Three Approaches to Leader Development
In the last decade or so, there has been an increasing realization in the church around the world of the need to build leaders. In response, there has been a steady growth of “leader development ministries.” But, what exactly does a “leader development ministry” do?
Essentially, there are three broad approaches that a leader development ministry can take in working with indigenous ministries:
1. The 4-P Approach
We will come in and train your leaders for you, using our curriculum, our teachers, our funds and we will give you our degrees upon completion.
This “we must do it for you” method is largely a remnant of old colonialist missions thinking.
It is the “4P” approach. The outsiders supply the Program (the curriculum), the People (the teachers), the Provision (the funding) and the Prestige (the degree at the end).
In some situations, this might be the best approach. For example, if there are no existing leaders the only option may be for outsiders to build them.
However, this approach is not the best long-term activity. Clearly, there is not a high level of contextualization or indigenous ownership in this method. In addition, it is condescending and demeaning toward the capacity of the national leaders and churches to build their own leaders.
2. The Train the Trainer Approach
We will come and show you how to train. We will train you and then you will use the same materials and the same procedures and you will train others, who will then do the same with others, etc.
This “Train the Trainer” approach is currently in vogue. There may also be a certain amount of customization which is described as “contextualization.”
The basic idea is: “we will show you how to do it, giving you the materials to use, and then you will do it (our way).”
This approach does have a little higher level of indigenous ownership than the 4P approach since it involves the national leaders themselves doing the ongoing training.
This approach may also be appropriate when a high level of specialized training is needed.
However, this method does have significant weaknesses:
The training is not very contextualized (since the outsider is asking the national leader to use his materials and do the training “his way”).
The “law of decreasing relearns.” The effectiveness of the training decreases, often quickly and dramatically, with each subsequent “passing on.”
The program is never truly owned by the nationals. It will always be seen as an “outside” program (which, of course, it is). Typically, such programs are used for a while, perhaps several years, but then fall into disuse because they don’t really meet the local need.
The program cannot be adapted to meet local needs or to change in response to changing ministry environments. The leaders have not been taught to design; they’ve been taught to repeat. Their own capacities to understand and create leader development processes have not been nurtured; they’ve simply been taught how to teach a certain program in a certain way.
3. The Build the Designer Approach
We will come and help you understand the basic, biblical principles of how leaders are built and we will then work with you as you develop the strategies, methods and tools that you will use as you build your own leaders.
Clearly, this method is more difficult than the first two. However, if successful, it will yield a leader development process that is truly indigenized and contextualized, and is entirely owned, designed, operated and funded by the national leaders – one that is capable of being sustained and multiplied; one that is entirely capable of changing whenever necessary.
This approach is not without its downsides:
It is harder to do.
It takes a longer time to do.
It requires a deep and genuine commitment from the indigenous leaders, since they are the ones, ultimately, who will design the work, do the work, and provide for its support.
It requires a clear an accurate biblical model of how leaders are built, rather than merely a set curriculum along with preformed implementation strategies.
While any of the three approaches, or combinations thereof, might be appropriate in certain situations, an emphasis on the “Build the Designer” approach may provide our best chance of achieving truly indigenized and contextualized leader development in the long-term.
Essentially, there are three broad approaches that a leader development ministry can take in working with indigenous ministries:
1. The 4-P Approach
We will come in and train your leaders for you, using our curriculum, our teachers, our funds and we will give you our degrees upon completion.
This “we must do it for you” method is largely a remnant of old colonialist missions thinking.
It is the “4P” approach. The outsiders supply the Program (the curriculum), the People (the teachers), the Provision (the funding) and the Prestige (the degree at the end).
In some situations, this might be the best approach. For example, if there are no existing leaders the only option may be for outsiders to build them.
However, this approach is not the best long-term activity. Clearly, there is not a high level of contextualization or indigenous ownership in this method. In addition, it is condescending and demeaning toward the capacity of the national leaders and churches to build their own leaders.
2. The Train the Trainer Approach
We will come and show you how to train. We will train you and then you will use the same materials and the same procedures and you will train others, who will then do the same with others, etc.
This “Train the Trainer” approach is currently in vogue. There may also be a certain amount of customization which is described as “contextualization.”
The basic idea is: “we will show you how to do it, giving you the materials to use, and then you will do it (our way).”
This approach does have a little higher level of indigenous ownership than the 4P approach since it involves the national leaders themselves doing the ongoing training.
This approach may also be appropriate when a high level of specialized training is needed.
However, this method does have significant weaknesses:
The training is not very contextualized (since the outsider is asking the national leader to use his materials and do the training “his way”).
The “law of decreasing relearns.” The effectiveness of the training decreases, often quickly and dramatically, with each subsequent “passing on.”
The program is never truly owned by the nationals. It will always be seen as an “outside” program (which, of course, it is). Typically, such programs are used for a while, perhaps several years, but then fall into disuse because they don’t really meet the local need.
The program cannot be adapted to meet local needs or to change in response to changing ministry environments. The leaders have not been taught to design; they’ve been taught to repeat. Their own capacities to understand and create leader development processes have not been nurtured; they’ve simply been taught how to teach a certain program in a certain way.
3. The Build the Designer Approach
We will come and help you understand the basic, biblical principles of how leaders are built and we will then work with you as you develop the strategies, methods and tools that you will use as you build your own leaders.
Clearly, this method is more difficult than the first two. However, if successful, it will yield a leader development process that is truly indigenized and contextualized, and is entirely owned, designed, operated and funded by the national leaders – one that is capable of being sustained and multiplied; one that is entirely capable of changing whenever necessary.
This approach is not without its downsides:
It is harder to do.
It takes a longer time to do.
It requires a deep and genuine commitment from the indigenous leaders, since they are the ones, ultimately, who will design the work, do the work, and provide for its support.
It requires a clear an accurate biblical model of how leaders are built, rather than merely a set curriculum along with preformed implementation strategies.
While any of the three approaches, or combinations thereof, might be appropriate in certain situations, an emphasis on the “Build the Designer” approach may provide our best chance of achieving truly indigenized and contextualized leader development in the long-term.
posted by mwesigye herbert at 9:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home