008). Strategic
Direction, 24(1), 6-8. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02580540810839269
Takala, T. (1998). Plato on Leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(7), 785-798.
Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and
charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00013-2
Zoccolillo, A. M. (2008). An exploration of the attitudes toward multicultural competence
among master psychology teachers. School of Psychology). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304814116?accountid=27965
