Dissertation Submitted to The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DALLAS BAPTIST UNIVERSITY ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP IN CRISIS: JOHN TIETJEN, CONCORDIA SEMINARY, AND THE LUTHERAN CHURCH MISSOURI SYNOD CRISIS OF 1969-1975 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE COOK SCHOOL OF LEADERSHIP IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GARY COOK SCHOOL OF LEADERSHIP BY ERIK K. J. GRÖNBERG DALLAS, TEXAS MARCH 28, 2017 Abstract In adaptive leadership theory leaders learn along with followers to find a new solution. However, there is a gap linking adaptive leadership with crisis leadership theory. The current study addressed this gap by identifying key connections between adaptive and crisis leadership theory then analyzed a historical case study to test those connections. Findings of the study both challenge tenets of current adaptive theory as well as provide a fourfold prescription for adaptive leaders in crisis. In particular the study found that in a crisis the leader may be required to choose which followers she/he will lead. This choice is particularly likely when the crisis occurs within an institution and the followers are a minority group within the community. In so doing the study challenges a core tenet of adaptive theory, that an adaptive leader should avoid being removed from their position, and argues that a leader can lead adaptively and be removed. What matters is how the leader is removed and how they operate within the fourfold framework. This framework could provide the basis for further study of adaptive leadership in crisis to deepen the literature connecting these two theories. i Dedication With thanksgiving for the support of my family I first dedicate this work to my spouse, the Rev. Kendra Mohn without whose constant love, support, and encouragement this project would never have been accomplished. To our children, Annika, Greta, and Axel, thank you for your patience and for simply sitting with me many times during the composition of this dissertation. Additionally, I also dedicate this work to the memory of my grandparents, the Rev. Albert and Merle Hendrickson and Lay Pastor A.A. and Esther Gronberg, who instilled in our family a love of knowledge, academic achievement, and commitment to our Lutheran confessional heritage. Finally, this work is also dedicated to my parents, Dr. Sharon Gronberg and the Rev. Karl Gronberg, and my siblings, for their love and support throughout my life. Soli Deo Gloria Philippians 2:5-11 ii Acknowledgements So very many people have helped inspire and make this research and dissertation possible. The faithful work of my advisor Dr. James Lemons was a constant source of support and challenge. I am also grateful to Dr. Jack Goodyear for stepping in on my committee after the departure of Dr. John Jaeger, to whom I also give thanks. In my interest in leadership the importance of my football coaches cannot be overstated. Coaches Dennis Ceder and David Halbrook of Reagan High School, Austin, Texas and Tim Murphy of Harvard University: your commitment to leading and developing young men as athletes, scholars, and citizen leaders has inspired me. The faithful leaders and disciples of Gethsemane Lutheran, Austin, TX, University Lutheran, Cambridge, MA, Grace University Lutheran, Minneapolis, MN, and St. John United Lutheran, Seattle, WA helped form me as a leader in the church. I am deeply grateful for their patience and wisdom. Additionally, I owe a debt of gratitude to the people of Dr. Martin Luther Church, Oconomowoc, WI who were willing to accept my leadership as their pastor from 2005-2010. Finally, thank you to the people and staff of Trinity Lutheran Church, Fort Worth. This work would not have been possible without you. Particularly I must acknowledge the generosity of the Trinity Endowment Fund as well as Diana Smith, MaryAnn Long, Beth Gomez, and Dr. Laurence Furr. We walked together both leading Trinity into a new season of growth as well as through this project. Thank you for your support. iii Contents Introduction……......……………………….….………………….……...….………..…1 Chapter One. Historical Background...…...………………….……….…….……..…..5 The Crisis at Concordia………………………….….....……….………....9 Brief History of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod…….…..…….….19 Cultural Context………………………….………………..….…….……24 Construction of the Argument…….……………………….......……...…27 Chapter Two. Literature Review.…………………….……………...…….....……..…35 Adaptive Leadership Review..………...………………..…….…...….….39 Critiques of Adaptive Leadership………………….………...……....…..49 Crisis Leadership………………………………………...…….……...…54 General Crisis Response Frameworks….…..........…..….…….....58 Focus on Leader and Community……………….....…..….…..…63 Connection to Adaptive Leadership………………...…….……...70 John Tietjen and the Missouri Crisis.………………...…….…...…….…72 Primary Source Documents…………………..…...….....….....…72 Official Publications of the Churches and Leaders……...…….…79 Historical Reflections……………………………..……….......…85 Conclusion……...………………………………….……….…….…...…89 Chapter Three. Analysis of Tietjen’s Leadership……………........……...………..…91 Initial Confrontations: Identifying the Adaptive Challenge……....….….92 Leading Before and After Dismissal (Pre-Walkout)……....…..………...99 Leading with the BOC………….…..…..….….......………........100 Leading with Staff/Faculty….….…..…..………..….…...….….105 Leading with the Student Body..…....…...…...…....….…..….....113 Leading with Lay People………….…...….……….……….......121 Leading through the “Walkout” and Creation of Seminex………....…..126 iv Critique of Tietjen’s Leadership….….….…..……..…...……….….......131 Conclusion.................................................………….……….…….…...143 Chapter Four. Adaptive Leadership in Crisis………..…..……….……………........145 Acute Crisis Adaptive Leadership is Different…..….………...…….….153 Crisis Situations are Open Ended……….….……..………...….154 Crisis Situations Make It Difficult to Execute All Attributes.....158 Hierarchical, Command-Control Systems Resist Adaptive Learning………………………………………………...161 Adding to the Theory……………..……….…….………...………..…..167 Death is Often Inevitable, How You Die Matters.….…….…....169 Adaptive Leadership in Crisis: A Fourfold Framework….…….174 Conclusion.……….…………………………………………….………178 Chapter Five. Summary, Application, and Conclusion….……………………........180 Summary…………………….….….….………….…………………….181 New Significant Learning…………….….….……….…..……………..185 Practical Application…………………….…….….…….….…………...188 Areas for Further Study……….………………..…………….………...191 Conclusion……………………………………………………………...193 Appendices A. Timeline of Key Events……….……………..……..............................….…195 B. John Tiejten’s Adaptive/Crisis Leadership Traits……...........................…....196 C. John Tietjen’s Leadership within Fourfold Framework…..............................197 Bibliography………….………………………..……………...…………....……….....198 v Tables One Leadership with Authority in Adaptive Situations…,,,,…,,…....................……..41 Two Three Types of Situations……………………………….,….................…………43 Appendix B John Tiejten’s Adaptive/Crisis Leadership Traits............................196 Appendix C John Tietjen’s Leadership within Fourfold Framework…..............197 vi Introduction Adaptive leadership as a concept and theory has become widely recognized in leadership literature in the past two decades.1 The theory is built upon the seminal work of Ronald Heifetz in his 1994 text Leadership Without Easy Answers. This style of leadership, as defined by Heifetz, begins with the acknowledgment by the leader that a problem or situation has no obvious solution within the existing framework of the status quo. The leader then must draw together individuals (followers) to find a new pathway to a solution. This sort of leadership requires experimentation, risk of failure, and new learning on the part of leader and follower.2 In organizations or institutions a crisis often creates the situation or opportunity where adaptive leadership is required. Such a crisis occurred in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) and at Concordia Seminary in Saint Louis, Missouri between the years 1969-1975. In this time period, long simmering tensions erupted into a conflict that consumed not just the seminary but the entire denomination. This crisis tested the leadership abilities of many individuals and particularly the leadership of the seminary president, Dr. John Tietjen. 1. William J. Cojocar, "Adaptive Leadership: Leadership Theory or Theoretical Derivative?" (PhD diss., Capella University, 2008), 4-6, accessed October 1, 2014, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. 2. Ronald A. Heifetz, Leadership without Easy Answers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), 100; Ronald Heifetz, Al Grashow, and Marty Linsky, The Practice of Adaptive Leadership (Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2009), 14-17. 1 2 Tietjen initially attempted to work within the system and find technical solutions to the crisis. This effort was unsuccessful. Ultimately, he and his followers were forced to find an adaptive solution to the crisis. They chose to leave the seminary and the denomination and seek refuge in ecumenical partners. In so doing they created a new “seminary-in-exile” (Seminex). Initially they worked within the LCMS system and hoped for reformation. However, when reconciliation became impossible they helped form a new American Lutheran denomination, the American Evangelical Lutheran Church (AELC). This denomination, although no longer existing, was pivotal in the formation of the current Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), currently the largest Lutheran church body in North America.3