Hybrid Strategic Leadership: Integrating Spiritual and Market Logics for Sustained Success in Megachurches: A Systematic Literature Review

Download Article

DOI: 10.21522/TIJAR.2014.13.01.Art026

Authors : Oscar Mumba

Abstract:

Megachurches, acting as highly visible, resource-intensive Faith-Based Organizations (FBOs), inherently operate under a profound institutional contradiction: the tension between their core, non-commercial spiritual mandate (Spiritual Logic) and the massive operational, administrative, and financial demands characteristic of any large-scale enterprise (Market Logic). When this internal conflict is poorly managed, organizational instability or mission failure frequently follows. An exhaustive review of the extant academic literature reveals a critical theoretical vacuum: the absence of a unified, dedicated leadership model specifically engineered to navigate the unique complexity and intense public scrutiny faced by these large-scale hybrid religious institutions. To overcome this theoretical limitation, this study utilizes a rigorous Systematic Literature Review (SLR) methodology. This process comprehensively maps and synthesizes existing theoretical and empirical research on institutional logics and strategic management within the megachurch ecosystem. The robust evidence synthesized dictates the necessity of the Hybrid Strategic Leadership (HSL) model as the essential executive capability for achieving sustained organizational success. HSL is defined as the dynamic strategic capacity required to both intentionally decouple and synergistically blend spiritual functions (e.g., mission clarity and pastoral care) with market imperatives (e.g., efficiency, professionalization, and growth). The resultant HSL framework offers a crucial, actionable strategic blueprint for senior megachurch leaders, securing both long-term spiritual authenticity and material operational vitality.

References:

[1].   Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K., 2014. The paradox of embeddedness: A dialectic of meaning, management, and markets. Organization Science, 25(2), 380–398.

[2].   D'Aunno, T., Sutton, R. I., Price, R. H., 2000, The professional construction of organizational change: A dialectical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 844–876.

[3].   Allen, P., 2015, Authentic spiritual leadership: The mega church corporate model of the new millennium. Author House.

[4].   Andrews, S. M., 2023, Strategic leadership, change, and growth in not-for-profit, membership-based, value-driven organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 46(6), N/A.

[5].   Bianchi, M., Roy, M. J., & Teasdale, S. (2022). Towards a multi-level understanding of the edited strategies employed in managing hybridity: A systematic review. Sustainability, 15(1), 177.

[6].   Browning, D., 2010, Hybrid Church: The Fusion of Intimacy and Impact. John Wiley & Sons.

[7].   Burton, O., Brister, J., 2012, Organizational hybridization: A business model to integrate best practices of for-profit and non-profit organizations. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 15(1), N/A.

[8].   Chaves, M., 2017, American Religion: Contemporary Trends. Princeton University Press.

[9].   Chen, L., et al., 2019, Bifocal leadership: Navigating dual missions in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 62(4), 1001-1025.

[10].  Grassl, W., 2011, Hybrid forms of business: The logic of gift in the commercial world. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(Suppl 1), 109-123.

[11].  Gronn, P., 2011, Hybrid configurations of leadership. In: A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The Sage handbook of leadership, 437-454. SAGE.

[12].  Hestad, D., Tàbara, J. D., Thornton, T. F., 2021, The three logics of sustainability-oriented hybrid organisations: A multi-disciplinary review. Sustainability Science, 16(2), 647-661.

[13].  Johnson, A. B., 2020, Mission drift and fiscal health: A study of faith-based organizations. Journal of Religious Management, 45(2), 112-135.

[14].  Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B., 1977, Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363.

[15].  DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W., 1983, The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.

[16].  Oyo, C., Musinguzi, D., & Owino, P., 2025. Contract-covenant governance model: A theoretical framework for integrated faith-based institutional governance in Catholic organizations. East African Scholars Multidisciplinary Bulletin, 8(04), 69–82.

[17].  Pache, A. C., Santos, F., 2013, Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972-1001.

[18].  Pruisken, I., Coronel, J., 2014, Megachurches: Managerization in the Religious Field? In: W. Faulstich (Ed.), Religion im Wandel: Die Renaissance des Religiösen in der Gesellschaft, 53–79. Springer VS.

[19].  Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J., 1977, The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929-964.

[20].  Smith, J., 2018, The paradox of the sacred and the secular: Institutional logics in non-profit management. Non-Profit Quarterly, 25(1), 45-58.

[21].  Smith, S. R., 2010, Hybridization and nonprofit organizations: The governance challenge. Policy and Society, 29(3), 219-229.

[22].  Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W., 1999, Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: The emergence of the early retirement program at General Motors, 1974-1994. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843.

[23].  Tagirov, M. R., 2025, Ways to balance spiritual values and economic efficiency. Economics and Management: Problems, Solutions, 5(13), 14–21.

[24].  Greenwood, R., & Oliver, C., 1991, Organizational effectiveness and human services sector: An application of the population ecology model. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 273-299.

[25].  Yi, P. T. T., 2023, Faith-based investing, stewardship, and sustainability: A comparative analysis. Erasmus Law Review, 16, 114.