Assessing the Leadership Style of Paul and Cultural Congruence of the Christian Community at Corinth Using Project GLOBE Constructs

---

Several studies have analyzed the Apostle Paul’s leadership style. These studies have used situational leadership and analyses based on various roles in which Paul served. Over the last decade, the largest empirical study of leadership—Project GLOBE—was conducted. This project analyzes six dimensions of leadership and nine dimensions of culture in sixty-two different societies around the globe. Using the Project GLOBE dimensions of leadership and culture, this study posits what Paul’s leadership style likely was, and what the cultural dimensions of the community at Corinth might have been. Project GLOBE provides detailed information concerning what forms of leadership work best with each dimension of culture. Using that baseline, this study finds that Paul’s likely leadership style and the cultural preferences of the community at Corinth match on thirty out of thirty-six pairs of leader-culture agreement. 

The apostle Paul was, arguably, the most successful proselytizer in history. As part of his missionary activities, he began a large number of Christian communities during the period 40–60 C.E. 

Undoubtedly, Paul was a leader. Many authors describe different aspects of his leadership style. Middleton, for example, argues we can see situational leadership in Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians.^[1] Whittington posits that we can discern ten aspects of Paul’s leadership style from his writings.²  

At least four challenges belie attempts to describe Paul’s leadership style. First, how societies viewed leadership two millennia were somewhat different from more egalitarian and democratic societies in the twenty-first century. Clarke provides an in-depth treatment of how Roman and Greek culture likely viewed leaders and leadership.³ Yet, despite cultural differences, the general idea of leadership as a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal is timeless.⁴ A similar definition used in Project GLOBE also seems to span the test of time. Project GLOBE defines leadership as “the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organizations of which they are members.”⁵ 

A second challenge in describing Paul’s leadership style is that he, like most leaders, almost assuredly grew and, to some degree, changed his leadership style as he gained experience. Doohan presents an argument that we can trace this growth in Paul’s leadership.⁶ He believes we can discern Paul’s early leadership style by examination of the letters to the Thessalonians and Galatians. We see aspects of how Paul led through conflict in a community in 1 and 2 Corinthians. Doohan argues that we see a more refined form of leadership in Paul’s letter to the Romans and his final perspective in his letter to the Philippians. One way to control for this possible evolution of Paul’s leadership style is to focus an examination on a particular congregation during a smaller time span. For this analysis, that frame of analysis is the congregation at Corinth.

A third challenge in discerning Paul’s leadership style is the limited amount of sources. Discerning Paul’s leadership style is generally available through two methods. One way of glimpsing his leadership style is to reconstruct aspects based on guidance from the surviving letters. Unfortunately, we must infer the context surrounding the responses Paul supplies. In doing so, we construct aspects of his leadership style. A second method is to examine the structure that emerged in the second century Christian communities, and infer underpinnings that might have been influenced by Paul. For this analysis, the first method, speculating from an exegetical interpretation of the three surviving Pauline letters to Corinth is used.^[2]  

A final challenge is that the aspects of leadership discernable from Paul’s letters vary depending on the culture of the Christian community to which he was writing. We may see certain aspects in a letter to one community and other aspects in a different letter. This study addresses this challenge, by limiting the assessment of Paul’s leadership style to an analysis of leadership to the community at Corinth. 

I.  Previous Studies

Several scholarly analyses of Paul’s leadership style have been done. One of the most comprehensive analyses is that of Andrew Clarke. Clarke analyzes Paul’s leadership style and uses a model of agricultural, artisan, and household imagery. He argues that Paul’s leadership style includes an emphasis on task orientation.⁸ He argues that this task orientation is juxtaposed to a role reversal that, today, we would call servant leadership. Paul regularly preached that leaders should humble themselves, rather than serve as exalted figureheads.⁹

Doohan describes Paul’s style of leadership using Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership paradigm.¹⁰ She argues that during his apostolic career, Paul used a variety of leadership approaches depending on the challenges he faced at a particular community. She also believes that Paul matured in his leadership during his career, leading quite differently with the community in Thessalonica than that at Corinth. 

 Aspects of leadership that have not been used in an analysis of Paul’s style of leadership are those developed for the GLOBE study of leadership. This article uses those leadership styles as its theoretical foundation. This article also uses those aspects of culture developed for Project GLOBE. To limit the focus of the analysis, only Paul’s leadership toward the community at Corinth is addressed. 

II.  Christianity in Corinth

In 146 B.C.E. Roman forces destroyed the Greek city of Corinth. After lying in ruins for a century, in 44 B.C.E Julius Caesar had the city rebuilt. Caesar established the Roman method of government and brought mostly Roman colonists into the city. While there were some Greeks who still lived in and around Corinth, only the Roman colonists and their descendants were considered citizens of Corinth. 

Corinth in the time of Paul was a major economic hub for trade between Italy and Asia. Engels posits that Corinth contained a variety of religious practices.^[3] Gods and goddesses from both the Greek and Roman pantheon were worshipped, as were deities unique to Corinth itself.

Horrell and Adams provide a very helpful synopsis of the composition of Christian community at Corinth.¹² Founded approximately 49 C.E., the early community was likely comprised of Jews and a minority of Gentiles. MurphyO’Connor suggests the Christian community at the time of the letter(s) found in 1 Corinthians numbered about forty to fifty in size.¹³ The community likely met in homes, often referred to as house churches.¹⁴ There are varied positions regarding the social status of the members of the Corinthian church. Theissen’s position is that there were a significant number of poor among the Christian converts, but also a few middle and upper class members.¹⁵  

III.  Project Globe

Cultural Dimensions

The GLOBE project consists of a total of 17,370 middle managers from 951 organizations in three industries (finance, food processing, and telecommunications). The GLOBE research provides empirical findings of each of nine cultural dimensions (performance orientation, future orientation, gender egalitarianism, assertiveness, individualism, collectivism, power distance, humane orientation, uncertainty avoidance) in the sixty-two societies studied.^[4]   Each cultural dimension is measured from two perspectives and at two levels. First, respondents were asked to describe the extent to which they valued each of the nine cultural dimensions. Respondents were also asked to describe the extent to which they practiced each of the nine cultural dimensions. In addition to these two dimensions of value and practice, respondents were also asked to answer for two levels: their society and their organization. 

For this article, the cultural dimensions of interest are those that relate to organizational practices. The authors believe this level/dimension best correlates to discussions of the culture of Pauline communities. 

Table 1 provides a synopsis of the cultural dimensions used in Project GLOBE.^[5]  

Leadership Dimensions

Project GLOBE also identifies six dimensions of leadership.^[6] Charismatic/ value-based leadership reflects the ability to inspire, to motivate, and to expect high performance outcomes from others on the basis of firmly held core beliefs. Team-oriented leadership is a dimension that emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a common purpose or goal among team members. Participative leadership reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making and implementing decisions. Humane-oriented leadership reflects supportive and considerate leadership but also includes compassion and generosity. Autonomous leadership refers to independent and individualistic leadership. Self-protective leadership focuses on ensuring the safety and security of the individual or group member. Table 2 provides a synopsis of the six leadership dimensions and their components.^[7] 

IV.  PAUL’S LEADERSHIP STYLE

Charismatic/Value-Based Leadership

Project GLOBE defines charismatic/value-based leadership as “the ability to inspire, to motivate and to expect high performance outcomes from others based on firmly held core values.”²⁰ It is comprised of the characteristics of (a) visionary, (b) inspirational, (c) self-sacrifice, (d) integrity, (e) decisive, and (f) performance oriented. Paul generally demonstrated all aspects of this style of leadership quite highly. 

It is prima fascia that Paul was visionary, inspirational, self-sacrificing, and had integrity. His record of arrests for his beliefs and his charisma in moving others to convert to Christianity all indicate a high level of charisma/value-based leadership. It is less clear, to what degree Paul was decisive. One can clearly point to his metanoia on the road to Damascus. Beyond that, though, it is difficult to discern from his letters the degree to which his leadership style was decisive. 

He was also likely somewhat performance oriented. When considering this twenty-first century idea, we should most likely think of this leadership aspect as performance of the organizational mission. Since Paul’s singular, driving mission was converting others to Christianity, it seems reasonable to infer that he was indeed a performance-oriented leader. Based on these aspects of the definition of charismatic/value-based leadership, the authors believe Paul was very high on this aspect of leadership. 

Team-Oriented Leadership

Team-oriented leadership “is a leadership dimension that emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a common purpose or goal among team members. This leadership dimension includes five subscales labeled (a) collaborative team orientation, (b) team integrator, (c) diplomatic, (d) malevolent (reverse scored), and (e) administratively competent.”²¹ Paul was most likely a team-oriented integrator. 

Leadership dimension	Components
Charismatic/value based	Visionary Inspirational Self-sacrifice Integrity Decisive Performance oriented
Team oriented	Collaborative team orientation Team integrator Diplomatic Malevolent (reverse scored)
Self-protective	Self-centered Status conscious Conflict inducer Face-saver
Participative	Autocratic (reverse scored) Nonparticipative (reverse scored)
Humane oriented	Modesty Humane orientation
Autonomous	Individualistic Independent Autonomous Unique

For example, in 1 Corinthians 6:4-8 Paul rails against members of the community suing each other. One can see his emphasis on team orientation in his admonition. 

⁴ So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? ⁵ I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, ⁶ but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? ⁷Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? ⁸ On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.

In most of Paul’s letters we see evidence of administrative competence in his list of practical matters covered. Additionally, as there were no formal Christian documents at this stage of the spread of the kerygma, it seems evident, that without administrative capabilities, Pauline communities would never have formed and prospered. As a result, we also believe Paul was very high on teamoriented leadership. 

Participative Leadership

Participative leadership is a dimension that “reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making and implementing decisions. The GLOBE participative leadership dimension includes two subscales labeled (a) nonparticipative and (b) autocratic (both reverse scored).”²² Paul’s practice of participative leadership was likely somewhat high. We see this tendency to participate in both the joys and sufferings of his followers in 1 Corinthians 2:1–5:  ¹ And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. ² For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. ³ I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,  ⁴ and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, ⁵ so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. Like team leadership, Paul believed in a strong sense of community. However, there was an autocratic sense in his style. Paul believed there was one purpose to life—serving God. For him this was manifest in his experience of God through Christ. Consequently, he believed in certain absolutes that were nonnegotiable. 

Humane-Oriented Leadership

Humane-oriented leadership is “a leadership dimension that reflects supportive and considerate leadership, but also includes compassion and generosity. This leadership dimension includes two subscales labeled (a) modesty and (b) humane orientation.”²³ As a leader, Paul would be relatively high on this dimension as well. Paul regularly called for members of his community to humble themselves. For example in 1 Corinthians 12:21–26, Paul concludes his explanation of the body of Christ by reminding the members of Corinth that no part of the body of Christ is greater than the other:

²¹ And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you;” or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” ²² On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; ²³ and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, ²⁴ whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, ²⁵ so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. ²⁶ And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. 

Autonomous Leadership

Autonomous leadership refers to “independent and individualistic leadership attributes. This dimension is measured by a single subscale labeled autonomous leadership, consisting of individualism, independence, autonomy and unique attributes.”²⁴ To some degree Paul was independent and autonomous. To break from his devout Pharisaic upbringing and pursue his calling as an apostle undoubtedly required an independent mindset. As a leader, however, Paul advocated subverting one’s individualism and autonomy for the overall good of the group. This viewpoint is conveyed well in 1 Corinthians 12:12 –13: 

¹² For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. ¹³ For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. 

The authors believe that while Paul was clearly driven, his continued preaching on being one in the body of Christ indicates he was likely low on the leadership dimension of autonomy.

GLOBE leadership scale	Conceptual definition	Paul’s style
Charismatic/ value-based leadership	A broadly defined leadership dimension that reflects the ability to inspire, to motivate, and to expect high performance outcomes from others based on firmly held core values	Very high
Team- oriented leadership	This is a leadership dimension that emphasizes effective team building and implementation of a common purpose or goal among team members	Very high
Participative leadership	This is a leadership dimension that reflects the degree to which managers involve others in making and implementing decisions	High
Humane- oriented leadership	This is a leadership dimension that reflects supportive and considerate leadership, but also includes compassion and generosity	High
Autonomous leadership	This is a newly defined leadership dimension that leadership   refers to independent and individualistic leadership                             attributes	Low
Self-protective leadership	From a Western perspective, this newly defined leadership behavior focuses on ensuring the safety and security of the individual and group through status enhancement and face saving	Low

Self-Protective Leadership

Self-protective leadership focuses on “ensuring the safety and security of the individual and group through status enhancement and face saving. This leadership dimension includes five subscales labeled (a) self-centered, (b) status conscious, (c) conflict inducers, (d) face saver, and (e) procedural.”²⁵ Paul was very low in this dimension of leadership. His willingness to undergo arrest and martyrdom for his cause as well as his regular admonition to his followers that they should subvert their individual needs for the benefit of the group and their faith are indicators of this low emphasis on self-protection. 

V.  Cultural Orientations in Corinth

Power Distance 

Although there was conflict in Corinth among social classes,^[8] nonetheless, the overarching culture of the nascent community would be one of low power distance. The Corinth community did not have appointed leaders at that stage of its development. It is most likely that the community was a collection of house churches. Consequently, there was little distance between the head of the home who hosted the services and the members who worshipped.      

In 1 Corinthians 12:20–25, we see Paul emphasizing that there should not be stratifications within the community: 

²⁰ But now there are many members, but one body. ²¹ And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you;” or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” ²² On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; ²³ and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, ²⁴ whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, ²⁵ so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 

Clearly, in an earlier letter, members of the community had sent a message to Paul that they were unhappy with some members asserting themselves as more elite. Although some authors point to Paul’s exhortation as evidence that there was class stratification, the fact that members had complained to Paul about the emerging stratification can also be seen as an indication that the overall community’s culture was one of low power distance.

Uncertainty Avoidance

Uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which members of an organization or society strive to avoid uncertainty by relying on established social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic practices. Members of the Pauline community would almost certainly have been change-oriented individuals. The tenets of the Christian faith were quite foreign to Roman culture. This strangeness coupled with meetings in private homes would have almost assuredly have caused member’s extended family members to worry that their loved ones had joined a strange cult. 

Members of the Corinthian community had, by definition, experienced metanoia in their lives. They had abandoned their Gentile or Jewish heritages in order to adopt a lifestyle that was void of formal structures, formal leaders, and well-established norms. As a result of their willingness to abandon their traditional heritages, we believe the members of the Corinthian community would have been low on uncertainty avoidance.

Humane Orientation

Humane orientation is the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies encourage and reward individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, and kind to others. 

One of the most famous biblical passages is 1 Corinthians 13: 1-13. In what some authors call a Christian hymn, Paul emphasizes that those at Corinth should seek agape love. He contrasts the value of spiritual gifts, acts of compassion such as donating to the poor, and even martyrdom with agape love. Paul’s clear message is that the members of the community must not simply love each other in the way of philia, but in the way of agape.  

Some might believe the Corinth community lacked humaneness, prompting Paul’s letter. However, one can readily see acts of self-sacrifice such as selling possessions to help others. We believe that a humane orientation was a dominant cultural value of the community at Corinth. Paul’s message in 1 Corinthians 13 was likely not a new message, but rather, one he preached emphatically during the period in which he was proselytizing members of the community. Consequently, we believe the Corinthian community would have been very high on humane orientation. 

Institutional Collectivism

Institutional collectivism is the degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action. Luke’s depiction of early Christian communities in Acts 4: 32-35 is one of extraordinary collectivism. His paradigmatic portrayal of what was likely a composite description of many early Christian communities describes members selling their possessions and distributing wealth jointly. 

It is unclear to what degree this description applied to the Christians at Corinth. Most scholars believe the community consisted of several housechurches. These house-churches collectively comprised the ekklesia or church. While we have indications from Paul’s responses to the Christians at Corinth that there may have been elements of factionism, this would not have been unusual at all for a heterogeneous group of Gentile and Jewish converts, who likely represented a spectrum of social backgrounds. 

MacDonald argues that any religious group that is missionary in character while concomitantly establishing cultural boundaries between believing members and the world will experience a struggle as the group attempts to find a balance of inclusivism and exclusivism.^[9] Paul’s responses about unity in his letters to the community at Corinth are likely clarifying the degree to which new converts to Christianity should completely abandon their former lives as they form a community of Christian believers. Although the imagery received from Paul is not as strong as that in Luke 4, we nonetheless believe the community at Corinth would have been high on institutional collectivism.  

Future Orientation

Future orientation is the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies engage in future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying individual or collective gratification. Assigning a cultural value for future orientation for the Christian converts at Corinth is difficult, as it revolves around the debate of whether the dominant Christology in Corinth was a realized or future eschatology.

Thiselton, for example, believes that many of the problems addressed by Paul in his letters to the Corinthians are based on an over-realized eschatology that revolved around “slogans” such as “everything is permissible for me.”^[10] Against this emphasis on a short-term oriented view, Paul stressed a strong future orientation, pointing to an epoch of divine glory. 

Barclay also believes the Corinthian Christians tended to have a presentoriented theology, rather than a future-oriented eschatology.^[11] He doesn’t feel their eschatological orientation was as “over-realized” as does Thiselton, but does concur that Paul’s theological outlook was much more future oriented than the Corinthians. We believe the Corinthian community tended to have a moderate future orientation.

In-Group Collectivism

In-group collectivism is the degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families. Although the concept of pride is somewhat opposed to traditional Christian characteristics such as humility and abandonment to providence, the aspects of in-group collectivism such as loyalty and cohesiveness in the community was likely a desired cultural norm. 

Many analyses of the community of Corinth focus on factions that seem to have existed. First argued by Baur, the historical view has been one of a major division within the Corinthian community between Jewish Christians who tended to follow the teachings of Peter, and Gentile Christians who tended to follow the teachings of Paul.^[12] A variety of authors have debated the exact nature of the factions to which Paul may be referring in 1 Corinthians 1:12. Munck, for example, argues whether there were factions and denies the presence of a Judaizer group.³¹ Although there may certainly have been factions within the fledgling community, the sheer act, however, of joining the Christian group exhibits some evidence of pride and loyalty. There is some evidence that material goods were shared communally within the community. Because we believe there was likely pride and loyalty, yet a lack of complete cohesion at the time of Paul’s letters, we rate the Corinth community as moderately oriented toward the cultural value of in-group collectivism. 

Assertiveness

Assertiveness is the degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are assertive, confrontational, and aggressive in social relationships. Horsley posits that Paul advocated that the members of the Corinthian community withdraw from traditional Roman society, and, in turn, create an alternative society.³² It is widely accepted that within Roman society assertiveness through hierarchical strata was practiced in both governmental and social realms. Horsley believes the small group of house churches in Corinth was at least attempting to establish as somewhat egalitarian community that served as an alternative to the aggression found in mainstream Roman society.

This view, though, is different from that advanced by Barclay.³³ He argues that the church at Corinth continued to regularly interact with the wider Corinthian community.

Theisson, however, in one of the most influential essays on Corinth argues that social stratification continued to exist within the community between those Paul described as wise and of noble birth and the rest of the community.³⁴ If these few upper class individuals within what seems likely a predominantly poor community carried with them the culture of Roman society, they may have been causing conflict by being confrontational and aggressive. 

Despite this possibility, when we consider the overall tenor of most early Christian writings, an image of communal subservience is a dominant cultural goal. Compared to the larger Greek and Roman influenced Corinthian culture, this group of new Christian converts were likely participating in some form of alternative living that was much less aggressive and assertive in social relationships than the norm of that time. Consequently, we have rated the Corinthian community as low on the cultural characteristic of assertiveness.

Performance Orientation

Performance orientation is the degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence. When considering this cultural dimension, one must remember that an overarching value of the Corinthian community was a belief that the members should actively model their lives on Jesus as the ultimate model, and Paul and other missionaries as existing examples. Paul regularly exhorted the community to live by particular values and codes of conduct. Consequently, we believe the community was relatively high on performance orientation.

Gender Egalitarianism

The final dimension of culture Project GLOBE uses is gender egalitarianism. This dimension is the degree to which an organization or a society minimizes gender role differences while promoting gender equality. The community likely met in private homes, the domain of women during that historical era. Also, Paul names at least one woman, Chloe, as a leader within Corinth. However, our twenty-first century conceptualization of gender egalitarianism is so different from the Pauline world that this dimension is not be used in this analysis.

Cultural dimension	Conceptual definition	Corinth
Humane orientation	The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies encourage and reward individuals for being fair, altruistic, friendly, generous, caring, and kind to others	Very high
Collectivism (institutional)	The degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective distribution of resources and collective action	High
Performance orientation	The degree to which an organization or society encourages and rewards group members for performance improvement and excellence	High
Future orientation	The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies engage in future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing in the future, and delaying individual or collective gratification	Moderate
Collectivism (in-group)	The degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families	Moderate
Assertiveness	The degree to which individuals in organizations or societies are assertive, confrontational, and aggressive in social relationships	Low
Uncertainty avoidance	The extent to which members of an organization or society strive to avoid uncertainty by relying on established social norms, rituals, and bureaucratic practices	Low
Power distance	The degree to which members of an organization or society expect and agree that power should be stratified and concentrated at higher levels of an organization or government	Low
Gender egalitarianism	The degree to which an organization or a society minimizes gender role differences while promoting gender equality	Not used in this study

VI.  Comparing Project GLOBE’s Culture and Leadership Findings to Paul’s Leadership in the Corinthian Community     

In addition to studying cultural and leadership preferences in sixty-two societies, Project GLOBE also provides high-level relationships between the dimensions of culture and leadership. In essence, Project GLOBE provides what types of leadership seem to be most desired in each of the different cultural dimensions.

Power Distance

When analyzing relationships between organizational level cultural practices and preferred leadership styles, Project GLOBE finds that the lower the preferred power distance in a community, the more the members of that group prefer participative leadership. Conversely, a low power distance culture prefers a leader who is low on self-protection. Using Project GLOBE relationships as a comparison, Table 5 indicates that Paul’s style seems to match the low power distance preferred in the Corinth community.

Culture dimension	Corinth	Leadership dimension	Paul	Comparisons with Project GLOBE
Power distance	Low	Self-protective	Low	Same
Power distance	Low	Participative	High	Same

Uncertainty Avoidance

When analyzing relationships between organizational level cultural practices and preferred leadership styles, Project GLOBE finds that the lower the preferred uncertainty avoidance in a community, the more the members of that group prefer humane-oriented, participative, and team-oriented forms of leadership. The lower the preference for uncertainty avoidance, the less an organization prefers self-protective leadership. Table 6 indicates that Paul’s style seems to also match the low uncertainty avoidance preferred in the Corinth community.

Culture dimension	Corinth	Leadership dimension	Paul	Comparisons with Project GLOBE
Uncertainty avoidance	Low	Self-protective	Low	Same
Uncertainty avoidance	Low	Humane oriented	High	Same
Uncertainty avoidance	Low	Team oriented	High	Same
Uncertainty avoidance	Low	Participative	High	Same

Institutional Collectivism

Project GLOBE finds that the higher the preferred institutional collectivism in a community, the more the members of that group prefer charismatic, team-oriented, participative, and humane-oriented leadership. The inverse is found for autonomous leadership. Table 7 indicates that Paul’s style seems to also match the high institutional collectivism preferred in the Corinth community.

Culture dimension	Corinth	Leadership dimension	Paul	Comparisons with Project GLOBE
Institutional collectivism	High	Charismatic	High	Same
Institutional collectivism	High	Team-oriented	High	Same
Institutional collectivism	High	Participative	High	Same
Institutional collectivism	High	Humane-oriented	High	Same
Institutional collectivism	High	Autonomous	Low	Same

Humane Orientation

Project GLOBE finds that the higher the preferred humane orientation in a community, the more the members of that group prefer charismatic, participative, and autonomous forms of leadership. Conversely, Project GLOBE finds that organizations that practice high levels of humane orientation do not seem to value team orientation and humane-oriented leadership. While these last two findings seem odd, the authors of that particular analysis within Project GLOBE speculates that perhaps for organizations in which the culture highly values humane orientation, the traits of team orientation and humane orientation may not necessarily be seen as important in leaders.^[16] Using Project GLOBE’s findings, Paul’s leadership style only matches two of the five aspects of preferred leadership and humane-oriented organizational culture.

Culture dimension	Corinth	Leadership  dimension	Paul	Comparisons  with Project GLOBE
Humane orientation	High	Charismatic	High	Same
Humane orientation	High	Participative	High	Same
Humane orientation	High	Team-oriented	High	Different
Humane orientation	High	Humane-oriented	High	Different
Humane orientation	High	Autonomous	Low	Different

In-Group Collectivism

Project GLOBE finds that the higher the preferred in-group collectivism in a community, the more the members of that group prefer humane oriented, team oriented, and autonomous forms of leadership. The more the members of that group prefer in-group collectivism, the less they prefer participative leadership. Table 9 indicates that Paul’s style seems to also match the low uncertainty avoidance preferred in the Corinth community.

Table 9. Organizational in-group collectivism and leadership^[18]

Culture dimension	Corinth	Leadership     dimension             Paul	Comparisons  with Project GLOBE
In-group collectivism	High	Team-oriented           High	Same
In-group collectivism	High	Humane-oriented High	Same
In-group collectivism	High	Autonomous            Low	Different
In-group collectivism	High	Participative               High	Different

Assertiveness

Project GLOBE finds that the lower the preferred assertiveness in a community, the more the members of that group prefer charismatic, team-oriented, participative, and humane-oriented forms of leadership. The lower the preferred assertiveness in a community, the less the members of that group prefer autonomy in a leader. Table 10 indicates that Paul’s style seems to match the low assertiveness preferred in the Corinth community.

Culture dimension	Corinth	Leadership  dimension	Paul	Comparisons  with Project GLOBE
Assertiveness	Low	Charismatic	High	Same
Assertiveness	Low	Team-oriented	High	Same
Assertiveness	Low	Participative	High	Same
Assertiveness	Low	Humane-oriented	High	Same
Assertiveness	Low	Autonomous	Low	Same

Future Orientation

Project GLOBE finds that the higher the preferred future orientation in a community, the more the members of that group prefer charismatic, team-oriented, participative, and humane-oriented forms of leadership. Table 11 indicates that Paul’s style seems to match the future orientation preferred in the Corinth community.

Culture dimension	Corinth	Leadership  dimension	Paul	Comparisons with Project  GLOBE
Future orientation	Moderate	Charismatic	High	Same
Future orientation	Moderate	Team-oriented	High	Same
Future orientation	Moderate	Participative	High	Same
Future orientation	Moderate	Humane-oriented	High	Same

Performance Orientation

Project GLOBE finds that the higher the preferred performance orientation in a community, the more the members of that group prefer charismatic, team-oriented, participative, humane-oriented, and autonomous forms of leadership and the less the members of that group prefer self-protection in a leader. Table 12 indicates that Paul’s style seems to match the high performance orientation preferred in the Corinth community on five of the six relationships found in Project GLOBE.

Culture dimension	Corinth	Leadership  dimension	Paul	Comparisons  with Project GLOBE
Performance orientation	High	Charismatic	High	Same
Performance orientation	High	Team oriented	High	Same
Performance orientation	High	Participative	High	Same
Performance orientation	High	Humane oriented	High	Same
Performance orientation	High	Self-protective leadership	Low	Same
Performance orientation	High	Autonomous	Low	Different

VII.  Conclusion

Caution must be taken when retrospectively assessing a culture two millennia ago. Additionally, for the reasons outlined in the beginning of this paper, there are limitations to the extent we can retrospectively classify Paul’s leadership style. Bearing those cautions in mind, however, Table 13 highlights that Paul’s leadership style matched the cultural preferences we believe the community at Corinth held on twenty-nine of thirty-five relationships reported in Project GLOBE. 

Few would doubt that Paul was one of the greatest leaders in the history of Christianity. This analysis lends an additional vantage point for understanding why Paul was so successful in his life-calling.

VIII.  Future Research

There are a host of popular theories of leadership. The situational approach to leadership by Hersey and Blanchard is a part of almost every introductory textbook on leadership. Currently, the most widely researched model of leadership is Bass and Avolio’s Full Range of Leadership Model. A model that is consonant with the Christian faith is Robert Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership. Doohan has already described Paul’s style of leadership using.

Culture dimension	Corinth	Style matches	Style mismatches
Power distance	Low	Self-protective Participative
Uncertainty avoidance	Low	Self-protective Humane oriented  Team oriented  Participative
Institutional collectivism	High	Charismatic Team oriented  Participative  Humane oriented  Autonomous
Assertiveness	Low	Charismatic Team oriented  Participative  Humane oriented Autonomous
Future orientation	Moderate	Charismatic Team oriented  Participative  Humane oriented
Performance orientation	High	Charismatic Team oriented  Participative  Humane oriented Self-protective Leadership	Autonomous
In-group collectivism	High	Team oriented  Humane oriented	Autonomous Participative
Humane orientation	High	Charismatic Participative	Team oriented  Humane oriented  Autonomous

Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership paradigm. No published studies, however, seem to exist that analyze Paul’s leadership style using the full range of leadership or servant leadership paradigms.

Aspects of the full range of leadership	Aspects of servant leadership
Inspirational motivation Idealized influence Intellectual stimulation Individual consideration Contingent reward Management by exception active Management by exception passive Liaise faire	Listening    Empathy    Healing    Awareness    Persuasion Conceptualization   Foresight    Stewardship    Commitment to the growth of people  Building community

Using the nine elements of the full range of leadership or the ten aspects of servant leadership would provide additional insight into one of the pillars of the Christian faith and one of the greatest proselytizers in history.

End Notes

1 Gordon Middleton, “The Epistle to the Ephesians: Instilling Values Using Situational Leadership,” Journal of Biblical Perspectives in Leadership 1, no 1 (2006), http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/jbpl/vol1no1/ Middleton_JBPL_V1No1.pdf

2 J. Lee Whittington, Tricia M. Pitts, Woody V. Kageler, and Vicki L. Goodwin, “Legacy Leadership: The Leadership Wisdom of the Apostle Paul,” The Leadership Quarterly 16 (2005): 749–770.

3 Andrew D. Clark, A Pauline Theology of Church Leadership (London: T & T Clark International, 2008); Andrew D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth (Leiden, Neth.: E. J. Brill, 1993).

4 Peter G. Northouse, Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4th ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006).

5 Robert J. House, Paul J. Hanges, Mansour Javidan, Peter W. Dorfman, and Vipin Gupta, Culture, Leadership and Organizations: The Globe Study of 62 Societies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004), 15–20.

6 Helen Doohan, Leadership in Paul (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1984).

7 The authors subscribe to the view that 2 Corinthians is comprised of portions of two different letters.

8 Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership, 119.

9 Ibid., 120.

10 Doohan, Leadership in Paul; Paul Hersey and Kenneth H. Blanchard, Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996).

11 Donald Engels, Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Classical City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).

12 Edward Adams and David C. Horrell, Christianity at Corinth (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Know Press, 2004), 1–50.

13 Jerome Murphy-O’Conner, St. Paul’s Corinth (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1983).

14 Carolyn Osiek, Margaret Y. MacDonald, and Janet H. Tulloch, A Woman’s Place: House Churches in Earliest Christianity (New York: Fortress Press, 2005).

15 Gerd Theissen, “Social Stratification in the Corinthian Community: A Contribution of the Sociology of Early Hellenistic Christianity” in The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1982), 69–119.

16 House et al., Culture, Leadership and Organizations, 91–101.

17 Ibid., 13–20.

18 Ibid., 15.

19 Ibid., 137.

20 Ibid., 675.

21 Ibid., 675.

22 Ibid., 675.

23 Ibid., 675.

24 Ibid., 675.

25 Ibid., 675.

26 Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership, 23–29.

27 M.Y. MacDonald, The Pauline Churches: A Socio-Historical Study of Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutrero-Pauline Writings (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 40.

28 A. C. Thiselton, “Realized Eschatology at Corinth,” NTS 24 (1977): 510-26. Thiselton discusses the relevance of 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23 as slogans used by the community.

29 John M. G. Barclay, “Thessalonica and Corinth: Social Contrasts in Pauline Christianity,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 15 (1992): 49-74

30 F. C. Baur, Paul: The Apostle of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1873), 267– 320.

31 Johannes Munck, “The Church without Factions” in Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, (London: SCM, 1959), 135–167.

32 R. A. Horsley, “Gnosis in 1 Corinthians 8:1-6,” NTS, 27 (1981): 32–52.

33 Barclay, “Thessalonica and Corinth.”

34 Theissen, “Social Stratification.”

35 House et al., Culture, Leadership and Organizations, 552.

36 Ibid., 643.

37 Ibid., 496

38 See chapter 18, Hayat Kabasakal and Muzaffer Bodur in House et al., Culture, Leadership and Organizations

39 Ibid., 592.

40 Ibid., 497-500.

41 Ibid., 428-430.

42 Ibid., 330-332.

43 Ibid., 274–275.

---

About the Authors

Dr. Mark Green is a professor of leadership studies at Our Lady of the Lake University. He holds a doctorate in educational administration, a master’s in business administration, a Master of Science in Information Systems, a master’s in education, and is completing his Master of Arts in Theology. He teaches leadership in his university’s doctoral program in leadership studies, and has chaired more than forty doctoral dissertations in the field of leadership. Prior to his career in academe, he served as a military officer with assignments at the Pentagon and the Army Medical Department Center.

Email: GreeM@Lake.Ollusa.edu

Dr. Stephanie Kodatt is an assistant professor of marketing at Northern.

University in South Dakota. She holds a master’s in business administration from Creighton University and a doctorate in leadership studies from Our Lady of the Lake University.

Email: stephanie.kodatt@northern.edu

Dr. Charles R. Salter is an assistant professor of business administration at Schreiner University. He has held various community academic and corporate leadership positions specializing in leadership and finance. Charles holds a Bachelor of Journalism from the University of Georgia, a master’s in business administration from the University of Houston, a master’s in business administration with a concentration in finance from Western International University, and a doctorate in leadership studies from Our Lady of the Lake University San Antonio.

Email: CRSalter@Lake.Ollusa.edu

Dr. Phyllis Duncan is an assistant professor of leadership studies at Our Lady of the Lake University. She earned a doctorate in organizational leadership from the University of the Incarnate Word, a master’s in business administration from the University of Arkansas, a Master of Science in Industrial Engineering from

Southwest University, and a Bachelor of Science in business administration from University of the Ozarks. Her twenty-year business career includes holding corporate positions of CEO, COO, and senior vice president in marketing and corporate quality.  

Email: PADuncan@Lake.Ollusa.edu

Dr. Diana Garza-Ortiz is an assistant professor of leadership studies at Our Lady of the Lake University. She holds a doctorate in leadership studies, and master’s in business administration with a concentration in e-commerce, and a BBA with a concentration in information systems. She co-chairs dissertations and teaches leadership and management at Our Lady of the Lake University at the doctoral, graduate, and undergraduate level. Prior to becoming an assistant professor, Dr. Garza-Ortiz worked in a corporate environment developing information systems and managing projects.

Email: DGarza-Ortiz@Lake.Ollusa.edu

Dr. Esther Chavez is an assistant professor of leadership studies at Our Lady of the Lake University. She obtained her bachelor’s in marketing from Texas A&M University and her master’s in business administration from Our Lady of the Lake University. She worked as an executive in the consumer finance corporate environment for more than ten years. In 2009, she completed her doctorate in leadership studies from Our Lady of the Lake University.

Email: ESChavez@Lake.Ollusa.edu

About Regent

Founded in 1977, Regent University is America’s premier Christian university with more than 11,000 students studying on its 70-acre campus in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and online around the world. The university offers associate, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in more than 150 areas of study including business, communication and the arts, counseling, cybersecurity, divinity, education, government, law, leadership, nursing, healthcare, and psychology. Regent University is ranked the #1 Best Accredited Online College in the United States (Study.com, 2020), the #1 Safest College Campus in Virginia (YourLocalSecurity, 2021), and the #1 Best Online Bachelor’s Program in Virginia for 11 years in a row (U.S. News & World Report, 2023).

---

About the School of Business & Leadership

The School of Business & Leadership is a Gold Winner – Best Business School and Best MBA Program by Coastal Virginia Magazine. The school also has earned a top-five ranking by U.S. News & World Report for its online MBA and online graduate business (non-MBA) programs. The school offers both online and on-campus degrees including Master of Business Administration, M.S. in Accounting (Tax or Financial Reporting & Assurance), M.S. in Business Analytics, M.A. in Organizational Leadership, Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership, and Doctor of Strategic Leadership.

---

 

 

[13] House et al., Culture, Leadership and Organizations, 552.

[14] Ibid., 643.

[15] Ibid., 496.

[16] See chapter 18, Hayat Kabasakal and Muzaffer Bodur in House et al., Culture, Leadership and Organizations. 

[17] Ibid., 592.

[18] Ibid., 497-500.

[19] Ibid., 428-430.

[20] Ibid., 330-332.

[21] Ibid., 274–275.