Page 8999
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
The Impact of Leadership Dynamics on the Growth and Development
of Home Cells: A Study of Perez Chapel International
Archbishop Charles Agyinasare
Perez University College, Ghana
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000733
Received: 02 November 2025; Accepted: 10 November 2025; Published: 22 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Small groups are essential focal points for both qualitative and quantitative church growth in many mega
Pentecostal and Charismatic churches. Previous studies have examined the use of small groups for
administration, growth, and sustainability, but have often focused on programmes, activities, or leader
selection rather than on the dynamics of leader–member relationships within these groups. This paper explores
the impact of leadership dynamics on the growth and development of home cell groups at Perez Chapel
International’s Perez Dome in Accra, Ghana. Drawing on Transformational Leadership, Leader–Member
Exchange (LMX) theory, Social Identity Theory, and Team Convergence of Mental Models, the study employs
a convergent mixed-methods design. Quantitative data were collected from 124 home cell participants and 7
regional leaders using a newly developed Home Cell Growth Scale and the LMX-7, complemented by
attendance records from 126 home cell groups over a one-year period. Qualitative data were gathered through
semi-structured interviews and thematically analysed. Reliability and factor analysis confirmed that the four
growth dimensions (numerical, spiritual, welfare, and social) form a coherent and largely unidimensional
construct. Results show that LMX is strongly associated with spiritual, social, and welfare growth, and
moderately but significantly correlated with net numerical growth. Welfare and social growth emerged as the
strongest predictors of actual numerical increase. Qualitative themes highlighted trust, open communication,
personal care, community engagement, and the challenge of leadership burnout. The study concludes that
highquality leader–member relationships are crucial for spiritual and relational health in home cells and that
welfare and social care are key pathways to numerical growth. It recommends intentional support systems,
shared leadership structures, and improved data practices to sustain home cell growth while guarding against
leadership burnout.
Keywords: Pentecostals and Charismatics; Perez Chapel International; home cells; leader–member exchange;
transformational leadership; church growth; burnout.
INTRODUCTION
The rapid expansion of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity across Africa has brought renewed focus on
how mega churches provide effective pastoral care and maintain close relational ties with members who attend
services in large numbers (Asamoah-Gyadu, 2005, 2019). In response to the challenge of caring for growing
congregations and addressing the existential, social, and spiritual needs of members, many churches have
adopted home cell systems—small groups that meet in homes or neighbourhood spaces to provide fellowship,
discipleship, and mutual support.
For Perez Chapel International, and specifically the Perez Dome congregation in Accra, home cells serve as an
intentional strategy to “shrink the church to a manageable size” during the week while maintaining a large,
centralized worshipping community on Sundays. This structure resonates with the model of the early church in
Acts, where believers met in homes for breaking of bread, prayer, and teaching (Garrett, 1998), and aligns with
global small-group strategies used for church planting and multiplication (Ott & Wilson, 2011).
While earlier studies in Ghana and elsewhere have examined the role of small groups in promoting community,
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9000
www.rsisinternational.org
spiritual growth, and organizational development (Adubofour & Ofei Badu, 2019; Robinson, 2023), relatively
less attention has been given to the quality of leader–member relationships within these groups and their
impact on multi-dimensional growth outcomes. This is particularly important in Pentecostal and Charismatic
contexts that emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit, transformational leadership, and intense pastoral
involvement in members’ lives (Hohenstein & Jung, 2021; Yankyera, 2023).
This study addresses that gap by focusing on Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) and other leadership dynamics
within home cell groups at Perez Dome. It examines how strong or weak leader–member relationships
influence four dimensions of home cell growth:
1. Vertical (spiritual) growth – discipleship, spiritual formation, and leadership development.
2. Numerical growth – changes in attendance and membership.
3. Social growth – interpersonal relationships, fellowship, and communal activities.
4. Welfare growth – practical care, support, and member welfare.
Four central research questions guide the study:
1. RQ1: What is the relationship between strong leader–member relationships and the growth of home
cell groups in the Perez Dome?
2. RQ2: What is the relationship between the four growth dimensions (spiritual, numerical, social, and
welfare) and net numerical growth?
3. RQ3: Which growth indicators are most influenced by leadership dynamics, particularly leader–
member exchange?
4. RQ4: What strategies and challenges do leaders and members identify for sustaining strong leader–
member relationships and supporting home cell group growth?
By addressing these questions, the paper contributes to both church growth literature and leadership studies in
African Pentecostal and Charismatic contexts. It also offers practical recommendations for mega churches
seeking to expand and sustain effective home cell systems without overburdening their leaders.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
Transformational Leadership and Leader–Member Exchange (LMX)
Transformational leadership theory suggests that leaders inspire followers to transcend self-interest and pursue
shared, higher-order goals (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Northouse, 2021). Transformational leaders motivate
through:
1. Idealized influence – modelling values and vision.
2. Inspirational motivation – articulating a compelling future.
3. Intellectual stimulation – encouraging creativity and reflection.
4. Individualized consideration – attending to individual needs and development (Dinh et al., 2020).
In Pentecostal and Charismatic settings, transformational leadership is particularly salient, as leaders are
expected to provide not only administrative oversight but also spiritual direction, pastoral care, and charismatic
guidance (Kumar et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2022). This leadership style often manifests in close, emotionally
charged relationships in which leaders are perceived as spiritual parents or mentors.
Leader–Member Exchange (LMX) theory complements transformational leadership by focusing specifically
on the quality of dyadic relationships between leaders and followers (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen &
UhlBien, 1995). High-quality LMX relationships are characterized by trust, mutual respect, loyalty, and
reciprocity, resulting in increased motivation, role expansion, and greater influence for followers (Schriesheim
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9001
www.rsisinternational.org
et al., 2001). Low-quality exchanges, by contrast, are more transactional and restricted to formal role
requirements.
LMX is particularly relevant to home cell ministry where leaders interact with members in small, intimate
settings where relational dynamics strongly shape participation and engagement. In such contexts, strong LMX
can facilitate:
1. Deeper spiritual engagement and discipleship (Wang et al., 2023).
2. Emotional support and resilience (Zhang et al., 2022).
3. Emergence of new leaders through mentoring and empowerment (Dulebohn et al., 2020).
However, high LMX can also contribute to leader overload and burnout when expectations for care and
involvement are not matched with structural support (Liang et al., 2021).
Social Identity Theory and Team Convergence of Mental Models
Social Identity Theory (SIT) posits that individuals derive part of their self-concept from their membership in
social groups, leading to in-group favouritism and potential out-group bias (Turner & Reynolds, 2020). In
home cell contexts, strong group identity can enhance:
1. Commitment and retention.
2. Willingness to serve and participate.
3. Supportive behaviours among members.
However, it can also create risks of exclusivity or fragmentation if cells become inward-looking or overly
dependent on a single leader (Hogg, 2021).
Team Convergence of Mental Models refers to the extent to which team members share a common
understanding of goals, roles, and processes (Manges et al., 2021). When leaders and members share
convergent mental models, teams are more cohesive, coordinate better, and perform more effectively.
Leadership styles that favour certain subgroups, however, can hinder convergence by reinforcing “in-group”
and “out-group” distinctions (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
In a home cell system, convergent mental models and a shared sense of identity are crucial for achieving
balanced spiritual, social, welfare, and numerical growth. Leaders must therefore cultivate inclusive identities
and shared understandings that align with the broader church vision.
Church Growth Theory and Home Cell Ministry
Church Growth Theory combines attention to numerical expansion with spiritual depth and contextual
relevance (Ott & Wilson, 2011; Robinson, 2023). It emphasizes:
1. Effective evangelism and follow-up.
2. Strong leadership and discipleship systems.
3. Contextualized ministry suited to local cultures.
4. Small groups as vehicles for pastoral care and multiplication.
Home cells function as microcosms of the church, where members experience pastoral care, mutual support,
and opportunities for service (Hull, 2022; Wang et al., 2023). Growth is not only measured in numbers but also
in spiritual maturity, social cohesion, and welfare support.
For this study, growth of home cell groups is defined as an intentional and systematic process of nurturing:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9002
www.rsisinternational.org
1. Vertical (spiritual) growth – spiritual maturity, discipleship, and leadership development.
2. Numerical growth – increased attendance and membership.
3. Social growth – deepening of fellowship, relationships, and communal life.
4. Welfare growth – support for members’ practical and emotional needs.
This four-dimensional conceptualization informs both the instrument development and the subsequent analysis.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The study employed a convergent mixed-methods design, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to
examine the relationship between leadership dynamics and home cell growth at Perez Dome. Quantitative data
were collected through structured questionnaires and attendance records, while qualitative data were obtained
through semi-structured interviews with home cell leaders and members.
The design allowed for:
1. Quantitative testing of hypothesised relationships between LMX and various growth dimensions.
2. Qualitative exploration of how leaders and members experience and interpret these relationships in
practice.
3. Integration of findings to provide a richer, more nuanced understanding of home cell dynamics
(Creswell & Creswell, 2023).
Setting and Context
Perez Chapel International, founded in 1987, has grown into one of Africa’s significant Pentecostal ministries
with over 500 branches in 24 countries and an estimated membership exceeding 220,000 (Asamoah-Gyadu,
2019; Perez Chapel International, 2014). The Perez Dome in Accra, with a seating capacity of approximately
14,000, serves as the flagship congregation and a key node for ministry initiatives, including the home cell
system.
The home cell system at Perez Dome has been (re)launched in its current structured form within the last two
years to strengthen pastoral care, discipleship, and membership retention across seven Regions: Bethel,
Canaan, Eden, Goshen, Judah, Shiloh, and Zion. Each Region oversees a cluster of home cells meeting weekly
in members’ homes.
Population and Sampling
The target population comprised:
1. Home cell members (attendees) at Perez Dome.
2. Home cell regional leaders, who coordinate groups within their Region.
A multi-stage sampling strategy was employed:
1. Regional level: All seven Regions of Perez Dome were included to ensure geographic and
administrative coverage.
2. Group level: Attendance records were obtained from 126 home cell groups out of a total of 132,
providing near-complete coverage for numerical growth analysis.
3. Individual level: A total of 124 home cell attendees completed the survey instruments, with
representation from all seven Regions. Additionally, leaders from each Region provided LMX ratings
and participated in follow-up discussions.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9003
www.rsisinternational.org
The sample thus represents a large cross-section of the Perez Dome home cell system while acknowledging
some non-response at the group and individual levels.
Instruments
Three main instruments were used:
Home Cell Growth Scale (HCGS):
Developed for this study, the HCGS measures four dimensions of growth—Numerical, Vertical
(spiritual), Social, and Welfare growth. Each dimension comprises three items rated on a five-point Likert scale
(1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), giving a maximum of 15 points per dimension and 60 points
overall. Items were generated from literature on church growth, small groups, and pastoral care (Adubofour &
Ofei Badu, 2019; Hull, 2022; Robinson, 2023) and refined through expert review by clergy and academic
practitioners.
Leader–Member Exchange Scale (LMX-7):
The LMX-7 developed by Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) was used to assess the quality of leader–member
relationships. The scale consists of seven items scored on a five-point scale, with total scores ranging from 7 to
35. Standard interpretive guidelines were applied: scores of 25 and above were classified as indicating strong
LMX.
Attendance Records Template:
A structured template was used to collect baseline and current attendance figures for each home cell group.
Baseline attendance was taken from end of June 2023, and current attendance from end of June 2024, allowing
computation of net growth for each group.
In addition, a semi-structured interview guide was used to explore leaders’ and members’ experiences of trust,
communication, welfare support, community engagement, and challenges such as burnout.
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection took place between July 2024 and August 2024 in four steps:
1. Permissions and briefing: Approval was obtained from Perez Chapel leadership. Regional leaders
were briefed on the purpose of the study and the requirements for participation.
2. Survey administration: Printed and/or electronic questionnaires were distributed to home cell
members across the seven Regions, usually at home cell meetings or immediately after Sunday
services. Participation was voluntary and based on informed consent.
3. Attendance data compilation: Regional leaders submitted attendance figures for each home cell
group using the standardized template, providing baseline and current attendance for the one-year
period.
4. Interviews: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with selected home cell leaders and members,
chosen purposively to represent different Regions, group sizes, and perceived levels of growth or
challenge. Interviews were audio-recorded with consent and later transcribed for analysis.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9004
www.rsisinternational.org
Data Analysis
Quantitative analysis proceeded as follows:
1. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, standard deviations, skewness) were computed to profile
respondents’ demographic characteristics and growth scores.
2. Reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha assessed internal consistency of the four growth
dimensions.
3. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) examined the factor structure and unidimensionality of the
HCGS.
4. Independent-samples and paired-samples t-tests assessed differences between leaders and members
and across LMX categories.
5. ANOVA explored differences in growth indicators across Regions and LMX strength categories.
6. Correlation analyses (Pearson and Spearman) tested relationships between LMX scores, the four
growth dimensions, and net numerical growth, addressing the core research questions.
Qualitative analysis employed thematic analysis:
1. Interview transcripts were read repeatedly, and initial codes were derived inductively (e.g., trust,
openness, welfare support, community events, burnout, logistics).
2. Codes were grouped into broader themes: trust and open communication; personal care and welfare
support; community engagement; leadership burden and burnout.
3. Themes were then compared and integrated with quantitative findings to identify areas of convergence,
divergence, and explanatory depth.
Ethical Considerations
The study adhered to ethical principles of voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, and
beneficence. Participation was voluntary, with respondents free to withdraw at any time. No identifying
information was collected in the survey instruments, and all results are reported in aggregate. Permission for
data collection was obtained from church leadership, and feedback of key findings was planned to support
leadership training and home cell strengthening.
RESULTS
Sample Characteristics
A total of 124 home cell attendees completed the survey. Respondents were drawn from seven Regions:
Bethel, Canaan, Eden, Goshen, Judah, Shiloh, and Zion. Although the Perez Dome home cell system
comprises 132 groups, attendance and perception data were available for 126 groups, indicating some
nonresponse at the group level.
Age. Of the 114 respondents who reported their age, the range was 18 to 71 years, with more than two-thirds
(76/114) aged 21–40 years, confirming that the home cell system is sustained by a predominantly youthful
cohort.
Gender. Seventy-six respondents (61%) were female and 48 (39%) male, reflecting the common pattern of
higher female participation in church activities.
Regional distribution. 123 respondents indicated their home cell Region. The Region with the highest number
of respondents was Eden (n = 35), while Bethel (n = 5) had the fewest. Other Regions (Canaan, Goshen,
Judah, Shiloh, Zion) were more evenly represented.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9005
www.rsisinternational.org
Instrument Development and Validation: Growth of Home Cell Groups
The Home Cell Growth Scale measured four indicators—Numerical, Vertical (spiritual), Welfare, and Social
growth—each with three items scored on a five-point Likert scale (maximum 15 points per indicator, 60 points
overall).
Reliability
Reliability analysis showed strong internal consistency among the four growth indicators:
1. Cronbach’s alpha = 0.839, indicating good reliability.
2. Item-total statistics demonstrated that removing any dimension would reduce the alpha, confirming that
numerical, spiritual, social, and welfare growth each contributed meaningfully to the overall construct.
Factor Structure
Principal Component Analysis further validated the structure:
1. Communalities ranged from 0.570 (Numerical Growth) to 0.759 (Social Growth).
2. A single factor emerged with an eigenvalue of 2.699, explaining 67.48% of the variance.
3. Loadings for all four indicators were high (0.755–0.871), suggesting a unidimensional scale capturing
“overall growth” while allowing for sub-analysis of the four component dimensions.
Profiles of Home Cell Growth
Descriptive statistics for the growth dimensions are summarized as follows:
1. Overall growth mean = 47.23/60 (78.72%), SD = 7.61.
2. Vertical (Spiritual) Growth: M = 12.58, SD = 2.32.
3. Welfare Growth: M = 12.26, SD = 2.38.
4. Social Growth: M = 11.46, SD = 2.33.
5. Numerical Growth (perceptual): M = 10.93, SD = 2.25.
All four indicators were negatively skewed, indicating relatively fewer low-growth cells and more groups
reporting moderate to high levels of growth.
At the Regional level, Judah (M = 51.08) and Bethel (M = 50.40) recorded the highest overall growth scores,
while Zion recorded the lowest (M = 44.43). However, ANOVA showed that these differences were not
statistically significant at the 5% level (p = 0.344), suggesting broadly similar growth perceptions across
Regions.
Objective Numerical Growth (Attendance-Based)
Attendance records from June 2023 to June 2024 yielded the following:
1. Total attendance across 126 home cell groups increased from 519 to 581, representing a net gain of 62
attendees.
2. Regional patterns were mixed:
o Judah: +31 o
Eden: +27 o
Canaan: +21 o
Zion: +6 o
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9006
www.rsisinternational.org
Bethel: +2 o
Goshen: −14 o
Shiloh: −11
These results indicate that while some Regions experienced clear numerical growth, others struggled with
attendance declines, attributed by leaders to factors such as relocation of members, accessibility of meeting
venues, and variability in leadership practices.
A comparison of perceptual numerical growth (survey scores) with objective net growth (attendance) across
Regions revealed no significant relationship:
Pearson’s r = −0.091, p = 0.846
This suggests that Regions which perceive high numerical growth are not always the ones with the greatest
actual increase in attendance, highlighting the importance of triangulating subjective perceptions with
objective data.
A paired-samples t-test comparing growth scores from the perspectives of leaders and members showed:
1. Mean difference = −1.6575 (members slightly more optimistic).
2. t(6) = −1.279, p = 0.248.
Thus, there is no statistically significant difference between leaders’ and members’ perceptions of overall
growth.
LMX Distribution and Its Relationship with Growth
LMX-7 scores ranged from low to high, with a maximum possible score of 35. Using the standard cut-off of
25 points, LMX scores were categorised into:
Low LMX: < 25 • High LMX (strong): ≥ 25
The overall mean LMX score was 28.5/35 (81.43%), indicating generally strong leader–member relationships
across the home cell system.
Regional mean LMX scores ranged from 27.63 (Eden) to 30.17 (Judah), but ANOVA revealed no significant
differences across Regions (p = 0.888), suggesting that relational quality is relatively homogenous.
When the four growth dimensions were compared between low and high LMX groups:
1. There was no significant difference in overall growth, numerical growth, welfare growth, or social
growth at the 5% level.
2. Vertical (spiritual) growth was significantly higher among those with high LMX (F = 7.234, p =
3. 0.008).
4. At the 10% level, social growth was also higher in high-LMX groups (p = 0.100).
Pairwise correlations showed:
1. LMX and Vertical (Spiritual) Growth: r = 0.361, p < 0.001.
2. LMX and Social Growth: r = 0.356, p < 0.001.
3. LMX and Welfare Growth: r = 0.219, p = 0.014.
4. LMX and Perceptual Numerical Growth: not significant.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9007
www.rsisinternational.org
However, when LMX was correlated with objective net growth (attendance change):
1. Pearson’s r = 0.325, p < 0.001
2. Spearman’s ρ = 0.329, p < 0.001
This indicates a moderate, positive, and statistically significant relationship between LMX and net
numerical growth, suggesting that strong leader–member exchange contributes indirectly but measurably to
attendance increases over time.
Interrelationships Among Growth Dimensions
Correlation analysis between the four growth dimensions and net numerical growth yielded:
1. Welfare Growth and Net Growth: r = 0.399, p = 0.001.
2. Social Growth and Net Growth: r = 0.230, p = 0.067 (marginal at 10%).
3. Spiritual Growth and Net Growth: r = 0.014, p = 0.912 (ns).
This indicates that:
1. Welfare growth is the strongest and most significant predictor of actual numerical growth.
2. Social growth also contributes positively, though less strongly.
3. Spiritual growth, while central to the purpose of home cells, does not show a direct linear relationship
with numerical growth within the one-year frame of this study.
Correlations among the growth dimensions themselves showed:
1. Numerical Growth (perceptual) correlated most strongly with Spiritual Growth (r = 0.534) and Social
Growth (r = 0.496), followed by Welfare Growth (r = 0.494) (all p < 0.001).
2. Spiritual Growth correlated strongly with Social Growth (r = 0.642) and Welfare Growth (r =
0.527).
3. The strongest correlation observed was between Welfare Growth and Social Growth (r = 0.693, p <
0.001).
These findings suggest that as home cells deepen spiritual engagement, they tend also to strengthen social and
welfare dimensions, and that social and welfare growth are tightly interlinked, likely because many needs
being met are relational as much as material.
Qualitative Themes
Thematic analysis of interviews produced four main themes:
1. Trust and Open Communication
Participants frequently emphasized that transparent, honest communication and trust were foundational to
effective leadership. Leaders who shared information, explained decisions, and entrusted members with
responsibilities were seen as more successful in fostering engagement. “When leaders are open with us, we
feel more connected and willing to take on more responsibilities. It’s easier to trust someone who shares
openly.”
2. Personal Care and Welfare Support
Leaders’ involvement in members’ personal lives—attending weddings, funerals, hospital visits, and family
crises—significantly strengthened loyalty and group cohesion.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9008
www.rsisinternational.org
“Our leader came to my son’s wedding. That level of care makes me feel like I belong. It’s not just a group, it’s
family.”
These accounts resonate strongly with the quantitative finding that welfare growth is the strongest predictor of
net numerical growth.
3. Community Engagement and Social Cohesion
Leaders described organizing evangelism, family fun days, sports, health screenings, and community service
projects. These activities were experienced as deepening fellowship and enhancing the church’s public witness.
“The events we organize, like the health screenings and community service, help us bond as a group and also
show the community that we care. It brings us closer to each other and to those around us.”
4. Leadership Burden and Burnout
Many leaders reported feeling overwhelmed by the combination of personal, family, work, and ministry
responsibilities. Members themselves recognized signs of fatigue in their leaders:
“Our leader goes above and beyond to support us, but sometimes I worry it’s too much… you can tell it’s
wearing them out.”
Burnout was linked to high emotional labour, travel and logistics demands, and the expectation to be present at
multiple events. Suggestions emerging from interviews included sharing responsibilities, improving transport
support, and creating forums for leaders to learn from and encourage one another.
4.8 Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings
Overall, quantitative and qualitative findings converged on the conclusion that strong leader–member
relationships are crucial for spiritual, social, and welfare growth, and indirectly support numerical growth.
Both data strands highlight the importance of:
1. Trust and open communication for spiritual and social engagement.
2. Personal care and welfare support for retention and recruitment.
3. Community engagement activities for social cohesion and public witness.
A notable divergence appears around numerical growth: while qualitative narratives suggest that strong LMX
and welfare support naturally lead to increased attendance, the quantitative picture shows that LMX is most
directly related to spiritual, social, and welfare dimensions, with numerical growth mediated primarily through
welfare and social care and moderated by external factors such as relocation and venue accessibility.
Both sets of findings also underscore the risk of leadership burnout in high-LMX environments where
demands on leaders are not structurally managed, echoing broader leadership literature on emotional labour
and strain in ministry contexts (Liang et al., 2021; Rogelberg et al., 2022).
DISCUSSION
This study set out to explore how leadership dynamics—particularly leader–member exchange—shape the
growth and development of home cell groups at Perez Dome. Several key insights emerge.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9009
www.rsisinternational.org
LMX as a Driver of Spiritual, Social, and Welfare Growth
First, the consistently high LMX scores and their strong relationships with spiritual, social, and welfare
growth indicate that relational leadership is at the heart of effective home cell ministry. Leaders who build
trusting, respectful, and supportive relationships with members foster environments where:
1. Spiritual practices such as prayer, Bible study, and discipleship are taken seriously.
2. Members feel safe, known, and valued, leading to robust social cohesion.
3. Practical and emotional needs are identified and addressed in community.
These findings align with prior research demonstrating that high-quality LMX enhances commitment,
engagement, and group functioning (Avolio et al., 2021; Miao et al., 2019). In a Pentecostal/Charismatic
context, such relational leadership resonates with both transformational leadership and servant leadership
paradigms, which emphasise empowerment, personal care, and shared mission (Kumar et al., 2020; Lee et al.,
2022).
Welfare and Social Growth as Pathways to Numerical Growth
Second, the results reveal that welfare and social growth are the strongest predictors of objective numerical
growth. While spiritual growth strongly correlates with welfare and social dimensions, it is welfare support—
leaders’ presence in crises and care for members’ everyday needs—that most directly relates to net attendance
increase.
This suggests that people join and stay in home cells not only because they are spiritually fed, but because they
experience practical care and relational belonging. The close connection between welfare and social growth (r
= 0.693) underlines that many welfare needs are relational as well as material, echoing claims that pastoral
care and community formation are crucial to sustainable church growth (Rowley, 2022; Brown & Jackson,
2020).
Perception vs Reality in Numerical Growth
Third, the lack of correlation between perceived numerical growth and objective attendance records points to a
complex relationship between experience and measurement. Members in relationally strong groups may feel
they are “growing,” even when numbers are stable, while some numerically growing groups may not perceive
themselves as successful if spiritual or social dynamics are strained.
This gap is consistent with literature showing that subjective assessments of leadership impact can diverge
from objective indicators of performance (Jiang et al., 2021; Zacher & Rudolph, 2019). It underscores the
importance for church leaders to triangulate perceptions with reliable data and to celebrate forms of growth
that may not be immediately visible in attendance figures.
Leadership Burnout as a Structural Challenge
Fourth, the qualitative theme of burnout raises a critical warning. The same relational intensity that drives
spiritual and welfare growth can, without safeguards, become a structural risk. Leaders who are constantly “on
call” for members’ spiritual and personal needs, in addition to family and work responsibilities, are vulnerable
to exhaustion, emotional depletion, and eventual withdrawal—threatening the sustainability of home cell
ministry (Liang et al., 2021; Rogelberg et al., 2022).
This dynamic mirrors larger patterns in Pentecostal and Charismatic ministry, where high expectations of
availability and spiritual performance often clash with limited support structures. As Hogg (2021) and
Hackman & Walton (2020) note, groups heavily dependent on a single leader’s charisma are particularly
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9010
www.rsisinternational.org
vulnerable if that leader burns out or steps aside. The findings from Perez Dome therefore support viewing
burnout not merely as a personal failing but as a systemic issue requiring organizational solutions.
Implications for Pentecostal/Charismatic Church Growth in Africa
Finally, the study contributes to broader discussions on African Pentecostal/Charismatic church growth. It
shows that:
1. Home cell systems can provide a powerful mechanism for deepening discipleship, strengthening
community, and meeting welfare needs.
2. Leadership dynamics in such systems must balance relational closeness with structural support and
shared responsibility, especially in mega church contexts.
3. Growth strategies must intentionally integrate spiritual depth, relational care, and organizational
sustainability rather than prioritizing numerical expansion alone.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusion
This study has demonstrated that leadership dynamics, especially leader–member exchange, are central to the
growth and development of home cells at Perez Dome. High-quality leader–member relationships significantly
enhance spiritual, social, and welfare growth, and are moderately but meaningfully related to net numerical
growth. The most powerful predictors of numerical increase are welfare and social growth, confirming that
people are drawn to, and remain in, groups where they experience practical support and relational belonging.
At the same time, the study highlights the vulnerability of leaders to burnout in highly relational,
highexpectation environments, and the potential divergence between perceived and actual numerical growth.
Sustainable home cell ministry thus requires both relationally strong leaders and supportive structures that
protect their well-being and enable shared leadership.
Practical Recommendations
Based on the findings, the following recommendations are proposed for Perez Chapel International and similar
Pentecostal/Charismatic churches:
Strengthen Leadership Support and Development
1. Provide ongoing training in relational leadership, emotional intelligence, and boundarysetting.
2. Create peer support groups or clusters where home cell leaders can share experiences, pray together,
and learn from one another.
3. Offer periodic retreats and refreshers focused on spiritual renewal and stress management.
Promote Shared and Distributed Leadership
1. Encourage home cells to identify and develop assistant leaders, welfare coordinators, or youth
representatives who can share responsibilities.
2. Gradually introduce team-based leadership models to reduce over-dependence on a single individual
and to create leadership pipelines.
Integrate Welfare and Social Ministries into Home Cell Strategy
1. Design home cell programmes that intentionally combine Bible study and prayer with
fellowship meals, visits, and community service projects.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9011
www.rsisinternational.org
2. Recognize and support welfare ministries (visitation, small benevolence, practical helps) as essential
to both member retention and numerical growth.
Protect Leader Well-Being and Limit Burnout
1. Clarify expectations regarding attendance at events, visitations, and crisis responses, ensuring they
are realistic and shared among team members.
2. Implement rest schedules or rotational systems so that leaders have predictable periods of reduced
responsibility.
3. Encourage leaders to practice self-care as a form of stewardship, not selfishness.
Improve Data Systems and Feedback Loops
a. Standardize and simplify attendance reporting and train leaders in basic record-keeping.
b. Use data not to shame struggling groups, but to target support, mentorship, and resources
where needed.
c. Regularly share feedback reports with Regions and home cell leaders so they can see both
perceptual and actual growth trends
.
Further Research and Longitudinal Tracking
1. Extend the study longitudinally to examine how leadership interventions over several years
influence LMX, welfare/social growth, and sustained numerical change.
2. Explore the impact of youth-specific home cells, online or hybrid cells, and contextual factors such as
urban mobility on home cell dynamics.
By integrating these recommendations, Perez Chapel International and other similar churches can deepen the
spiritual and relational life of their home cells, sustain leader health, and enhance long-term church growth that
is both numerically and qualitatively robust.
REFERENCES
1. Adubofour, S. B., & Ofei Badu, S. A. (2019). Small groups and church development in Ghana. Journal
of Religious and Theological Studies, 5(1), 1–15.
2. Asamoah-Gyadu, J. K. (2005). African charismatics: Current developments within independent
indigenous Pentecostalism in Ghana. Brill.
3. Asamoah-Gyadu, J. K. (2019). God is big in Africa: Pentecostal megachurches and a changing religious
landscape. Material Religion, 15(3), 390–392.
4. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2021). Leadership: Current theories, research, and
future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 421–449.
5. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.
6. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
7. Brown, T., & Jackson, M. (2020). Pastoral care and congregational retention: A relational perspective.
Journal of Practical Theology, 23(2), 105–123.
8. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (6th ed.). Sage.
9. Dansereau, F., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal
organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role-making process. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78.
10. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2020). Task versus relationship conflict and team effectiveness: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(4), 355–376.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9012
www.rsisinternational.org
11. Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2020). Leadership theory
and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The
Leadership Quarterly, 31(1), 101379.
12. Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2020). A meta-analysis of
antecedents and consequences of leader–member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the
future. Journal of Management, 46(6), 1042–1087.
13. Garrett, R. (1998). The Gospels and Acts: Jesus the missionary and his missionary followers. In J. M.
Terry, E. Smith, & J. Anderson (Eds.), An introduction to the foundations, history, and strategies of
world missions (pp. 63–82). Broadman & Holman.
14. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of
leader–member exchange (LMX) theory over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain
perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
15. Hackman, J. R., & Walton, R. (2020). Leading groups in organizations. In J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Groups
that work (pp. 72–112). Harvard Business School Press.
16. Heifetz, R., & Linsky, M. (2020). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading.
Harvard Business Review Press.
17. Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2020). Shared leadership and LMX: The moderating
role of power distance. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(2), 101–115.
18. Hogg, M. A. (2021). Social identity and group leadership: The role of leader prototypicality. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 25(3), 285–308.
19. Hohenstein, J., & Jung, K. (2021). Spiritual leadership and member outcomes in Pentecostal
congregations. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 49(2), 95–108.
20. Hull, J. N. (2022). The role of home cell groups in fostering spiritual growth. Journal of Spiritual
Formation and Soul Care, 15(1), 56–71.
21. Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. (2021). How does human resource management influence
organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of
Management Journal, 64(1), 1–24.
22. Khai, N. J. C. L., & Medina, N. M. L. C. (2024). Exploring the relationship between spiritual well-being
and psychological well-being among novice clergy and senior priests in Myanmar. GSC Advanced
Research and Reviews, 19(2), 1–9.
23. Kumar, N., Singh, R., & Osei, P. (2020). Transformational leadership and church effectiveness. Journal
of Church Leadership, 11(1), 34–49.
24. Lee, S., Park, J., & Choi, H. (2022). Transformational leadership and member satisfaction in religious
organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(3), 451–462.
25. Liang, J., Chang, C.-H., & Jiang, J. (2021). Leading under pressure: The effect of leader burnout on
follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 32(1), 101394.
26. Lu, L., Cooper, C. L., & Lin, H. (2020). A cross-cultural examination of the impact of leadership on
group outcomes. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 20(2), 215–233.
27. Manges, K. A., Wallace, A. S., Groves, P. S., Schapira, M. M., & Burke, R. E. (2021). Ready to go
home? Assessment of shared mental models of the patient and discharging team regarding readiness for
hospital discharge. Journal of Hospital Medicine, 16(6), 326–332.
28. Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2019). Leader emotional intelligence and subordinate job
satisfaction: A meta-analysis of main, mediator, and moderator effects. Personality and Individual
Differences, 136, 98–105.
29. Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). Sage.
30. Omobude, C. O., & Umemezia, E. I. (2019). Leader–member exchange and its implications on
organizational outcomes. University of Benin, Nigeria.
31. Ott, C., & Wilson, G. (2011). Global church planting: Biblical principles and best practices for
multiplication. Baker Academic.
32. Perez Chapel International. (2014). Annual report 2013–2014. Perez Chapel International.
33. Robinson, M. A. (2023). Cell groups and community building. Journal of Community Psychology,
51(3), 567–583.
34. Rogelberg, S. G., Shanock, L. R., & Scott, C. W. (2022). Burnout in leadership roles: Antecedents,
mechanisms, and consequences. Organizational Psychology Review, 12(1), 45–70.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 9013
www.rsisinternational.org
35. Rowley, S. (2022). Pastoral care, community, and congregational growth. Journal of Practical Theology,
24(1), 61–79.
36. Schriesheim, C. A., Castro, S. L., & Cogliser, C. C. (2001). Leader–member exchange (LMX) research:
A comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. The Leadership Quarterly,
12(1), 63–113.
37. Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2020). The social identity perspective in intergroup relations: Theories,
themes, and controversies. In D. Capozza & R. Brown (Eds.), Social identity processes (pp. 13–36).
Psychology Press.
38. Vanco. (2023). Ten hindrances gripping church growth and what to do about them. Vanco Faith
Resources.
39. Wang, H., Sui, Y., Luthans, F., Wang, D., & Wu, Y. (2023). Impact of transformational leadership on
team performance: The mediating role of leader–member exchange. Group & Organization
Management, 48(1), 3–35.
40. Yankyera, P. (2023). The role of the Holy Spirit in the ministry of Jesus in Luke 4:18–19 with an
emphasis on Pentecostal and Charismatic churches in Ghana. Pentecostalism, Charismaticism, and
NeoProphetic Movements Journal, 5(1), 13–24.
41. Zacher, H., & Rudolph, C. W. (2019). Leadership and aging at work: A review and agenda for future
research. Work, Aging and Retirement, 5(1), 24–43.
42. Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., & Wang, Y. (2022). A meta-analysis of the relationship between
transformational leadership and follower outcomes: Examining the role of context. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 43(5), 738–760.
