By TAKESHI TAKAZAWA and DORRIE TAKAZAWA
Abstract
The Pan Asia Leaders Development (PALD) program, initiated within the A3 (formerly Asian Access) network, serves as a present-day prototype of polycentric leadership development. Looking back through the lens of current polycentric leadership scholarship, PALD embodied the principles of shared leadership, distributed authority, and contextualized formation across Asia. Designed and implemented as an experimental leadership ecosystem, it demonstrated how multi-centered structures can form transformational leaders “within, across, and beyond Asia.”
I. Conceptual Background
Polycentric leadership, as articulated in recent missiological and organizational literature, envisions leadership emerging from multiple centers of influence rather than a single hierarchical core. It emphasizes reciprocity, contextual wisdom, and the interdependence of diverse parties within a shared mission.
The PALD program, launched in 2018, applied these principles organically by rooting leadership formation in multiple Asian contexts rather than in one central training hub.
II. Structural Design of the Program
Building on the conceptual understanding of polycentric leadership as multi-centered and reciprocal, the PALD program was intentionally designed so that structure itself would embody these principles rather than merely describe them.
PALD convened ten emerging leaders (two from each of five countries: Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Japan, and Myanmar) over seven learning sessions, with both onsite and online components as well as a mentoring component.
Each participating country hosted one three-night, four-day leadership immersion, combining contextual learning, case studies, and field engagement. The program was intentionally designed to rotate the center of learning so that, in turn, each country would become the focus of influence and contribution.
This structural design was expressed through several interconnected components, each reinforcing polycentricity in distinct but complementary ways.
Components and Polycentric Function
Through these mechanisms, PALD created a multi-layered ecosystem of formation that transcended geography, hierarchy, and cultural dominance and allowed for cross-national mutuality, continuous learning across centers, discovery of universal principles and reflection on and in one’s own context.
This structural ecosystem set the foundation for a deeper redistribution of authority and knowledge.
III. Distribution of Authority and Knowledge
Flowing naturally from its structural design, PALD intentionally reallocated authority and agency across multiple levels rather than relying on a single Western or regional “expert.” Knowledge was equally shared, and authority was exercised relationally rather than hierarchically.
This agency and autonomy were exercised on three distinct but interconnected levels:
- Country level – National Working Teams
- Participant pair team level
- Individual participant level
A. Country Level
Each country’s working team:
- Selected its own participants, ensuring contextual relevance.
- Appointed mentors who guided ongoing formation. Authority of speaking into participants was given to local leadership.
- Contributed local case studies and cultural learning resources as requested by participants.
- Developed assessment criteria.
Their decisions were final.
B. Teams of Two Level (Participants)
The “two by two” structure was intentional, reflecting both a biblical model and a shared authority framework. There was no single “country expert.” Participant pairs could debrief together in their own language and context.
Participants designed the in-country session together and led the session. They designed the country session according to:
- What God has been doing over history
- Vision for the country
- Current day issues
- Their contribution to the global mission
For the benefit of the other participants, they used their country and discernment of what God is doing in their context as a learning resource for others. This enabled genuine cross-cultural learning.
C. Individual Participant Level
Each participant:
- Determined their own growth goals and learning objectives.
- Initiated their own mentoring
- Shared ongoing learning and growth with their partner and the group
Their goals and objectives are not formatted by the PALD program; they set their own goals for the two year period.
This three-level distribution ensured that authority was not symbolic but functionally embedded throughout the program.
IV. Theological and Educational Foundations
The distribution of authority and autonomy within PALD was grounded in a clear theological and educational conviction.
The program’s design reflects a Trinitarian educational paradigm. The gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29), for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). God gives each person the desire of the heart which He Himself has placed there. Calling (what we should do), giftedness (what we can do), and the desire of the heart (what we want to do) overlap, and this overlap is where development should focus.
Because each leader is uniquely called by God, and because giftedness is given in accordance with that calling, leadership development cannot follow a uniform or “cookie-cutter” approach. Furthermore, since God Himself gives the will to follow Him, development must respect the uniqueness of each person’s calling, capacity, and inner motivation. For this reason, leadership development within PALD is inherently polycentric: development emerges from multiple personal centers shaped by God’s distinct work in each leader’s life.
David shepherded them with integrity of heart; with skillful hands he led them (Psalm 78:72).
This conviction shaped PALD’s educational priorities. Leadership formation was not centered on the efficient transfer of knowledge through a seminar-style educational model. Rather, the program emphasized the development of heart and hands alongside understanding. While knowledge has its place, the formation of character and the cultivation of practical wisdom were considered more central to leadership development. Consequently, PALD did not follow a school-based model of education.
Based on this theological foundation, the program intentionally refrained from controlling what participants must learn, how they must behave, or what they must become outside of this center of calling, giftedness, and inner desire.
I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth (1 Corinthians 3:6).
This conviction further shaped PALD’s approach to outcomes and goals. While mentors, peers, and learning environments could plant and water, the program did not dictate growth objectives or developmental outcomes. Growth was understood to be God’s work.The role of the program was to create an environment where growth could occur, not to control the direction or measure of that growth.
Its holistic developmental goals—knowledge, skills, and character—mirror a formation model that integrates head, hand, and heart. Moreover, the emphasis on self-directed, experience-based, and relational learning created an environment in which participants did not merely learn about leadership but practiced polycentric leadership as a lived reality.
V. Evaluative Insights
When viewed through contemporary polycentric leadership theory, PALD exemplifies three interrelated dimensions of polycentric leadership development. These dimensions do not merely describe characteristics of the program; together they clarify why this form of leadership formation was necessary for the kind of leaders PALD sought to develop.
A. Structural Polycentricity
Leadership formation was decentralized across multiple Asian centers, with each context shaping the collective learning agenda.
This structural polycentricity was not adopted as a rejection of centralized educational models. Centralized, school-based, or seminar-driven models can be highly effective in the early stages of leadership development, particularly for novice leaders who need foundational knowledge, role clarity, and a shared framework of responsibility. Such models help establish a common language and baseline understanding.
However, PALD was designed for leaders who were already functioning in leadership roles and had demonstrated experience and responsibility. For leaders at this stage, further growth depended less on acquiring standardized knowledge and more on developing discernment, contextual wisdom, and collaborative capacity. In this context, centralized authority and faculty-led instruction became limiting rather than enabling.
By rotating centers of learning and authority, PALD allowed leadership formation to emerge from interaction among contexts rather than transmission from a single center.Structure and formation were inseparable: how leaders were developed was directly shaped by where authority was located and how it was shared.
B. Cultural Polycentricity
Each nation’s unique culture and context became both the learning context and the curriculum.
Rather than treating culture as background or illustration, PALD positioned culture as a primary source of leadership learning. Cross-cultural difference was not managed as a problem but engaged as a formative resource. Participants learned leadership not by abstract comparison of cultures, but by entering deeply into one another’s realities and reflecting together on what God was doing in each context.
This approach highlighted an important design principle for leadership development in multinational settings: leadership capacity for cross-cultural collaboration cannot be formed apart from cross-cultural experience. Cultural polycentricity, therefore, was not merely a commitment to inclusion but a developmental necessity for leaders expected to serve across national and cultural boundaries.
C. Spiritual Polycentricity
Prayer, calling, and mutual encouragement flowed across national lines, forming an interdependent spiritual community.
Spiritual polycentricity reflected the theological conviction that growth cannot be engineered or controlled. While learning environments, mentoring relationships, and peer communities can plant and water, growth itself belongs to God. By refusing to centralize spiritual authority or prescribe growth outcomes, PALD allowed spiritual formation to emerge relationally and contextually.
This approach reinforced the understanding that discernment, calling, and encouragement are not the possession of a single spiritual center. Instead, they emerge through shared listening, prayer, and reflection across diverse contexts.
Taken together, these three dimensions demonstrate that PALD transcended symbolic diversity. Diversity was not represented superficially but operationalized through design, governance, and learning processes. PALD was designed polycentrically and executed polycentrically, so that the learning ecosystem itself embodied the polycentric nature of leadership development.
This suggests that leadership development cannot be separated from the structure in which it occurs. In PALD, polycentricity was not simply a feature of the program; it was the condition under which meaningful leadership formation for experienced leaders became possible.
VI. Significance
PALD stands as an incarnational experiment in forming leaders who can collaborate across cultures, countries, and callings—without collapsing leadership formation into a single center of power or ideology. Its significance lies not only in what was implemented, but in what was intentionally resisted: centralized control over leadership growth.
First, while the stated goal of PALD was to develop leaders for vision2020, the program did not attempt to control or predetermine specific outcomes. The underlying conviction was that increasing leadership capacity would allow leaders to grow into roles and responsibilities that could not be fully anticipated. As Scripture affirms, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth.” This theological posture required relinquishing centralized outcome control. Polycentric development was therefore not optional but necessary, since growth itself could not be engineered by a single authority, curriculum, or faculty.
Second, PALD highlights an important distinction in instructional design for leadership development. Centralized educational models can play an important role in the early formation of leaders by providing foundational knowledge and clarifying roles and responsibilities. However, for leaders who already occupy positions of responsibility and have demonstrated capacity, further growth depends less on knowledge transfer and more on character formation, practical wisdom, and contextual discernment. In such cases, faculty-centered lectures and seminar-based instruction become insufficient. Leadership development for experienced leaders must occur through multiple centers of authority and learning, where context itself becomes a teacher.
Third, PALD reframed cultural difference not as a barrier to effective leadership formation but as an essential context for it. Cultural difference is not wrong; it is an opportunity to learn about God and how He works in diverse contexts. Cultural gaps create space to encounter the greatness and sovereignty of God in ways that cannot be perceived from within a single cultural framework. The biblical encounter between Peter and Cornelius illustrates how God often works most powerfully in moments of cultural dissonance. For this reason, multinational leaders must be developed in multinational contexts. Such formation cannot be centralized without diminishing the very capacities leaders need to exercise.
While PALD did not define success through predetermined metrics, several observable outcomes illustrate the kind of impact polycentric development can generate. Leaders from two participating countries later became part of their national working teams, and one country redesigned its national leadership program using insights gained through PALD. These outcomes were not planned targets, but organic developments emerging from increased leadership capacity and contextual ownership.
Taken together, these insights suggest a fundamental principle of leadership formation: when leadership is expected to function across cultures, authority, and contexts, its development must be structured in the same way. Polycentric leadership cannot be produced through centralized formation alone. It must emerge from a polycentric environment that mirrors the reality leaders are being prepared to serve within.
VII. Conclusion: Implications for Leadership
Development Design
The PALD program demonstrates that polycentric leadership development cannot be reduced to a methodological preference or an organizational trend. Rather, it emerges from a deeper understanding of how leaders grow, how authority is formed, and how God works through diverse contexts and communities.
This case study suggests that leadership development design must begin not with curriculum or delivery methods, but with a clear discernment of who the leaders are and what kind of leadership they are being formed for. Centralized, school-based, and seminar-driven models remain valuable for introducing foundational knowledge, clarifying roles, and equipping novice leaders with shared frameworks. These models provide necessary structure at early stages of leadership formation.
However, PALD illustrates that once leaders are already exercising responsibility and influence, further growth depends less on centralized instruction and more on environments that allow discernment, contextual engagement, and relational learning to emerge. At this stage, leadership development cannot be effectively engineered through faculty-driven knowledge transfer alone. It must be shaped through multiple centers of authority where experience, reflection, and mutual accountability interact.
From a theological perspective, PALD reflects the conviction that calling, giftedness, and desire are given by God and cannot be standardized. Growth, therefore, cannot be controlled or predetermined. Instructional design that takes this conviction seriously must resist the temptation to over-define outcomes and instead focus on creating environments where leaders can faithfully respond to God’s work in their own contexts.
For practitioners and Christian leaders responsible for designing leadership development initiatives, this case study offers a guiding question rather than a replicable formula:
What kind of leaders are we forming, and therefore what kind of environment must we design for their growth?
PALD does not propose polycentric leadership development as a universal replacement for centralized models. Instead, it demonstrates that when leaders are expected to serve across cultures, contexts, and systems of authority, their development must reflect the same reality. Polycentric leadership, in such cases, cannot be taught abstractly or delivered centrally. It must be experienced communally within a polycentric environment that mirrors the world these leaders are called to serve.
Takeshi Takazawa & Dorrie Takazawa
TAKESHI TAKAZAWA was born and raised in Tokyo, Japan. He became a Christian through a children’s English class held in partnership with A3 and a local Japanese church. After college, he joined A3 as Acting Business Manager for the English language schools and from there he worked with others to start the Church Planting Networks. He was part of the restructure of A3 to launch cutting edge leader development program in Asia. He continues to contribute to develop various innovate iniates such as Pan Asia Leader Development Program. Recently, he is helping to develop new iniatives in leader development.
DORRIE TAKAZAWA met Takeshi while serving as the TESOL director for the English language schools and programs and has been involved in training over a thousand cross cultural workers. She has been developing curriculum, training programs and has served as a trainer in various settings. Dorrie also assisted Takeshi in developing and leading the Pan Asia Leader Development Program.Currently, she is involved in public educational development in Japan.
