the abstract
Leadership styles of two companies the one with the authoritarian (top down) style was the largest company in the world at that time. The foreign company that used the participative (bottom up) style was much smaller. They both were in the same kind of business; they made automobiles.That was then; this is now. Today the small company (Toyota) has overtaken the large one (General Motors). In the early 70's this style was new to the United States. Most corporations were managed by a CEO and a board of directors. This was an authoritarian, top down style where the executives made all decisions. The participative model was being used by a company in Japan. There the executives actually involved employees, communicating directly with them and acting on their recommendations. Employees were not only involved in two way communication; they were also given authority to make decisions, especially those that related to their jobs...how does this story appeal to the style that should be adopted in churches?

the answer
The story of the ‘Toyota’ and ‘General Motors’ is very different in the way it appeals people than that which is concerned with church. The former matter infers about the adaptation of autonomy which collaterally induces increased knowledge pool and also recognition of employees. This strategy thus leads to a better growth and development of company. While the church concerns itself with inducing faith in people about God and the Bible which depicts his life as a guide to our life. Church is not a company with limited number of people who are skilled (having appropriate knowledge about god and his life) it is a temple where people try to seek salvation and not monetary gains. To inculcate faith about the God and bible, people need inspiration and who is a better inspiration than Jesus Christ himself as our head as our leader. Thus the authoritarian style which follows a hierarchical system is in fact a good idea to lead people to conquer their vision.
The Red Deer House Church, Red Deer, A B, Canada is the one I know that implies the participative style of leadership; its vision is to empower people. But, do we need to lure people with the fancy terms such as ‘autonomy’ and ‘empowerment’ to motivate them much to have faith in god and church? There’s in fact a better idea, instead the church should teach to empower people to go on with their lives, enlightening them about their rights, helping them to take the right decision. It’s more like teaching and preaching and we want only one leader, one teacher to guide us. However people can be involved in other church activities such as charity and spreading the message of god, these activities should have the participative spirit in managing such events as well as volunteering. Thus, the above discussion points out the strength and weaknesses of the participative style. It is not at all a sign of weakness to ask a worker for advice; nobody is perfect, as a matter of fact true leader is one who is connected to masses and is empathetic.