Models of Polycentric Leadership

by Joseph W. Handley, Jr., Ph.D.

Missional Church Model

J.R. Woodward presents a polycentric model in his book Creating a Missional Culture. He builds the model on an equipping paradigm based on Ephesians chapter 4. His model identifies the apostle, prophet, evangelist, prophet, and teacher, which he describes as a storyteller, as equippers of the church who function based on their giftedness.¹ He describes this model as a shift from a hierarchical model to a polycentric approach where the equippers empower others to foster the mission of the church.² He refers to Roland Allen’s view of Paul’s approach to ministry to undergird his theological approach.³ This model is not dependent only on the equippers, but also on the central work of the Holy Spirit.⁴

In laying out the model, he shares how the equipping team leads like geese, sharing the leadership load and taking turns based on their giftings. In describing the relational dimension of the team, he offers the Trinity as a model, which “is interdependent, communal, relational, participatory, self-surrendering and self-giving. This is how the equippers should lead. In addition, it is important for the equippers to have mutual respect for one another, appreciating the gifting and experience of each person, giving weight to each.”⁵ He suggests using this communal approach to decision-making, which relies on the collective rather than an individual point of view. This creates a participatory element of leadership. This decentralized approach also informs how the church leaders capture vision, which should actually come from the Spirit’s leading rather than their own initiative.⁶

Woodward refers to the functioning of a Quaker congregation to describe how his model works. In their case, the leaders gather for worship, noting that leadership, meetings, and decision-making are, in essence, part of their communal worship. In this particular congregation, twelve leaders gather, building community, worshipping together, and spending time in silence before discussing issues related to the work of the church. No issues move forward without unanimous support. Granted, running a church this way can be inefficient. However, ownership is high due to the participatory nature of having all key people involved in leadership, which is a strength.⁷

Mission Organization Models

Wycliffe Global Alliance

Giving further dimension to a polycentric model is the Missional Leadership Model proposed by Kirk Franklin in re-shaping the Wycliffe Global Alliance. Although this model is multi-faceted, drawing from an eclectic array of research, it includes polycentric approaches in its operation. The WGA moved from a centralized leadership ecosystem or institutional organism to a model encompassing leadership across the globe, forming an alliance of 100 organizations sharing a decentralized form of governance. This body operates communally casting vision for the Alliance, making decisions and collaborating when it is necessary.⁸

This communal approach to leadership moves power away from a centralized location, shifting it to the margins of the alliance.⁹ One of the key features of their model is providing equality of leadership and revolving point people for the community as a whole. This is an interconnected, culturally diverse community of leaders across the WGA. It’s a model that is decentralized with limited controls and structures.¹⁰

A3 (Formerly Asian Access)

A3 aspires to operate more like a movement than an organization and as such we have a polycentric model of leadership. We still have an official operating structure with a governing board, president and typical flow chart. However, we have adapted the distribution of our leadership using a polycentric model of leadership to foster further collaboration, participation, freedom, and diversity of perspective. We envision ourselves more as a community than an organization as our vision states: “a vibrant community of servant leaders… leading the Church across Asia.”¹¹

Our core leadership involves several diverse teams including a ministry team, infrastructure team, and a missionary-focused team. These teams are made up of both staff and volunteer leaders and seek to represent every region within our overall network. In addition, our advisory systems include a Vision Council which is represented by leaders from many of the countries we operate in. Decisions are made in collaborative fashion through a deeply communal process. Each team has the freedom to structure and make decisions based on the values of the movement and our collective vision and mission.

At the ground level, each country makes its own decisions in a similar communal fashion with working teams, which are initially formed in consultation with the A3 leadership team. Future vision is determined in a very collaborative and prayerful discernment process. Over the past year, all of these leadership teams, as well as many of the on-the-ground participants, volunteers, employees, and missionaries, have had the opportunity to speak into the formation of our next multi-year strategic plan. In this way, God speaks through the community and inspires the vision and direction (charisma) from within our midst as we listen to him collectively to discern our future.

Inter-Organization Model

Nydia García-Schmidt, America’s Director for the Wycliffe Global Alliance, has witnessed this emergent polycentric model in the ongoing work of networks of Bible translators working together in Peru. The Interethnic Evangelical Association of Peru (ACIEP, Asociación Cristiana Interetnica del Perú), a new association of nine organizations, started in 2013, had just begun to work together. Some came in wondering why they were there. But as the communal leadership process continued, García-Schmidt was impressed. She described the outcomes of the meeting as follows:

As I listened to ACIEP’s staff, it was clear that they had a strong ownership for the part they played in making God’s Word accessible to their communities. They spoke in great detail about ensuring that their work was actually having the desired impact. I could identify among them both men and women who were problem solvers, visionaries, leaders, paradigm shifters, strategic thinkers and community builders. When presenting some WGA principles about community, and Biblical foundations for the work of Bible translation, I began to sense a revitalized outlook among them. All these signs demonstrate aspects of community empowerment… The members of ACIEP were happy to know that they had a space and a voice, not just in their local situation, but also in the global scenario. Near the end of our time together, I asked the ACIEP leadership and all who were participating in the meeting to consider what they could contribute to the larger Bible translation movement—a question they had not been asked before. Then they debated among themselves how to include more organizations and people in their association—mainly because they found value in creating capacity for others.

ACIEP is one of many emerging polycentric centres of influence realizing the important role they play in developing sustainable and contextualized approaches to taking God’s word to their own indigenous communities. In addition, they increasingly understand how their voices and experiences are vital for the larger mission movement. By embracing the values of affirming and nurturing polycentric communities, a participatory approach is fostered between global and local, recognizing that community empowerment is acting upon this vital inter-linkage—regardless of the nature of the ministry focus.¹²

New Church Structures

J.R. Woodward, in his book Creating a Missional Structure, advocates for an imperative change within the Church in postmodern society.¹³ He looks at the challenges of our current era and pinpoints one of the problems for the church being its hierarchical modern structures. He states:

One of the reasons the church is losing the digital generation is we have failed to incarnate an approach to leadership which takes seriously the major shifts our culture is experiencing. If we are going to be a sign, foretaste, and instrument of God’s kingdom and incarnate the good news in our context, we must learn to navigate the megashifts I will be addressing in chapter five: the media shift from print and broadcast to the digital age, the philosophical shift from modernity to postmodernity, the science shift from classic science to emergent science, the spatial shift from rural to urban, and the religion shift from Christendom to post-Christendom. These cultural shifts highlight the vulnerabilities of a centralized leadership structure, which I contend never should have characterized the church in the first place. If we are to meaningfully connect with the digital generation and live more faithfully to the narrative of Scripture, we need to shift from a hierarchical to a polycentric approach to leadership, where equippers live as cultural architects cultivating a fruitful missional ethos that fully activates the priesthood of all believers.¹⁴

He reasons that the current hierarchical leadership structure is ill-equipped to manage the challenges in society. Woodward’s assessment of societal changes dovetails with what was presented in the first chapter through the GlobalTrends 2030 – Citizens in an Interconnected and Polycentric World: “The world is undergoing a massive transition, particularly in terms of power, demographics, climate, urbanization, and technology. In this context, the opportunities are huge, but so are the uncertainties and challenges to the well-being of citizens.”¹⁵

While Woodward’s assessment seems astute, many might argue that church leadership systems are doing just fine. The ebbs and flows of the growth of Christianity flux over time and in some settings the more hierarchical systems seem to be doing well. It could also be that organic models of church leadership are gaining popularity mostly in the West, where Woodward is based.¹⁶ Theologically, however, one could also look to passages like Matthew 9 (see v. 17), Mark 2 (v. 22) and Luke 5 (see vv. 37, 38) where the metaphor of new wineskins is presented to more effectively adapt to cultural settings. Could it be that Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9 about adapting to local contexts might be applied conceptually as well? Normally these passages are interpreted for effectiveness in gospel witness, but might they also augment Woodward’s approach from Ephesians 4? (see p. 76 below) Later in this section, Franklin poses another dimension based on the Trinity in the Missio Dei. Similarly, the Trinity of the godhead will be explored in the final two chapters as another approach to mission leadership, a leadership that is more polycentric in orientation.

Highlighting the type of environment that Woodward is addressing, General Stanley McChrystal believes that “to succeed, maybe even to survive, in the new environment, organizations and leaders must fundamentally change. Efficiency, once the sole icon on the hill, must make room for adaptability in structures, processes, and mindsets that is often uncomfortable.”¹⁷ Leaders in these complex environments need to adapt and empower local teams to take more ownership of their own context. This can happen only if information is shared more broadly rather than held among a few at the top of the command chain.

This top-down, fixed-solution style of leadership was prominent in previous decades.  Many leadership books of past eras highlight the role of the CEO, the pastor, or general manager. McChrystal states that this type of leadership had strengths and weaknesses. On the positive side, it led to more products being produced in a faster time for less overall cost. However, “This new world [of conflict with Al-Qaeda] required a fundamental rewriting of the rules of the game. In order to win, we would have to set aside many of the lessons that millennia of military procedure and a century of optimized efficiencies had taught us.”¹⁸ He goes on to add, “These events and actors were not only more interdependent than in previous wars; they were also faster. The environment was not just complicated, it was complex.”¹⁹

Woodward seems to capture the challenges of this new era. He sees the complexity of the world around him and notes, just as McChrystal did for the U.S. military, that changes must take place in order for churches to be more effective. Before positing what new type of leadership might be necessary, he considers a biblical paradigm for leadership in the early church.

Woodward suggests Ephesians 4:7-16 as a model for ideal church structure and posits that this model would be more fruitful for today’s environment. He suggests that the Apostle Paul’s five-fold pattern of leadership is a fluid structure where people with differing gifts lead at various times. He notes how “[Paul] describes how Christ has given the church five different equippers—apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers—who embody their gifts in such a way that the entire body is awakened and moves toward the full stature of Christ in both character and mission (Eph 4: 7-16).”²⁰ Snodgrass affirms the importance of diversity in his commentary on this passage.²¹ It’s surprisingly similar to General McChrystal’s solutions in the fight against Al Qaeda. For Woodward, this model of leadership from Ephesians forms the backbone of a polycentric leadership structure. He thinks that “the apostle Paul was ahead of his time, for he does not propose a centralized leadership structure or a flat leadership structure. Rather he reveals to us a polycentric structure, where leaders interrelate and incarnate the various purposes of Christ in such a way that the entire body is activated to service and matures in love.

The five equippers are gifted by God to help the congregation move toward maturity in Christ and see the reality of God’s kingdom, which is both here and coming.”²² Some may argue that this is an overly simplistic view of church leadership given the focus on one particular passage. Nevertheless, it is a biblical model that some leaders are using, especially for missional church leadership.²³ Augmenting this notion is reviewing other aspects of scripture, most notably a review of 1 Corinthians 12:28 where various leadership gifts are detailed.²⁴

Suzanne Morse, in looking at communal leadership, highlights the importance of polycentric leadership as an approach as well: “Successful communities, even those with long traditions of organized community leadership, will continue to broaden the circles of leadership to create a system for the community that is neither centralized nor decentralized, but rather polycentric. The polycentric view of community leadership assumes that there are many centers of leadership that interrelate.”²⁵ Her model gives further support to Woodward’s theological conception.

Developing this further, Woodward refers to Kester Brewin’s assessment of leadership in the church in Signs of Emergence. Brewin is certain that

Studies of self-organizing, emergent systems, in areas such as computing, biology, and economics, demonstrate the necessity for organizations to move from the top-down institutional approach to a bottom-up, adaptable network approach that can meet the challenges of our fast-changing culture.”²⁶… In every area of life, it seems there are historically top-down organizations that are having to adapt and evolve; that have realized that the only way that they can survive is to transform themselves from… monolithic, flabby, grey institutions that do not and cannot respond to realities on the ground, into conjunctive, devolved, bottom-up, adaptable networks that are trim, agile, and flexible enough to face and meet the ever-changing challenges of the fast-moving post-Enlightenment world.²⁷ 

The ideas presented here by church leaders are amplified by the research on complexity theory. From this basis, leadership studies are considering Adaptive Leadership paradigms as a model for the “knowledge era”.²⁸ Woodward’s and Brewin’s insights establish a good foundation for polycentric governance, which will be further developed with insights from the Bloomington School. Woodward has articulated something that is paramount for this thesis – that a polycentric form of leadership may be more effective for the church of today. For now, reviewing mission structures’ approaches in governance and leadership will be the focus in this next section.

New Mission Structures

Woodward’s study was amplified by a dissertation by Kirk Franklin who reviewed polycentrism as a model for leadership within the Wycliffe Global Alliance.²⁹ As Franklin stepped into leadership, both of Wycliffe Australia, and more importantly, later with the Wycliffe Global Alliance, he was aware of the challenges before him. As a result, he explored the significant shifts occurring in the world of leadership and how that might impact the way Wycliffe operates at on international level. This section highlights the ideology presented by Franklin and takes a broader look at the issues facing the Global Church, and more specifically mission organization structures.

In his dissertation abstract, Franklin states that “The research question explored in this thesis concerns how globalization affects the missional journey of the Wycliffe Global Alliance (WGA) and how this is influenced by paradigm shift theory applied to the Missio Dei.³⁰ Together, these contribute to a theoretical model for a new paradigm for global mission leadership.”³¹ Initially, he reviews the idea of Missio Dei in both theological and missiological perspectives, determining the importance of a Trinitarian approach to mission and leadership.  He concludes this section of research noting:

As Christendom declines, the deliberate empowering of the people of God for mission is giving birth to a new paradigm of ‘participatory leader’. This model understands how the church’s identity is found in participating in the triune God’s mission. Missional leaders do not necessarily rely on a title for their authority and often operate through leadership teams where spiritual gifts are emphasized… since the triune God is the perfect embodiment of hope and the originator and source of mission, he calls and enables his people to be a community of the witness of his hope. Leadership-in-community then becomes a natural outworking of the ongoing expression of participating in God’s mission.³²

Franklin’s theological thesis is interesting, especially in light of mission leadership today. He posits that the very nature of God, being Trinitarian, is an example of polycentric leadership: three distinct persons leading based on their nature as one. This “leadership-in-community” concept is what he highlights as an important aspect of the Missio Dei. And, he sees this model as instructive for a postmodern, plural world.

From this theological base, Franklin gives an overview of the benefits and challenges of globalization, some of which were highlighted above by Woodward.  Franklin notes how globalization benefits societies because of “the intensification of worldwide social relations that link distant communities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa.”³³ On the other hand, “The very nature of globalization is contradictory –it creates winners and at the same time losers.”³⁴ There are also economic disparities and polarization as nations go from pluralism on the one hand to tribalism on the other. This all leads toward greater nationalism which can manifest itself in both cultural and religious ways.

Clearly, globalization is something our world is grappling with in the present era. It is apparent in the U.K.’s Brexit challenge with both “Remainers” and “Brexiters” arguing for their perspective as well as the America First principles affecting the U.S.A. The challenge of increasing immigration and how the various E.U. countries are responding or the way that China’s “Belt and Road” initiative is being thrust upon Asia are further examples. The poles between tribalism and globalism are ever before us.³⁵ From this context, Paul Bendor-Samuel, executive director of the Oxford Centre for Mission Studies, reflected on a gathering of mission agencies that came to this same conclusion: the need for a new type of leader. He suggested, “There is an urgent need for the development of global missional leaders who are able to make sense of our times and are capable of understanding and leading locally.”³⁶

With this compelling backdrop, Franklin led Wycliffe on a journey involving a paradigm shift in how they do leadership. He invited leaders from across the Wycliffe community from the Global South and North to pursue a new way forward. It was in this context that Franklin used what he called a paradigm shift theory, a model that adapts to the time period in which one operates, to move toward a polycentric approach toward governance. In the published book following his dissertation, he states,

“Albert Einstein is attributed as saying that major problems or challenges we have do not get solved with the same level of thinking that created them. If Einstein is right, how do we look beyond our own strategies and structures to find solutions for the complexities of global mission? One way is to consider that the world has many centres of missional influence.”³⁷

Franklin’s study is fascinating, but eclectic, in approach. He combines various streams of thinking via several approaches to analyze a number of factors present for mission leaders today. His work spans missional church paradigms, globalization, paradigm-shift theory, and the journey of the Wycliffe Global Alliance. Of utmost interest to this thesis is a concept he summarizes as part of this span of research: the idea of polycentrism. Franklin states,

A concept that is helpful in discussing the paradigmatic change in WGA is the concept of polycentrism, which is associated with or an outcome of globalization. This is because globalization… is the multidimensional social process and interconnection that multiplies and intensifies social interactions. It links these together in such a way that local developments in one part of the globe are affected by events in some other part of the world. It, therefore, creates an interconnected world made possible through widespread access to innovating and converging technologies, combined with economic and political influences, to produce dynamic forces not bound to a particular geographic or cultural context. Into this milieu arises the concept of multiple, or polycentric centres of influence and leadership.³⁸

Franklin also looks at polycentrism through the prism of nation-states and how they govern themselves. He leans heavily on Cattan’s study of European governance, noting how cities located near each other form systems of leadership that strengthen one another and operate in a highly democratic and decentralized manner.³⁹ In the next section, this dissertation will review governance models like Cattan’s in further focus. Borrowing from Cattan’s model, he explains how the Wycliffe Global Alliance can serve in a more empowering way:

“polycentrism [has] implications for WGA’s governance and structure because, as a global alliance, WGA inspires the interdependent self-governing organizations that make up WGA to collaborate together as a community, but retain their individual distinctions.”⁴⁰

Later he also notes, “In a similar way, the polycentric approach of the dispersion of power is observed in the development of the new alliance structure of WGA. This has enabled the voices from the global South and East to take greater prominence in the governance and leadership of WGA.”⁴¹

Another aspect of polycentrism is in the work of Morse in The Community of the Future: “According to Morse, effective communities broaden their sphere of leadership to form a polycentric model of numerous leadership centres that interconnect with each other. These centres enable the vision for the community through finding opportunities for its diverse array of people to make decisions, collaborate, and act together in suitable ways to reach the community’s goal.”⁴² Franklin expounds on this in his work looking at Bowen⁴³ and Hustedde⁴⁴ stating,

Bowen et al. suggest that informal and formal networks within a context operate like ‘turbines’ that are not ‘centralized or pyramidal’ in how they are governed but, instead, are polycentric with many interconnected centres of leadership. This provides ‘social energy’ for building capacity in the community. Hustedde refers to this as an ‘entrepreneurial community’, operating with a number of circles of influence, such as social services, youth, the arts, local government, and so forth. The leaders from each circle are enabled to make decisions directed by the mutual vision. Hustedde states that polycentric leadership works well when it moves beyond team building to ‘team learning’, where leaders think collectively and learn to work in a coordinated way.”⁴⁵

Franklin concludes that “Polycentric leadership enables more of a communal approach in which leaders operate within an array of interconnected communities. Through polycentrism, there is a deliberate attempt to move away from established centres of power, so that one leads from among others. In this way, there is creative learning in a community, with attentiveness to others in the community, especially those from within the margins of the community.”⁴⁶ His observations have merit, but more research needs to be done to validate that polycentric leadership is the wave of the future.

Actually, polycentric leadership is a model that is increasingly being reviewed by mission organizations searching for healthy ways to exist within globalization’s powerful deconstructions and disruptions. Franklin has built on Yeh’s proposition and the findings of the Munich School of World Mission: developing a polycentric model of leadership for the future. For Wycliffe, moving toward polycentrism has been positive. They have empowered previously unknown voices, given platforms to countries and regions that were formerly at the margins, gained further perspective from various centers of influence into the movement overall, and brought a dynamic sense of spiritual vitality and further missionary expansion.⁴⁷ This is something Jehu Hanciles predicts will become mission beyond the Christendom model:

Mission de-linked from structures of power and domination; mission undertaken from positions of vulnerability and need; mission freed from the bane of territoriality and one-directional expansion from a fixed centre; mission involving agents who reflect the New Testament reference to the ‘weak things of the world’ (1 Corinthians 1:27).⁴⁸

Hanciles, in reviewing the Christendom model of church and mission, sees the same challenges that Woodward and Franklin are attempting to address. In order for mission to thrive, it will need to adapt to new structures and approaches. This leads us to the ongoing research related to polycentric governance, which provides insight into better ways to lead in polycentric fashion.

---

End Notes

1. Woodward, JR.  2013, Kindle edition, 58.
2. Woodward, JR. 2013, 60.
3. Woodward citing the work of Roland Allen, Mission Activities Considered in Relation to the Manifestation of the Spirit (London: World Dominion, Press, 1927), p. 30.
4. Woodward, JR. 2013, 212-213.
5. Woodward, JR. 2013, 214.
6. Woodward, JR. 2013, 215.
7. Woodward, JR. 2013, 216 – 218.
8. Franklin, Kirk J, 2017.
9. Franklin, Kirk James. 2016, 241.
10. Franklin, Kirk, 2016, 242.
11. Asian Access Vision and Mission Statements.
12. García-Schmidt, Nydia. “Community Empowerment,” in Franklin, Kirk J, Crough, Dave, and Crough, Deborah. Towards Global Missional Leadership: A Journey Through Leadership Paradigm Shift in the Mission of God (Regnum Practitioner Series). 2017. Kindle, 43ff.
13. Woodward, JR. Creating a Missional Culture: Equipping the Church for the Sake of the World. 2013. Kindle edition.
14. Woodward, 60.
15. Global Trends 2030 – Citizens in an Interconnected and Polycentric World report of the European Strategy and Policy Analysis System. Institute for Security Studies European Union, Paris.  It must be noted that futures-oriented publications are more predictive in nature rather than descriptive of current dynamics. It is important therefore, not to base new theory on more predictive analysis but maintain focus on discernable trends.
16. See Cole, Neil. Organic Leadership: Leading Naturally Right Where You Are. Baker 2010. and Roxburgh, Alan, J. and Romanuk, Fred. The Missional Leader, Equipping Your church to Reach a Changing World. 2006.
17. McChrystal, Stanley, David Silverman, Tantum Collins, Chris Fusell: Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World. 2015. Kindle edition, 7.
18. McChrystal, 51.
19. McChrystal, 59.
20. Woodward, 58.
21. Snodgrass, Klyne. Ephesians: The NIV Application Commentary. 1996, 301, 306.
22. Woodward, 60.
23. See for example Hirsch, Alan. The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church. 2007, 169-177. And note the references above for Neil Cole and Alan Roxburgh (footnote 5).
24. See Garland, David. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. 2003, 976-977. 
25. Morse, Suzanne. “Five Building Blocks for Successful Leadership,” in The Community of the Future, ed. Frances Hesselbein et al. 1998, 234.
26. Woodward, 71.
27. Woodward, 209. See Brewen, Kester. Signs of Emergence: A Vision for Church That Is Organic/Networked/Decentralized/Bottom-up/Communal/Flexible {Always Evolving} 2007.
28. Uhl-Bien, Mary, Russ Marion and Bill McKelvey. “Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era.” The Leadership Quarterly 18:4 (August 2007), 298-318.
29. Franklin, Kirk James. “A Paradigm for Global Mission Leadership: The Journey of the Wycliffee Global Alliance. 2016.
30. Franklin details the development of paradigm shift theory to Thomas Kuhn and later to Hans Küng. He describes the evolving nature of science (taken from Kuhn) and applied to theology by Küng. See Kuhn, T., 2012, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 50^th  anniversary edition. And Küng, H., 1988, Theology for the Third Millennium, pp. 128-152. Also see Franklin’s 2016 51-57. Simply stated, Franklin refers to changing paradigms over time and in this case to God’s mission in the world today.
31. Franklin, v.
32. Franklin, Kirk J., Dave Croug, and Deborah Crough. Towards Global Missional Leadership: A Journey Through Leadership Paradigm Shift in the Mission of God (Regnum Practitioner Series). 2017. Kindle loc 597, 612.
33. Franklin, dissertation, 39.
34. Franklin, Towards Global Missional Leadership, 91.
35. Bendor-Samuel, Paul. “Forward” in Franklin, Kirk J., Dave Croug, and Deborah Crough. Towards Global Missional Leadership: A Journey Through Leadership Paradigm Shift in the Mission of God (Regnum Practitioner Series). 2017. Kindle, 11.
36. Franklin, 12.
37. Franklin, 85.
38. Franklin, dissertation, 232.
39. Cattan, Nadine. Cities and Networks in Europe: A Critical Approach to Polycentrism. 2007 65-74.
40. Franklin, 2017 233.
41. Franklin, 2017 234.
42. Morse, S.W., 1998, ‘Five Building Blocks for Successful Leadership’, in F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, R. Beckhard, and R.F. Schubert (eds.), The Community of the Future, 229-238.
43. Bowen, G.L, Martin, J.A., Mancini, J.A. and Nelson, J.P. n.d., Community Capacity: Antecedents and Consequences.
44. Hustedde, R., 2007, ‘What’s culture got to do with it? Strategies for Strengthening Entrepreneurial Culture’, in N. Walzer, Entrepreneurship and Local Economic Development, 39-58.
45. Franklin, 2017p. 235.
46. Franklin,2017, 217.
47. Franklin, 2017, 242.
48. Hanciles, Jehu J. Beyond Christendom: Globalization, African Migration, and the Transformation of the West. 2008, 369.

---