Theological and Sociological Leadership Personality

Although seemingly fragmented, the Republican Party has the potential to create new pathways of leadership. The fusion of leadership theories and personality theories offer an initial framework for postulating the future of Republican Party efficacy. However, leadership and personality theories need to be combined with sociological and theological empiricism in order to provide a pragmatic and moral framework for the future.
This research seeks to advance the theoretical treatment of personality as a sociological factor in leadership, specifically by focusing on the follower-leader dyad to demonstrate normative patterns of trust, support, and motivation. Additionally, this research frames political leadership in theological terms.. By presenting a dynamic analysis of leadership within the Republican Party, this research will also illustrate the sociological distinction between the secular/profane and the sacred and that that distinction means for the future of the party.
Research has shown that “personality theory is not only a legitimate, but also an essential component of empirical theology,” (Francis, 2002, p. 37). Therefore, this dissertation will begin with an overview of personality theories like Big Five and personality assessments like the Myers-Briggs, which illuminate core interactive patterns between religious and political leaders and their followers or voters (Oswald & Kroeger, 1988). Prior research shows how voters perceive the leadership styles, traits and capacities differently depending not only on their biases and assumptions but also on their own personality traits (Salter, Green, Ree, et al., 2009). The work of Humphreys & Einstein (2004) likewise elucidates the motivation of followers, and how leaders in political parties can work to appeal to different personality types by marketing themselves in different ways. At the organizational level, leadership styles and traits impact employee well-being; the same principle can be applied to public service leadership, whereby leaders of a political party can cultivate specific traits and develop leadership styles that imparts community cohesion and promotes positive values (Robertson & Flint-Taylor, 2008). Thus, personality and leadership have both psychological and sociological implications.
The research will also address the underlying moral framework for a theological of leadership. Lorentzen (1980) postulates on the fusion of spirituality and politics within the Republican Party, claiming, for example, “a perceived decline in morals and a perception of legislative issues that symbolically support a more liberal element of American society motivated these evangelicals to political action,” (p. 144). Likewise, Gordon (2016) states, “the ideal of a wholly secularized society had lost much of its erstwhile glow” by the early 20th century (p. 466). This has led to the rejuvenation of faith-based political activism, and the reintroduction of the sacred into the profane world of politics. Berggren & Rae (2006) examined the leadership styles of both President Carter and President George W. Bush as having unique “’evangelical’ styles of presidential leadership,” claiming “the evangelical faith of Carter and Bush provided them with a particular vision of the presidency and the global role of the United States,” (p. 606). If there is an “evangelical style” of leadership, then that style can “contribute to successful presidential leadership and is worthy of further serious study,” (Berggren & Rae, 2006, p. 606). Beyond the realm of identity politics, the fusion of sociology, personality psychology, leadership, and theology offers the Republican Party opportunities for organizational growth and development. Theological approaches to leadership present models and structures, as well as ethical guidelines, which can be instructive for future politicians and public servants.
Research questions will be driven both by a phenomenological approach, whereby the historical development of leadership in the Republican Party and in American politics more generally will offer a firm foundation. A systematic review of literature is the most effective methodology for investigating past, current, and future trends in leadership. Specific research questions include the following:
What Big Five traits or Myers-Briggs types are prevalent within the Republican Party, and how have these leadership qualities affected the leader-citizen dyad?
To what degree does leadership impact party cohesion and organizational culture? Specifically, are there any leadership styles or traits that lend themselves to party cohesion and a normative ecology?
To what degree is the division between the sacred and profane evident in Republican Party leadership? What trends suggest that a firmer moral framework is necessary to guide the future of the party towards achieving specific goals?
What Biblical models of leadership can be used to inform Republican Party leadership? For example, Ayers (2006) suggests that idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration are the cornerstones of theological leadership (p. 26). Likewise, Howell (2003) offers a Biblical framework for modern political leadership.
Using a systematic review will allow me to detect themes in the literature. After assessing themes, the researcher will then present results that go beyond the phenomenology of theological leadership and its sociological variants, towards a series of recommendations for action. Similarly, this research will go beyond an overly simplified assessment of the efficacy of specific leadership styles like transformational or servant-leadership, towards a more comprehensive socio-theological paradigm.






References

Ayers, M. (2006). Toward a theology of leadership. Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership 1(1): 3-27.
Berggren, J. & Rae, N.C. (2006). Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. Presidential Studies Quarterly 36(4): 606-632.
Dunn, C.W. (1984). The theological dimensions of presidential leadership. Presidential Studies Quarterly 14(1): 61-72.
Francis, L.J. (2002). Personality theory and empirial theology. Journal of Empirical Theology 15(1): 37-53.
Gordon, P.E. (2016). Critical theory between the sacred and the profane. Constallations 23(4): 466-481.
Howell, D.N. (2003). Servants of the Servant. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock.
Humphreys, J.H. & Einstein, W.O. (2004). Leadership and temperament congruence. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies10(4): 58-79.
Lorentzen, L.J. (1980). Evangelical life style concerns expressed in political action. Sociology of Religion 41(2): 144-154.
Oswald, R.M. & Kroeger, O. (1988). Personality Type and Religious Leadership. Lanham, MD: First Rowman & Littleman.
Robertson, I.T. & Flint-Taylor, J. (2008). Leadership, psychological well-being, and organizational outcomes. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199211913.003.0008
Salter, C.R., Green, M., Ree, M., et al. (2009). A study of follower's personality, implicit leadership perceptions, and leadership ratings. Journal of Leadership Studies 2(4): 48-60.