Called for leadership: psychological type profile of leaders within the Newfrontiers network of churches in the United Kingdom.

Francis, Leslie J. ; Robbins, Mandy ; Ryland, Andrew 等

The aims of this study are to examine the psychological type profile of leaders within the Newfrontiers network of churches and to compare those data with the psychological type profile of lead elders reported by Francis, Gubb, and Robbins (2009) in order to test whether the wider leadership reflected or complemented the profile of the lead elders. Data provided by 154 leaders, who completed the Francis Psychological Type Scales, suggested that the leadership teams reflect rather than complement the strengths of lead elders. Among these leaders there are preferences for extraversion (52%), sensing (71%), thinking (60%), and judging (86%). The combined STJ preference accounts for 40% of the leaders, indicating a church that is well equipped with practical, organisational management rather than with inspirational pastoral care.

Psychological type theory is being used across a range of Christian denominations to illuminate areas of church life, including different ways of praying (Duncan, 1993), different perspectives on preaching (Francis & Village, 2008), different approaches to evangelism (Butler, 1999), and different ways of exercising leadership and ministry (Oswald & Kroeger, 1988). Psychological type theory has its roots in the insights of Carl Jung into major patterns in human psychological functioning (Jung, 1971). The theory as originally proposed by Jung and subsequently developed and expanded by others distinguishes between two orientations (extraversion and introversion), two perceiving functions (sensing and intuition), two judging functions (thinking and feeling), and two attitudes toward the outer world (judging and perceiving).

Psychological Type Theory

The two orientations are concerned with where energy is drawn from; energy can be gathered either from the outside world or from the inner world. Extraverts (E) are orientated toward the outside world; they are energised by the events and people around them. They enjoy communicating and thrive in stimulating and exciting environments. They prefer to act in a situation, rather than to reflect on it. They may vocalise a problem or an idea, rather than thinking it through privately. They may be bored and frustrated by silence and solitude. They tend to focus their attention upon what is happening outside themselves and may be influenced by the opinions of other people. They are usually open individuals, easy to get to know, and enjoy having many friends. In contrast, introverts (I) are orientated toward their inner world; they are energised by their inner ideas and concepts. They may feel drained by events and people around them. They prefer to reflect on a situation rather than to act in it. They enjoy solitude, silence, and contemplation, as they tend to focus their attention on what is happening in their inner life. They may appear reserved and detached as they are difficult to get to know, and they may prefer to have a small circle of intimate friends rather than many acquaintances.

The perceiving functions are concerned with the way in which people receive and process information; this can be done through use of the senses or through use of intuition. Sensing types (5) focus on the realities of a situation as perceived by the senses. They tend to focus on specific details, rather than the overall picture. They are concerned with the actual, the real, and the practical, and they tend to be down-to-earth and matter-of-fact. They may feel that particular details are more significant than general patterns. They are fond of the traditional and conventional. They may be conservative and tend to prefer what is known and well-established. In contrast, intuitive types (N) focus on the possibilities of a situation, perceiving meanings and relationships. They may feel that perception by the senses is not as valuable as information gained from the unconscious mind; indirect associations and concepts impact their perceptions. They focus on the overall picture, rather than specific facts and data. They follow their inspirations enthusiastically, but not always realistically. They can appear to be up in the air and may be seen as idealistic dreamers. They often aspire to bring innovative change to established conventions.

The judging functions are concerned with the way in which people make decisions and judgements; this can be done through use of objective impersonal logic or subjective interpersonal values. Thinking types (T) make judgements based on objective, impersonal logic. They value integrity and justice. They are known for their truthfulness and for their desire for fairness. They consider conforming to principles to be of more importance than cultivating harmony. They are often good at making difficult decisions as they are able to analyse problems in order to reach an unbiased and reasonable solution. They are frequently referred to as tough-minded. They may consider it to be more important to be honest and correct than to be tactful, when working with others. In contrast, feeling types (F) make judgements based on subjective, personal values. They value compassion and mercy. They are known for their tactfulness and for their desire for peace. They are more concerned to promote harmony, than to adhere to abstract principles. They may be thought of as 'people-persons, as they are able to take into account other people's feelings and values in decision-making and problem-solving, ensuring they reach a solution that satisfies everyone. They are often thought of as warm-hearted. They may find it difficult to criticise others, even when it is necessary. They find it easy to empathise with other people and tend to be trusting and encouraging of others.

The attitudes towards the outside world are concerned with the way in which people respond to the world around them, either by imposing structure and order on that world or remaining open and adaptable to the world around them. Judging types (J) have a planned, orderly approach to life. They enjoy routine and established patterns. They prefer to follow schedules in order to reach an established goal and may make use of lists, timetables, or diaries. They tend to be punctual, organised, and tidy. They may find it difficult to deal with unexpected disruptions of their plans. Likewise, they are inclined to be resistant to changes to established methods. They prefer to make decisions quickly and to stick to their conclusions once made. In contrast, perceiving types (P) have a flexible, open-ended approach to life. They enjoy change and spontaneity. They prefer to leave projects open in order to adapt and improve them. They may find plans and schedules restrictive and tend to be easygoing about issues such as punctuality, deadlines, and tidiness. Indeed, they may consider last minute pressure to be a necessary motivation in order to complete projects. They are often good at dealing with the unexpected. Indeed, they may welcome change and variety as routine bores them. Their behaviour may often seem impulsive and unplanned.

The component parts of Jung's model of psychological type theory have been operationalised in a series of self-report measures, including the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985), the Keirsey Temperament Sorters (Keirsey & Bates, 1978), and the Francis Psychological Type Scales (Francis, 2005). These instruments enable hypotheses generated from psychological type theory to be tested empirically. Data gathered in this way is beginning to make useful and important contributions within the related fields of the psychology of religion, empirically theology and pastoral sciences (for reviews see Francis, 2009; Ross, 2011), including illuminating aspects of Christian ministry.

Psychological Type and Ministry

Reflecting theologically on the Jungian model of psychological type, Francis (2005) argues that Jung has identified in these four constructs (the two orientations, the two perceiving processes, the two judging processes, and the two attitudes toward the outer world) individual differences of the most fundamental nature that reflect the difference and diversity within the divine image of the creator God. Integrating and developing the profound insight of Genesis 1:27 into the creative intention of difference, Francis (2005) argues that the divine image is reflected not only in the difference between male and female, but also in ethnic difference and in psychological type difference. Such an understanding of the doctrine of creation promotes profound respect for psychological type differences and promotes commitment to exploring how such God-given differences properly contribute to building the Church, and to shaping different styles of religious leadership.

Employing the major instruments designed to operationalize psychological type theory, namely the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985), the Keirsey Temperament Sorter (Keirsey & Bates, 1978), and the Francis Psychological Type Scales (Francis, 2005), one particularly fruitful strand of research within the broad field of practical or empirical theology has generated data on the psychological type profile of men and women engaged in various forms of Christian ministry. Individual studies have focused on Presbyterian Church of Scotland ministers (Irvine, 1989), Anglican clergymen serving in the Church in Wales (Francis, Payne, & Jones, 2001; Francis & Payne, 2002), male and female Bible College students (Francis, Penson, & Jones, 2001), evangelical church leaders (Francis & Robbins, 2002; Craig, Francis, & Robbins, 2004), male missionary personnel (Craig, Horsfall, & Francis, 2005), evangelical lay church leaders (Francis, Craig, Horsfall, & Ross, 2005), Roman Catholic priests (Craig, Duncan, & Francis, 2006), youth ministers (Francis, Nash, Nash, & Craig, 2007), Anglican clergymen and clergywo men serving in the Church of England (Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley, & Slater, 2007), evangelical Anglican seminarians (Francis, Craig, & Butler, 2007), Assemblies of God theological college students (Kay & Francis, 2008; Kay, Francis, & Craig, 2008), lead elders serving within the Newfrontiers network of churches (Francis, Gubb, & Robbins, 2009), Church of England hospital chaplains (Francis, Hancocks, Swift, & Robbins, 2009), Methodist Circuit ministers (Burton, Francis, Robbins, 2010), and male and female Free Church ministers in England (Francis, Whinney, Burton, & Robbins, 2011). Overall these studies demonstrate that there are some psychological type characteristics that seem common across men and women engaged in various forms of Christian ministry. At the same time, there are some significant differences related to denominational style and to theological emphases.

Newfrontiers Network of Churches

The Newfrontiers network of churches provides an interesting context in which to extend this tradition of empirical research concerned with the psychological type profile of those engaged in Christian ministry. The distinctive emphases of this network of churches may be reflected in a significantly different group of people being called into leadership.

The Newfrontiers network of churches are part of the New Churches that emerged in the 1960s as a new generation of Christians who experienced the tangible presence and empowering of the Holy Spirit found themselves rejected or stifled by the historic denominational churches (Virgo, 2001, pp. 130-131; Walker, 1988, pp. 43ff). The effect of this experience of the Spirit provoked both a passion for worship, and a new desire to obey God's word. Finding themselves setting up churches from scratch, these frontier-mentality believers turned to the book of Acts for inspiration about church structure. From the pages of Acts and the Pauline epistles various guiding values were deduced: the supremacy of anointing over appointing, the principle of government by a group of elders set aside by God and not by election, the value of friendship, the liberating truth of free forgiveness (God's grace), and the essential place of apostolic and prophetic ministry in both the planting and care of local churches. Within this New Church phenomena, the Newfrontiers family of churches emerged as an identifiable grouping in the 1970s. Statistics reported by Brierley (2001, section 9.7) showed that Newfrontiers was, by then, one of the most numerically successful New Church streams in the UK. By 2010 the Newfrontiers family had grown to over 850 churches in more than sixty nations.

Newfrontiers is a church-planting missional movement that arose from within the non-conformist heritage. Distinctive features of Newfrontiers include the following four themes. First, there is an emphasis on both a cerebral engagement with Scripture and an experiential encounter with the Spirit of God (Virgo, 1996, pp. 40-41). Second, there is a high value placed on ecclesiology because the church is seen as God's new society--an agent and a foretaste of the coming kingdom of God (Virgo, 2003, pp. 33ff). The Newfrontiers mission statement reads:

  Newfrontiers is a worldwide family of churches together on
  a mission, Newfrontiers is a worldwide family of churches
  together on a mission, build the church according to New
  Testament principles, we believe that the most effective
  form of evangelism is worked out from strong local
  churches. These are local churches where each member
  participates, the gifts of the Spirit are outworked, there
  is joy in caring one for the other, there is a desire to
  make a difference in society and an urgency to reach those
  in need. We aim to achieve this society and an urgency to
  reach those in need. We aim to achieve this

The Newfrontiers churches deliberately and self-consciously aim to captivate all corners with this vision. The founder of Newfrontiers, Terry Virgo, writes:

  The very ethos of such congregations should be such
  that even the newest convert is made aware that they
  have been born again and added newest convert is made
  aware that they have been born again and added
  (Virgo, 2003, p. 145)

The importance attached to the church in the plan of God means that Newfrontiers leaders also display suspicion and antagonism towards para-church organisations (Virgo, 2001, p. 304f; Virgo, 1985, p. 14).

Third, Newfrontiers leaders describe themselves as orthodox in theological belief, but non-traditional in practice (Virgo, 1985, pp. 17-18, pp. 58ff). Much is made of new wineskins for the new wine of God's Spirit. Fourth, Newfrontiers rejects the label 'priest' because of the Reformation's insistence on the priesthood of all believers. The label 'minister' is also rejected because all believers are ministers. Newfrontiers asserts the ministry of all and the leadership of some. The labels adopted, therefore, are taken directly from the New Testament--elder, apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, etc. (Walker, 1988, pp. 168ff)

Francis, Gubb, and Robbins (2009) undertook an initial study to explore the psychological profile of lead elders serving within the Newfrontiers network of churches. Their study was based on the responses of 134 lead elders to a survey that included the Francis Pyschological Type Scales (68% response rate). In their analysis of the findings generated by this survey, Francis, Gubb, and Robbins (2009) profiled the strengths of the lead elders alongside what was already known from previous research about the profile of Church of England clergymen as reported by Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley and Slater (2007). In terms of the four binary constructs from which psychological type theory is formed, the Newfrontiers lead elders were more likely than the Church of England clergymen to prefer extraversion (52% compared with 43%), sensing (52% compared with 38%), thinking (54% compared with 47%), and judging (78% compared with 68%). In terms of the pairs, the Newfrontiers lead elders were more likely than the Church of England clergymen to prefer the SJ temperament (47% compared with 31%).

Taken together these preferences suggest that a somewhat different understanding of leadership is being modelled by lead elders within the Newfrontiers network of churches, compared with the understanding of leadership being modelled by Church of England clergymen. Among Newfrontiers lead elders, the higher preference for extraversion suggests a greater emphasis on the social aspects of leadership, the higher preference for sensing suggests a greater emphasis on the practical aspects of leadership, the higher preference for thinking suggests a greater emphasis on the strategic aspect of leadership, and the higher preference for judging suggests a greater emphasis on the organisational aspects of leadership. Taking the opposite perspective, however, the lower preference for introversion suggests less opportunity for reflective leadership, the lower preference for intuition suggests less opportunity for inspirational leadership, the lower preference for feeling suggests less opportunity for pastoral sensitivity in leadership, and the lower preference for perceiving suggests less opportunity for flexibility and spontaneity in leadership. The higher proportions of preferences for the SJ temperament suggest that congregations within the Newfrontiers network of churches are likely to be more tightly and more toughly managed than Church of England congregations.

Research Question

The limitation with the study reported by Francis, Gubb, and Robbins (2009) is that it was restricted to one level of leadership within the Newfrontiers network of churches. Although the role of lead elders is central in local church life, the distinctive ecclesiology of the Newfrontiers network of churches places importance on the development of leadership teams and on shared or corporate leadership. The aim of the present study, therefore, is to build on the initial study reported by Francis et al. (2009) by drawing on a wider and more representative sample of leaders involved within the Newfrontiers network of churches. The research question is to examine whether this wider view of leadership consolidates the psychological type characteristics modelled by the lead elders, or whether this wider view of leadership expands the range of psychological type characteristics available for leadership within the local church. If the lead elders are building up leadership teams within their own image of leadership, we would expect an even higher concentration of SJ preferences as the kind of people who are able to work in and to administer a tightly organised and highly controlled church. If the lead elders are extending the range of leadership skills within the church, we would expect the wider leadership team to complement the lead elders' psychological type preferences, for example, by complementing the lead elders' SJ temperament with a higher proportion of leaders displaying NF temperament.

Method

Sample

A total of 262 questionnaires were distributed to individuals serving in leadership roles within local churches associated with the Newfrontiers network of churches, including elders, staff, volunteer leaders, and highly committed members sharing in leadership. The 154 respondents represented the satisfactory response rate of 59%. Of these respondents, 68 were male, 84 were female, and 2 failed to disclose their sex; 16 were under the age of thirty, 26 were in their thirties, 49 were in their forties, 37 were in their fifties, 17 were in their sixties, 7 were aged seventy or over, and 2 failed to disclose their age.

Measure

Psychological type was assessed using the Francis Psychological Type Scales (FPTS: Francis, 2005). This 40-item instrument comprises four sets of 10 forcedchoice items related to each of the four components of psychological type: orientation (extraversion or introversion), perceiving process (sensing or intuition), judging process (thinking or feeling), and attitude toward the outer world (judging or perceiving). Recent studies have demonstrated this instrument to function well in church-related contexts. For example, Craig, Francis, and Hall (2008) reported alpha coefficients of .83 for the EI scale, .76 for the SN scale, .73 for the TF scale, and .79 for the JP scale.

Analysis

The scientific literature concerned with psychological type (and by extension with psychological temperament) has developed a distinctive way of presented type-related data. The conventional format of type tables has been used in the present paper to allow the findings from this study to be compared with other relevant studies in the literature. In the type table in this paper the profiles of leaders are compared with the profiles of lead elders as reported by Francis, Gubb, and Robbins (2009). In these tables the statistical significances of differences in the profiles of different groups (namely leaders and lead elders) is tested by the means of the Selection Ratio Index (I), an extension of the classic chi-square test (Myers & McCaulley, 1985).

Results

Table 1 presents the psychological type profile for the 154 leaders within the Newfrontiers network of churches. Since the research question concerns the comparison of this group of leaders with the profile of lead elders published by Francis, Gubb, and Robbins (2009), no attempt has been made to examine the profile of male and female leaders separately. The intention is rather to provide an overview of the psychological type characteristics available within the pool of leadership, irrespective of sex. According to these data, among the wider pool of leaders, there were preferences for extraversion (52%) over introversion (48%), for sensing (71%) over intuition (29%), for thinking (60%) over feeling (40%), and for judging (86%) over perceiving (14%).

TABLE 1

Type Distribution for Newfrontiers leaders
N= 154 (NB: + = 1% of N)

The Sixteen Complete Types

ISTJ        ISFJ       INFJ          INTJ
n=40        n= 12      n=6           n=8
(26.0%)     (7.8%)     (3.9%)        (5.2%)
I = 1.66 *  I = 0.80   I = 0.65      I = 0.54
+++++       +++++      ++++          +++++
+++++       +++
+++++
+++++
+++++
+

ISTP        ISFP       INFP          INTP
n=2         n=0        n = 2         n = 4
(1.3%)      (0.0%)     (1.3%)        (2.6%)
I= 1.74     I=0.00     I = 0.44      I = 1.74
+                      +             +++

ESTP        ESFP       ENFP          ENTP
n = 5       n=3        n = 2         n=3
(3.2%)      (1.9%)     (1.3%)        (1.9%)
I=435       I = 0.87   I = 0.17 **   I = 0.44
+++         ++         +             ++

ESTJ        ESFJ       ENFJ          ENTJ
n = 22      n=26       n= 10         n= 9
(14.3%)     (16.9%)    (6.5%)        (5.8%)
I= 1.13     I= 1.89 *  I = 0.87      I = 0.71
+++++       +++++      +++++         +++++
+++++       +++++      ++            +
++++        +++++
            ++

Dichotomous Preferences

E                      n = 80          (51.9%)             I = 0.99
I                      n = 74          (48.1%)             I = 1.01

S                      n = 110         (71.4%)             I = 1.37 ***
N                      n = 44          (28.6%)             I = 0.6 ***

T                      n = 93          (60.4%)             I = 1.12
F                      n = 61          (39.6%)             I = 0.86

j                      n = 133         (86.4%)             I = 1.10
P                      n = 21          (13.6%)             I = 0.63

                                        Pairs and Temperaments

IJ                     n = 66          (42.9%)             I = 1.04
IP                     n = 8            (5.2%)             I = 0.77
EP                     n = 13           (8.4%)             I = 0.57
EJ                     n = 67          (43.5%)             I = 1.17
ST                     n = 69          (44.8%)             I = 1.50 **
SF                     n = 41          (26.6%)             I = 1.19
NF                     n = 20          (13.0%)             I = 0.54 *
NT                     n = 24          (15.6%)             I = 0.65

SJ                     n = 100         (64.9%)             I = 1.38 **
SP                     n = 10           (6.5%)             I = 1.24
NP                     n = 11           (7.1%)             I = 0.44 *
NJ                     n = 33          (21.4%)             I = 0.68
TJ                     n = 79          (51.3%)             I = 1.11
TP                     n = 14           (9.1%)             I = 1.22
FP                     n = 7            (4.5%)             I = 0.324 *
FJ                     n = 54          (35.1%)             I = 1.09

IN                     n = 20          (13.0%)             I = 0.64
EN                     n = 24          (15.6%)             I = 0.56 *
IS                     n = 54          (35.1%)             I = 1.27
ES                     n = 56          (36.4%)             I = 1.48 *
ET                     n = 39          (25.3%)             I = 0.97
EF                     n = 41          (26.6%)             I = 1.02
IF                     n = 20          (13.0%)             I = 0.64
IT                     n = 54          (35.1%)             I = 1.27

       Jungian Types (E)      Jungian Types (I)      Dominant Types
       n     %  Index         n     %  Index         n     %  Index

E-TJ  31  20.1   0.96  I-TP   6   3.9   1.74  Dt.T  37  24.0   1.04

E-FJ  36  23.4   1.42  I-FP   2   1.3   0.29  Dt.F  38  24.7   1.18

ES-P   8   5.2   1.74  IS-J  52  33.8   1.33  Dt.S  60  39.0   1.37

EN-P   5   3.2   0.27  IN-J  14   9.1   0.58  Dt.N  19  12.3   0.45
                  ***                                           ***

E-TJ  A. Ryland,
      L.J. Francis

E-FJ  andM. Robbins

ES-P  Psychological
      types oj

EN-P  Newjrontiers
      leaders

Table 1 also compares the profile of this wider pool of leaders with the profile of the lead elders reported by Francis, Gubb, and Robbins (2009). In terms of the dichotomous preferences, there were no significant differences in terms of the orientations (introversion and extraversion), the judging functions (thinking and feeling) or the attitudes (judging and perceiving). There were significant differences in terms of the perceiving functions: while 52% of the lead elders preferred sensing, the proportion rose to 71% of the leaders. In terms of dominant types, the significant difference between the two groups concerned the lower proportion of dominant intuitive types among the leaders (12% compared with 28% among the lead elders), with consequent increases in the other three dominant types: dominant sensing types (28% among lead elders and 39% among leaders), dominant feeling (21% among lead elders and 25% among leaders), and dominant thinking (23% among lead elders and 24% among leaders). In terms of the temperaments, the significant difference between the two groups concerned the higher proportion of the SJ temperament among the leaders (65% compared with 47% among the lead elders) and the lower proportion of the NF temperament (13% compared with 24% among the lead elders). In terms of the 16 complete types, two types were more highly represented among the leaders than among the lead elders: ISTJ (26% compared with 16%) and ESFJ (17% compared with 9%).

Discussion

Comparison between the present type table for the wider pool of leaders and the type table published by Francis, Gubb, and Robbins (2009) for Newfrontiers lead elders supports the view that this wider pool of leaders is reflecting the psychological type profile of the lead elders rather than complementing that profile with other psychological type characteristics. Moreover, the profile of the leaders accentuates further the differences between the profile of Newfrontiers leadership and the profile of Anglican clergymen provided by Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley, and Slater (2007). Thus, 52% of the lead elders preferred extraversion over introversion, and so did 52% of the leaders (compared with 43% of Anglican clergymen); 52% of the lead elders preferred sensing over intuition, and so did 71% of the leaders (compared with 38% of Anglican clergymen); 54% of the lead elders preferred thinking over feeling, and so did 60% of the leaders (compared with 47% of Anglican clergymen); 78% of the lead elders preferred judging over perceiving, and so did 86% of the leaders (compared with 68% of Anglican clergymen).

In terms of pairs and temperaments, the SJ preference is even stronger among the leaders than among the lead elders (65% compared with 47%), and consequently the NF preference is even less in evidence among the leaders than among the lead elders (13% compared with 24%). These differences also take the leaders further away from the profile of Anglican clergy-men provided by Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley, and Mater (2007) who found that 35% preferred the NF temperament and 31% preferred the SJ temperament.

In terms of dominant types there are similar proportions of dominant thinkers among lead elders (23%) and leaders (24%): dominant thinkers are concerned with the sound organisation of institutions. There are also similar proportions of dominant feelers among lead elders (21%) and leaders (25%): dominant feelers are concerned with good relationships among people within organisations. There is a considerably lower proportion of dominant intuitives among the leaders (12%) than among the lead elders (28%): dominant intuitives are concerned with the vision that drives, shapes, and inspires intuitives. There are a considerably higher proportion of dominant sensers among leaders (39%) than among lead elders (28%): dominant sensers are concerned with the practical infrastructure that maintains institutions.

In terms of the 16 discrete psychological types, the two predominant types among lead elders were ISTJ (16%) and ESTJ (13%), with a total of 28% displaying STJ preferences. This proportion is considerably enhanced among the wider pool of leaders, with ISTJ (26%), ESTJ (14%), and combined STJ preferences (40%). The implications of the predominance of these two type preferences as the style of leadership within the Newfrontiers network of churches is usefully captured by the type profiles provided by Myers (1998:7). According to these profiles the ISTJ is described as:

  Serious, quiet, earn success by concentration and
  thoroughness. Practical, orderly, matter-of-fact,
  logical, realistic and dependable. See to it that
  everything is well organised. Take responsibility.
  Make up their own minds about what should be
  accomplished and work towards it steadily,
  regardless of protests or distractions.

The ESTJ is described as:

  Practical, realistic, matter-of-fact, with a natural head for
  business or mechanics. Not interested in abstract theories; want
  learning to have direct and immediate application. Like to organise
  and run activities. Often make good administrators; are decisive,
  quickly move to implement decisions; take care of routine details.

Conclusion

The present study set out to build on the initial study reported by Francis, Gubb, and Robbins (2009) concerning the psychological type profile of lead elders within the Newfrontiers network of churches. The present study has extended that work by profiling the psychological type characteristics of the broader pool of leaders working alongside lead elders within this network of churches. Three main conclusions emerge from these data that may prove helpful for the New-frontiers network of churches in reflecting on the network's current trajectory and on the network's aspirations for future expansion. More generally these conclusions may also help to illustrate the kind of in-sights that psychological type theory can bring to the broad field of practical or empirical theology.

First, the data supported the view that lead elders are building up leadership teams within the image of their own psychological type rather than attempting to broaden the range of psychological type characteristics within the leadership team. The strength of this strategy is that there is likely to be a consistency and constancy in the approach to leadership modelled by the combined leadership of lead elders and the leadership team. The weakness of this approach is that it may restrict somewhat the range of gifts that God is seen to bestow on the local church.

Second, given the overall preferences for STJ among the leadership, congregations within the New-frontiers network of churches are likely to benefit from a leadership concerned with the practical aspects of a tightly managed organisation. At points of conflict the overall good of the local church as an organisation is likely to take precedence over the good of individual members who may (for whatever reason) be seen to be damaging the overall strategy of the wider leadership team.

Third, the concentration of intuitives within the lead elders may have two implications for the way in which this network of churches is managed. At the level of the local church, the vision for policy change and development may rest in the hands of the lead elders, unchallenged by the wider leadership team until the point comes when this wider leadership team rebels against implementing policy inspired by a vision that it fails to grasp. At the level of the network, the restricted number of intuitives within the wider leadership may restrict the pool from which a new generation of lead elders could be drawn to service the nurture and development of new congregations. While STJ may be essential for keeping established congregations on track, they may be less well suited for shaping new visions and for inspiring new congregations in complex and changing environments.

The present study, together with the earlier study reported by Francis, Gubb, and Robbins (2009) has demonstrated that the leadership teams within the Newfrontiers network of churches display a different psychological type profile from the leadership established, say, by the Anglican Church in England and Wales (Francis, Payne, & Jones, 2001; Francis, Craig, Whinney, Tilley, & Slater, 2007). Further research is needed now to test whether the differences in the psychological type profiles that distinguish between the leadership in the Newfrontiers network of churches and in the Anglican Church is reflected in differences in the psychological type profiles of the membership of these two groups of congregations.

References

Brierley, P. (Ed.). (2001). The UK Christian handbook: Religious trends 3. London: Christian Research.

Burton, L., Francis, L. J., & Robbins, M. (2010). Psychological type profile of Methodist circuit minister in Britain: similarities with and differences from Anglican clergy. Journal of Empirical Theology, 23, 64-81.

Butler, A. (1999). Personality and communicating the gospel. Cambridge: Grove Books.

Craig, C. L., Duncan, B., & Francis, L. J. (2006). Psychological type preferences of Roman Catholic priests in the United Kingdom. Journal of Belief and Values, 27, 157-164.

Craig, C. L., Francis, L. J., & Hall, G. (2008). Psychological type and attitude toward Celtic Christianity among committed churchgoers in the United Kingdom: An empirical study. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 23, 181-191.

Craig, C., Francis, L. J., & Robbins, M. (2004). Psychological type and sex differences among church leaders in the United Kingdom. Journal of Beliefs and Values, 25, 3-13.

Craig, C. L., Horsfall, T., & Francis, L. J. (2005). Psychological types of male missionary personnel training in England: A role for thinking type men? Pastoral Psychology, 53, 475-482.

Duncan, B. (1993). Pray your way: Your personality and God. London: Darton, Longman and Todd.

Francis, L. J. (2005). Faith and psychology: Personality, religion and the individual. London: Darton, Longman and Todd.

Francis, L. J. (2009). Psychological type theory and religious and spiritual experience. In M. De Souza, L. J. Francis, J. O'Higgins-Norman, & D. G. Scott (Eds.), International Handbook of education for spirituality, care and wellbeing (pp. 125-146). Dordrecht: Springer.

Francis, L. J., Craig, C. L., & Butler, A. (2007). Psychological types of male evangelical Anglican seminarians in England. Journal of Psychological Type, 67,11-17.

Francis, L. J., Craig, C. L., Horsfall, T., & Ross, C. F. J. (2005). Psychological types of male and female evangelical lay church leaders in England, compared with United Kingdom population norms. Fieldwork in Religion, I, 69-83.

Francis, L. J., Craig, C. L., Whinney, M., Tilley, D., & Slater, P. (2007). Psychological profiling of Anglican clergy in England: Employing Jungian typology to interpret diversity, strengths, and potential weaknesses in ministry. International Journal of Practical Theology, I I, 266-284.

Francis, L. J., Gubb, S., & Robbins, M. (2009). Psychological type profile of lead elders within the Newfrontiers network of churches in the United Kingdom. Journal of Belief and Values, 30, 61-69.

Francis, L. J., Hancocks, G., Swift, C., & Robbins, M. (2009). Distinctive call, distinctive profile: The psychological type profile of Church of England full-time hospital chaplains. Practical Theology 2, 269-284.

Francis, L.J., Nash, P., Nash, S., & Craig, C.L. (2007). Psychology and youth ministry: Psychological type preferences of Christian youth workers in the United Kingdom. Journal of Youth Ministry, 5(2), 73-90.

Francis, L. J., & Payne, V. J. (2002). The Payne Index of Ministry Styles (PIMS): Ministry styles and psychological type among male Anglican clergy in Wales. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Region, 13, 125-141.

Francis, L. J., Payne, V. J., & Jones, S. H. (2001). Psychological types of male Anglican clergy in Wales. Journal of Psychological Type, 56, 19-23.

Francis, L. J., Penson, A. W., & Jones, S. H. (2001). Psychological types of male and female Bible College students in England. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 4, 23-32.

Francis, L. J., & Robbins, M. (2002). Psychological types of male evangelical church leaders. Journa/of Beliefs and Values, 23, 217-220.

Francis, L. J., & Village, A. (2008). Preaching with all our soul. London: Continuum.

Francis, L. J., Whinney, M., Burton, L., & Robbins, M. (2011). Psychological type preferences of male and female Free Church Ministers in England. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 251-263.

Irvine, A. R. (1989). Isolation and the parish ministry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of St Andrews.

Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types: The collected works, volume 6. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Kay, W. K., & Francis, L. J. (2008). Psychological type preferences of female bible college students in England. Journal of Beliefs and Values, 29, 101-105.

Kay, W. K., Francis, L. J., & Craig, C. L. (2008). Psychological type preferences of male British Assemblies of God Bible College students: Tough minded or tender hearted? Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association, 28, 6-20.

Keirsey, D., & Bates, M. (1978). Please understand me. Del Mar, California: Prometheus Nemesis.

Myers, I. B. (1998). Introduction to type: A guide to understanding your results on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (fifth edition, European English version). Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press.

Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Newfrontiers (2011). Retrieved from http://www.newfrontierstogether.org/Groups/98941/Newfrontiers/About_Us/Our_Mission/Our_Mission.aspx (accessed 2 December 2011).

Oswald, R. M., & Kroeger, 0. (1988). Personality type and religious leadership. Washington, DC: The Alban Institute.

Ross, C. F. J. (2011). Jungian typology and religion: A perspective from North America. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 22,165-191.

Virgo, T. (1985). Restoration in the Church. Eastbourne: Kingsway Communications.

Virgo, T. (1996). A people prepared. Eastbourne: Kingsway Communications.

Virgo, T. (2001). No well-worn paths: Restoring the church to Christ's original intention. Eastbourne: Kingsway Communications.

Virgo, T. (2003). Does the future have a church. Eastbourne: Kingsway Communications.

Walker, A. (1988), Restoring the Kingdom: The radical Christianity of the house church movement. London: Hodder and Stoughton

Author Information

FRANCIS, LESLIE J. Address: Warwick Religions & Education Research Unit Institute of Education, The University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL United Kingdom. Email: leslie.francis@warwick.ac.uk. Title: The Reverend Canon Professor Leslie J. Francis. Degrees: DD, University of Oxford, England; DLitt, University of Wales, Bangor; ScD, University of Cambridge, England; PhD, University of Cambridge. Specializations: practical theology, the psychology of religion, and religious education.

ROBBINS, MANDY. Address: Division of Psychology, Institute for Health, Medical Science and Society, Glynd_r University, Plas Coch Campus, Mold Road, Wrexham, LL11 2AW. Email: mandy.robbins@glyndwr.ac.uk. Title: Senior Lecturer in Psychology. Degrees: BA, Dip Psych, Mphil, PhD, CPsychol. Specializations: practical theology and psychology of religion.

RYLAND, ANDREW. Address: 16 Fletcher Road, Ottershaw, Chertsey, Surrey, KT16 OJY. Email: andrew@leaderstogether.net. Title: Senior Pastor, Beacon Church, Chertsey. Degrees: BA, University of Durham; MA, University of Bangor.

Leslie J. Francis

The University of Warwick, UK

Mandy Robbins

Glyndwr University, UK

Andrew Ryland

St Mary's Centre, Wales, UK