Research Conclusions and Recommendations The BarOn Assessment of Emotional Intelligence
To summarize once again the four dimensions of comparing high effective and low effective UMC clergy. An analysis of variance was done on (a) the BarOn
Assessment to compare the two groups on their Emotional Intelligence, (b) the Leadership Practices Inventory to compare the two groups on this test’s definition of transformational leadership, (c) The size and vitality between the two group’s local church appointment, and (d) The self-identification of the two groups as to a ranking of their leadership effectiveness and ministry effectiveness.
Overall, the BarOn Assessment was fairly clear that high effective UMC clergy have a significant correlation with higher emotional intelligence as compared to lower effective clergy. There was a significant difference between the two groups on the “Total Emotional Intelligence Quotient,” and on 4 of the 5 general categories of the BarOn Assessment. There was also a significant difference between high effective and low effective UMC clergy on 9 of the sub-scales of the BarOn. There were five sub-scales that showed no correlation between the two groups, and a brief analysis of these five may give some explanation. The caveat for this researcher is the fact that these explanations are subjective projections, and do not carry research level conclusions.
The first sub-scale with no correlation is “empathy,” which the BarOn
Assessment, or EQI (2007) describes as “measuring an individual’s ability to be aware, understand, and appreciate how other people feel” (p. 8). The fact that there is no significant difference between the two groups on this scale may have to do with the
tremendous emphasis in seminary training on empathy in the “Pastoral Care and
Counseling” area of pastor’s course work. Empathy is a key concept in pastoral care and counseling, and one of the tangible concepts that can actually be practiced in the
classroom. The classic line for many seminarians in their reflective listening practices is “is this what I hear you saying?” Clearly, it is the one skill set that can be worked on and improved, and is greatly emphasized in the pastoral care and counseling classes.
The second sub-scale with no correlation is “Social Responsibility,” which is defined by the BarOn Assessment (2007) as being “a cooperative and constructive member of your work group, and quite responsible and dependable” (p. 8). One might explain that there might be no significant difference between the two groups here due to the United Methodist Church polity on “vital connection,” or the fact that the UMC emphasizes mutual cooperation and relationship, especially among it’s clergy members.
One major category of the BarOn, “Stress Management” and a fourth sub-scale, “Impulse Control” showed no significant correlation. The BarOn Assessment (2007) describes this generically as having “a calm disposition, and are generally not impulsive” (p. 10). This particular general category and its sub-scale are unique to the BarOn, and not reflected for example in another major assessment, the “Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT).” Whereas these stress management indicators would prove helpful in professional relationships, it is not certain that they are essential to the core of Emotional Intelligence itself, and may represent a tangential aspect of EQ.
This may also be true of the final sub-scale of non-correlation, “Reality Testing.” This is described by the BarOn Assessment (2007), as “taking the proper steps to look past our emotional biases so that we can recognize situations for what they really are” (p.
11). Again, this sub-scale appears to be specific to the BarOn Assessment only, and does not appear on the “Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT).”
The Leadership Practices Inventory on Transformational Leadership
As reported earlier, the findings of the Leadership Practices Inventory between high effective and low effective UMC clergy is mixed and inconclusive. As highlighted in the literature review, Kouzes and Posner (2003) have five specific dimensions in which they define transformational leadership. Some of the limitations of the LPI have been discussed in Chapter 3, and the criticism of the test being “oversimplified” is duly noted.
When comparing high effective and low effective UMC clergy on the LPI, there was a significant correlation on only 2 of the 5 dimensions (Challenge the Process and Enable Others to Act). These two dimensions are very important qualities in light of this paper’s research. Kouzes and Posner (2003) describe some of the leadership qualities of “Challenge the Process” as:
• Leaders venture out: Those who lead others to greatness seek and accept challenge.
• Leaders are pioneers: They are willing to step out into the unknown. The work of leaders is change, and the status quo is unacceptable to them. • Leaders are early supporters and adaptors of innovation: Leaders know well that innovation and challenge involve experimentation, risk and even failure. (p. 4)
As the qualitative interviews with high effective UMC pastors confirm, because the church is under great external and internal pressures of change, high effective pastors have the ability to find new ways to grow and keep the local churches where they serve
vital and alive. To remain in old paradigms of doing ministry means decline and
ineffectiveness in ministry, and the high effective pastors studied do possess the ability to challenge the process in the form of creating new ways to do ministry in order to keep their personal and professional edge.
The second significant correlation between and high effective UMC clergy on the LPI is on the dimension of “Enable Others to Act.” Kouzes and Posner (2003) provide some key qualities of this dimension in the form of:
• Leaders know they cannot do it alone. Leadership is a team effort.
Leaders Enable Others to Act by fostering collaboration and strengthening others.
• Leaders help create a trusting climate. They understand that mutual respect is what sustains extraordinary efforts.
• The work of leaders is making people feel strong, capable, informed and connected. Exemplary leaders use their power in service of others: they enable others to act, not by hoarding the power they have, but by giving it away. (pp. 5-6)
Again, the qualitative research reinforces this key trait of empowering the laity so as to expand the ministry of the church itself. Again and again, in the in-depth interviews with high effective pastors, they emphasized that their role and task was to empower the laity to do the work of ministry by making them better disciples. It was not their job as pastors to do all the work of ministry for the church. Too many of our UMC pastors do not understand this key quality of Transformational Leadership, as they perform as the “Lone Ranger” centering ministry around their own activity and power. Common sense
tells us that one can only do so much individually and alone, whereas, to empower a whole congregation in the work of ministry, exponentially multiplies that ministry by the number factor of those involved. Of Kouzes and Posner’s (2003) five dimensions on the LPI assessment, this one of “Enable Others to Act” seems to be the most important to the success of high effective UMC clergy.
On the other three dimensions of the LPI, there was no significant correlation when comparing high effective and low effective UMC clergy. These three included: “Model the Way, Inspire A Shared Vision, and Encourage the Heart.” (Kouzes and Posner, 2003, p. 12)
All of these would seem to be important in Transformational Leadership, however these are very specific qualities and processes, and no conclusions can be drawn from the quantitative analysis of no significant correlation between the two groups studied. Since all of the numbers were higher for the high effective pastors as compared with the low effective pastors, increasing the sample size may have a positive effect on future results, but no significance means merely that: one cannot draw any conclusions from these findings, and the lack of a total LPI score leaves us with no conclusive and definitive results on this assessment.
Summary of the Qualitative Analysis
In summary of the qualitative analysis of this research project, some key qualities and traits have emerged from the interviews of high effective pastors. First, the
qualitative analysis confirms the results from the quantitative analysis, that there is a positive correlation between high effective pastors and Emotional Intelligence. Time and
time again in the interviews of high effective pastors, there were behavioral examples and illustrations of Emotional Intelligence.
In terms of breaking down the four dimensions of emotional intelligence, these pastors demonstrated a strong sense of “Personal Competence,” staring with self-
awareness. Overall, they were in touch with their emotions, and understood the effect
they had on others, were able to talk about their own strengths and limits (accurate self- assessment), and had a sense of self-confidence, and self-worth.
As a group they were in touch with their own self-management. They demonstrated in their ministry: Emotional self-control, transparency, adaptability, achievement, initiative, and optimism. On the “Social Competence” side they possessed
social awareness by demonstrating empathy, the ability to learn and work on their organizational awareness, and providing service to others.
Finally, they excelled in relationship management by providing inspirational
leadership, influence, development of others, being a change catalyst, building bonds,
providing teamwork and collaboration, and being able to do conflict management. So in all respects, these were emotionally intelligent leaders, who demonstrated such skills and qualities on a regular basis in their day-to-day ministry.
Second, to give a counter to the second part of the quantitative analysis, which was inconclusive, these high effective pastors demonstrated Transformational Leadership qualities. On the key Transformational Leadership dimensions listed by Bass and Avolio (1994) and Northouse (2007), Charisma, Inspirational motivation, Intellectual
stimulation, and Individualized consideration, these high effective pastors excelled and
The most behavioral way that these high effective pastors demonstrated
Transformational Leadership was in their priority of empowerment of the laity of their churches. One of the key paradigms mentioned was the ability to see the gifts in others,
name and cultivate those gifts, and unleash these gifts and people into the ministry of the
church and community.
Third, these high effective pastors possess a deep and grounding faith that does impact their leadership in a number of interlocking ways. Their faith starts with forming the core identity of whom they are and why they are in ministry in the first place. It is the central core of their own “core values,” and provides the necessary grounding for their ministry. Their faith also provides the grounding for some other key themes: vision, humility, resilience, and passion in ministry.
Fourth, these pastors have a passion for their work in ministry, and are engaged and focused in their work. Even for those who have been in ministry for decades, there is a sense of continued passion and engagement in what they are doing, and the overall feeling that they are making a difference in the world.
Fifth, there is a deep sense of humility that these quite successful clergy possess. In this regard, they exemplify Collins’ (2001) Level 5 Leadership, of “personal humility and professional will.” As Collins’ states: “Level 5 leaders channel their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company. It’s not that Level 5 leaders have no ego or self-interest. Indeed, they are incredibly ambitious—but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not themselves” (p. 21).
Although Collins (2001) does not label his Level 5 leadership as