CFL’s Entrepreneurship Development Program*

LDRS 231

LDRS 231: Entrepreneurship Leadership

If you want to dive head first into entrepreneurship sign up for LDRS 231: Entrepreneurial Leadership. The class is definitely not like the typical lecture class. There is a lot of learning by doing and collaboration between students and successful entrepreneurs in the community.

Pitch Competitions

Pitch Competitions

Take your great idea and turn it into cash!  Sign up for the Idea Pitch and Learn or the Investor Pitch and Learn and earn yourself some free, no-strings attached seed money for your great idea.

CFL Incubator

CFL’s Incubator

The best thing the entrepreneurial program has to offer!  Get paid to work on your idea for this 10-week summer internship. Visit and talk to all the hot-shot entrepreneurs in West Michigan while growing your idea with fellow entrepreneurs.

Start Garden

Start Garden

What if you need thousands of dollars to get started? Well, Start Garden gives out five thousand dollars to one idea every two weeks!  Hope students have won $60,000 in prize money and have received hours of free consultation along with many other perks.



The Warehaus is an entrepreneur’s study place.  Right down Columbia street from Hope College it makes getting plugged into the entrepreneurial community very convenient.

start-up academe

Start-up AcademE

Nope, we spelled it right.  Start-up AcademE, L3C, which is a small group group of dedicated first-time entrepreneurs and experts who help you keep your idea growing.

Now that you know what CFL’s Entrepreneurial Leadership program offers, why not give it a shot?  Sign up for the class, join a competition, or jump into the community!

Want more information? Email student entrepreneurs at We’d love to talk to you more, and help get those great ideas of yours into something that can be influential.   And find us on Facebook!

 *Written by Matt Gira.

Some of the Businesses Being Created by Hope College Students*


Songs Against Slavery is a non-profit organization founded by Grace Theisen and Lauren Lancaster. They had this crazy idea that their passion for music and Jesus could help others escape the chains of modern-day slavery.  From performing right on the streets of downtown Holland themselves to having Steve Moakler and Andrew Ripp play concerts right here at Hope to help fight against slavery, they’ve had tremendous success.



Sweet Spot Wheels

Being a Pre-Med and Jazz Studies Major, it only makes sense to start your own longboard wheel company, right?  For Jared Demeester it did.  Jared and his pal, Alex Bolen, created Sweet Spot Wheels, a long board wheel company that donates 10% of sales towards building wells and providing clean water to remote villages in Africa and other regions where clean water is scarce.  These wheels are so cool that Sweet Spot Wheels won $25,000 from Start Garden, and are used by all the hipsters on campus.  Milk Surfer wheels even come in milk cartons!


Ring Cam

Who knew college classes were useful?  In their senior year, some engineering students applied their learning and created Ring Cam in their senior design class.  Ring Cam is a ring box that is able to video record those precious moments when a guy is popping the question to his gal from the ring box itself.  The students won numerous competitions and have been working on this business even after they graduated.  The irony of this business?  None of the the creators are engaged.



Have no fear, freshmen year is here!  At least that’s what Jessica Granger’s motto must be since she’s started her business as a first-year student at Hope College.  Jessica and Macall Smith have been working on an app they call Tizzy.  Tizzy helps you decide which clothes to wear for that special occasion, or even just to see who your friends are picking to win the basketball game against Calvin.  (We all know the answer to that one though.)  Post two pictures on the app, and your friends vote on which is better.  It’s just like Instagram, except you can tizzy it up!

Jam Jars

It’s really cool how a chemistry major helps one become a “craftier” person!  I guess that’s what must have happened to Matt Gira.  As a first-year student, Matt was playing around with speakers as part of his introductory engineering course, and bam!  Lio was born.  This year, not yet thinking it would be such a cool product, he brought us his first Jam Jar prototype in October.  Now he’s developed a great looking, awesome sounding, environmentally friendly, and socially-conscious product.  (Matt gives 7% of sales towards fighting world hunger.)


( coming soon!)


Ideas are all around us.  We help students harness those ideas and develop them.

Want more information? Email entrepreneurial students at

Find CFL Incubator on Facebook.

*Text written by Matt Gira.

Seeking Integrity

Robert Quinn (Building the Bridge As We Walk Across It, Change the World, Deep Change) has made a foundational discovery: we were made to live not as we do but with greater meaning, confidence, purpose, and joy.  He distinguishes the way we live most of the time with the way we can live in exceptional times — when we are at our best and living according to our potential.  The former is called the Normal State of Leadership and the latter the Fundamental State of Leadership.  Applying Quinn’s Fundamental State of Leadership Principles in the context of the Christian faith leads me to the following reflections.

To experience the meaning, confidence, purpose, and joy of integrity, I need to seek it.  God has created me through Christ and God through Christ has made my relationship with Him whole.  I am completely dependent on God for not only eternal life but a joyful life.  God has made spiritual integrity possible.  That makes integrity in all of life possible.  Now what?  How do I experience this wholeness in everyday life?

But not being normal.

I need to become abnormal by seeking the Fundamental State of Leadership.

  • Values: Internal-motivated versus Externally-directed.   I continue to slide back and forth on this continuum.  As I narrow the gap between what I believe and what I do, a force keeps pushing me back.  To narrow the gap again, I need to articulate what I believe and make decisions accordingly.  Here are some of my beliefs about calling, learning, and focus.
  • Calling: Purpose-centered versus Comfort-centered.  I believe God has a general call on all of us and a specific call on each of us.  The general call consists of the choice to be co-creators and co-managers of His creation.  But in order to do this in the more effective way, we need to become more like Christ in our thoughts and actions.  (The general call is theologically grounded in what some call the “Cultural Mandate” [found in Genesis] and the “Great Commission” [found in Matthew].)  At the same time, God has a specific calling on all of us.  How we become more like Christ in the way we co-create and co-manage God’s creation depends on the unique gifts and opportunities God gives us.  I believe God has wired me to be a builder and has given me experiences in education and business.  He has called me to help build the infrastructure to help others discover, develop, and use their gifts in the context of business leadership.  To help me stay purpose driven, Quinn suggests certain “creative practices:”  Authentic Engagement and Reflective Action and, because of experiences with them, the ability to face uncertainty with Adaptive Confidence.
  • Learning: Open-minded versus Closed-minded.  The particulars of how I help build the infrastructure to help others discover, develop, and use their gifts for business leadership is revealed to me through my interactions with others.  In other words, I believe God speaks to and blesses us through others.   While I God may speak to me in other ways (e.g., intuition), it is others who help me discern His general call specifically for my life in all my relationships.  I also believe it isn’t just anyone who helps me discern his call, but those who are His people.  To help me be open-minded, Quinn suggests the creative practices of Grounded Vision and Appreciative Inquiry.
  • Focus: Others versus Self.  One of the keys to reaching the Fundamental State of Leadership is to strive to be others-focused.  That means I must strive to seek relationships and sustain them by meeting the needs of others, and the scope of these relationships are three concentric circles: interpersonal, team, and community.  To help me do this, Quinn suggests the creative practices of Detached Interdependence, Responsible Freedom, and Tough Love.

Authentic Engagement – To be“principled and ethical while involved and engaged,” being in the world, devoted, with a sense of calling and purpose.

Reflective Action – To be “spend time in reflect contemplation” and thankfulness in meditation and prayer with God, while being “deeply engaged in the world.”

Adaptive Confidence – To be “adaptable and flexible while being confident and secure,” willing to enter uncertain situations because of a higher purpose and a confidence that we can learn and adapt as we move forward.

Grounded Vision – Our goal is for CFL alums to be “grounded and factual while also hopeful and visionary,” having a vision that engages others that connects our realities and our hopes, a vision of significance — grounded in the anchor of our hope: God’s promises to us.

Appreciative Inquiry – To be “optimistic and constructive while also being realistic and questioning,” seeing the good and the possible in others an in the world.

Detached Interdependence –  To “independent and strong” in our convictions while also being “humble and open” to the influence of others.

Responsible Freedom — To be “spontaneous and expressive” while being “self-disciplined” and ethical.

Tough Love – To be “assertive and bold yet compassionate and concerned,” able to “call others to higher objectives and standards while also showing empathetic, relational support” — holding themselves and others accountable.


Being authentically engaged is a difficult tension to satisfy, particularly when one is seeking to choose among employment or membership opportunities:  Here are some questions to ponder:

  • Is the mission of the organization worth living for?
  • Is the vision of organization worth working toward?
  • Is the organization helping you meet a need you care about?
  • Is what you do important to the organization?
  • Is what you are doing something God has been preparing your for?
  • Are you fully using your gifts? Can you faithfully use your gifts?
  • Is God at work where you work?  Is the organization changing or ready for change?
  • Is seeking first God’s kingdom and God’s righteousness leading you there?

Hopefully as we get older and know more about ourselves and the world, we will seek to be here our greatest gifts meets the greatest needs which leads to the deepest joy.

Spring 2014 Investor Pitch and Learn Results

Thanks to our student competitors and dedicated judges for creating a powerful learning experience for Hope’s entrepreneurial leaders!

Here they are arranged by room (judges’ and student awardees’ names are in bold font).


VanZoeren 153

Judges: Mark deRoo, Abbey Johnston, David Stavenger, David Tapley, Josh Teusink

7:05 PM: Stephen Gerger

7:20 PM: Matt Gira — Jelly Jam Jars (high quality sound from an unlikely place)!

7:35 PM: Mitch Juhl

7:50 PM: Justyn Root

8:05 PM: Jacob Warriner

8:20 PM: Matt VanDixhorn

Spring 2014 Rm 153


VanZoeren 165

Spring 2014 Rm 165

Judges: Scott Brandonisio, Tyler Essenburg, Russell Fyfe, Seth Getz, Brad MacLean

7:05 PM: Maxwell Castille

7:20 PM: Steven Felusme

7:35 PM: Brandon Flood/Joseph Pappas

7:50 PM: Jessica Granger/Macall Smith — Tizzy (a unique “this or that” comparison app)

8:05 PM: Daniel Kuyper

8:20 PM:Stacy Sienkiewicz

Spring 2014 Jessica and Macall


VanZoeren 174

Spring 2014 RM 174

Judges: Bill Andresen, Jason Cash, Tim Haines, Doug Iverson, Melyn VandenBerg

7:05 PM: Zachary Fex

7:20 PM: Anthony Guisti

7:35 PM: Chloe Heckaman/Jodi Beckman — Hope Does (a program that gives students the opportunity to love others)

7:50 PM: Clara Starr

8:05 PM: Krystle Vliem

Spring 2014 Chloe and Jodi


VanZoeren 182

Spring 2014, Rm 182

Judges: Kent Bosma, John Johnston, Tracey Nally, Jody VanderWel, Ken VanderWende

7:05 PM: Anders Broullire

7:20 PM: Cody Herbruck

7:35 PM: Joshua Kranz — Athletetek (creator of the technically-advanced SMARTpaddle)

7:50 PM: Jordan Rose

8:05 PM: Jonathan Tuck

Spring 2014 Josh



This is a pitch and learn competition!

Hope College student contestants are assigned to groups of 6-7 students, a room, a panel of judges (who are entrepreneurial leadership from the Holland-area community) and a time to present.

Contestants give a 3-minute presentation to judges sitting around a table (using hardcopy Powerpoint slides as an outline); the judges then have 5 minutes to questions. Props (Prototypes or MVP) are required.  (Only the contestant and judges are allowed in the room.)

After hearing all the presentations and conversations, the judges gather to discuss (1) what feedback (strengths and challenges of the idea and the presentation) to give, and (2) which student to award a $250 prize (pre-tax, paid via Hope’s student payroll system). The judges then meet with the students as a group to discuss their individual strengths and challenges and to announce the $250 award winner.

The outline for the investor pitch is as follows: (1) the customer problem, (2) the students’ solution to that problem, (3) the high level business model explaining how the idea will make money or be funded, (4) the marketing and sales plan to convert suspects to “evangelists,” (5) the competitive landscape and positioning, (6) financial projections and assumptions and current status of the business. (See “The Art of the Pitch” in the book The Art of the Start as a reference [pp. 51, 52].)

Contestants’ ideas are evaluated in terms of market desirability (i.e., do customers prefer it, want to buy it, use it, give money to it or pay for it), technical feasibility (i.e., does the product work and do what it is supposed to do), business feasibility (i.e., is this idea financially sustainable), and scalability (i.e., can the idea grow to meet the needs of a large number of users/customers). Presenters are also evaluated in terms of their passion and quality of speech.  (See scoresheet.)


Wondering: How Would Jesus Lead?

With fear and trembling I wonder: how would Jesus lead; or rather, how does he lead?

First, regarding the basis of my hypothesis:  I believe God created everything and everything reflects his creative hand (John 1).  Therefore, we can seek truth in biblical revelation as well as creation revelation.  Both require a great deal of discernment and therefore risk.

Second, regarding the substance of my hypothesis, I believe the following.

From the “Normal State of Leadership” to the “Fundamental State of Leadership”

Robert Quinn, in Building the Bridge As We Walk Acoss It, explains the differences.  In the Normal State of Leadership,

“[We] seek equilibrium.  In the normal state, we are comfort-centered, externally-directed, self-focused, and [externally] closed.  We construct a world of social exchange and economic transaction.  The central purpose of anyone in such a system is to obtain status and resources while avoiding pain and punishment.  When emerging reality threatens our deeply held values by suggesting we need to move into the unknown, we resist.  We become self-deceptive because we say change is needed, yet we want to avoid the risk of losing what we have, so we seek to ‘manage’ change in ways we do not find deeply threatening” (p. 69).

“In the normal state, we typically employ two general strategies of change: Telling, that is, making logical arguments for change and Forcing, that is, using forms of leverage such as threat or firing or ostracizing.  Less often, we use a third strategy, Participating, that is, using open dialogue and pursuing win-win strategies” (p. 69).

Telling: Relying on the Technical (Impersonal Relationships)

The telling strategy is based on the technical (expertise tof the speaker) and its goal is to persuade for, or in favor of, the speaker’s perception of truth.

“The Telling strategy assumes that people are guided by reason.  If others decide it is in their best interest to change, they’ll gladly do so.  Any resistance to change [the perspective assumes] could only be the product of ignorance and superstition” (p. 70).

“The Telling strategy is most effective for situations in which people are not very invested” (p. 70).  “The Telling strategy is not as effective in situations requiring significant behavioral change because it is based on a narrow, cognitive view of human systems” (p. 70).

Unfortunately, our most frequent mode of influencing others is seeking to increase our share of and power of voice, or telling.

Forcing: Relying on the Political (Impersonal Relationships)

The forcing strategy is based on the political (the power of the speaker or the power of the speaker’s position) and its goal is to enforce something or force someone to do something in favor of the speaker.

“The Forcing strategy seeks to leverage people into changing.  Usually some form of political or economic power is exerted.  Efforts may range from subtle manipulation to physical force.  The Forcing strategy usually evokes anger, resistance, and damage to the fundamental relationship.  Thus, it is not like to result in the kind of voluntary commitment that is necessary for healthy and enthusiastic change…” (p. 71).

“In the normal state, then, we commonly seek to create change by engaging in a two-step process: first, tell others why they need to change; second, if telling fails, figure out how to force them to change” (p. 71).

Participating: Relying on Interpersonal Relationships

The participating strategy is based on the interpersonal and attempts to influence others by engaging them in the conversation.  It is a norming (converging) activity in that it tends build consensus.

“The Participating strategy involves a more collaborative approach.  This approach recognizes that people are influenced by habits, norms, and institutional policies and culture.  Here the change agent welcomes the input of others, who are seen as equals in the change process.  Instead of trying to make change happen simply by providing information, as in the Telling strategy, the change agent focuses on surfacing, clarifying, and reconstructing people’s values and on resolving hidden conflicts.  The emphasis is on communication and cooperation…” (p. 71).

“Participating strategies and active listening require that each person allows the other to express his or her own truth while insisting that his or her own truth be heard.  The exchange can then give rise to a new and more complex truth” (p. 71).

Here are Some (Visionary) Metaphors for the Participating Perspective

  • Parenting: “What’s the major thing you and I do as parents?….We try to teach [our children] to make good decisions….You spend your whole life as parents trying to find the right balance between giving advice, correcting mistakes, letting them go, fixing up the bumps and bruises along the way.  All so they can learn to make their own decisions” (Dennis Bakke, The Decision Maker, p. 170).  In other words, we allow our children to participate so that they eventually can make decisions on their own.  (I personally dislike this metaphor because it is “paternal” by comparison.)
  • Coaching: “Tom and Sophia congratulated Jason and followed the flow of the crowd out to the parking lot.  Tom still couldn’t get the look he’d soon on Jason’s face, the moment before he took the shot, out of his head.  It should have been a hard spot to be in: serious pressure, with serious consequences.  So why had Jason looked so happy?…The answer struck him as he was opening the car door for Sophia  Jason had been happy because he had the ball. For that one moment, he was the only person in the gymnasium who had control over what was about to happen ((Dennis Bakke, The Decision Maker, p. 27)…You don’t see the coaches dribbling up and down the basketball court.  That’s not what they are supposed to do. They choose the players to send in.  And then they stand back and let the players play the game.  You can’t tell a player what to do every single play.  It will ruin the game (p. 28)…People were happiest when they had the ball, when they were in a position to make the decisions that affected their world” (p. 29).   (I cringe at this metaphor as well, unless we are talking about engaging younger people to participate and not peers because this metaphor still has a paternal feeling to it.)I
  • Conducting:  “I enjoy jazz and one way to think about leadership is to consider a jazz band.  Jazz-band leaders must choose the music, find the right musicians, and perform–in public.  But the effect of the performance depends on so many things–the environment, the volunteers playing in the band, the need for everybody to perform as individuals and as a group, the absolute dependence of the leader on the members of the band, the need of the leader for the followers to play well….A jazz band is an expression of servant leadership.  The leader of the jazz band has the beautiful opportunity to draw the best out of the other musicians (Max DePree, Leadership Jazz, p. 8,9).  (This is my favorite metaphor for participative leadership.)
  • Riding in the Bus:  Jim Collins in Good to Great made this one famous.  One has to have the right people on the bus and right people in the right seats on the bus.  (This metaphor can work if everyone on the bus is discussing where the bus is heading and how it will get there.)

Later on, to get the right people on the bus and in the right seats, Billy had to “clean house” (another example of “forcing change”).  Then Billy and Peter engaged the players in decisions about how they would hit and field.  They coached based on information provided by the tools and techniques of the new paradigm.

The Fundamental State of Leadership: Transcending Persona Relationships

“The fundamental state of leadership is a temporary psychological condition. When we are in this state, we become more purpose-centered, internally-driven, other-focused, and externally-open” (p. 21).

  • “We become less comfort-centered and more purpose-centered.  We stop asking, What do I want?…Instead we ask, What result do I want to create?…[That] may attract us outside our comfort zone and into the uncertain journey that is the creative state.  As we begin to pursue purpose in the face of uncertainty, we gain hope and energy” (p. 22).
  • “[We] also become less externally-directed and more internally-directed….We begin to transcend our own hypocrisy, closing the gap between who we think we are and who we think we should be” (p. 22).
  • “[We] also become less self-focused and more other-focused.  As our sense of achievement and integrity increases, we feel more secure, less selfish, and more willing to put the common good ahead of the preservation of self” (p. 22).
  • “[We] become less internally-closed and more externally-open.  When we meet our needs for increased achievement, integrity, and affiliation, we increase our confidence that we can learn our way forward in an uncertain and changing world” (p. 23).

Being in the Fundamental State of Leadership is referred to by Quinn as a Transcending Strategy.

But there is more to the Transcending Strategy than being in the Fundamental State.  It also involves, as Quinn suggests, an invitation to others to voluntarily join and “emergent reality.”

From his book Change the World in which he studied the leadership experiences of Jesus, Gandhi, and MLK, Quinn provides the following seed thoughts for transcending leadership:

  • A vision of productive community
  • Looking within our own souls and embracing the gap between who we want to become and what we do
  • Transcending fear, surrendering, and becoming the vision of productive community
  • Disturbing the system
  • Encouraging others through moral authority

Based on what I know about Jesus, Gandhi, and MLK, to Quinn’s list I would add:

  • Mentoring
  • Teaching — making disciples
  • Praying

Thus, I believe a Transcending Approach to Leadership transcends the other strategies and involves:

  • Telling others about the vision of what is and what will be
  • Inviting others to participate in that vision and giving them ownership
  • Mentoring, praying with, and teaching those who accept the invitation
  • Being an example by embodying the vision
  • Disturbing the system through force but not violence (e.g., Jesus’ Triumphant Entry into Jerusalem; Gandhi’s March to the Sea, MLK’s March from Selma to Montgomery, etc.)
  • Encouraging through moral authority

Here are Some Visionary Metaphors for the Transcending Perspective

  • Sheep: “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:27).
  • Salt:  “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot” (Matthew 5:13).
  • Light: “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:14-16).
  • Leaven: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough” (Matthew 13:33).
  • Mustard Seed: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches” (Matthew 13:31-32).
  • Wine skins: “Neither do people pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved” (Matthew 9:17).

I’m not a theologian.  However, it seems to me that between his Birth and Resurrection, Jesus led via a Transcending Strategy.  Now, between his Resurrection and Consummation (when he returns again), Jesus seems to be leading through others the same way.

So what does that mean for us if we are followers of Christ?


Leadership Minor, 2014-2015

To help students transform and transition: to help them better understand who they are and what they can do from a biblical perspective while enhancing their (personal and team) leadership and problem-defining/solving skills.

Courses and experiences may be taken individually unless otherwise noted.

Organizational//Corporate Leadership Emphasis Start-Up/Entrepreneurial Leadership Emphasis Year
LDRS 201: Introduction to Leadership (2 credits)

  • Understanding Servant Leadership from a Biblical Worldview
  • Developing Personal Leadership and Team Leadership Skills
  • Finding Passion
LDRS 201: Introduction to Leadership (2 credits)

  • Understanding Servant Leadership from a Biblical Worldview
  • Developing Personal Leadership and Team Leadership Skills
  • Finding Passion
Co-Curricular Requirement: Coaching

  • Enhancing a Deeper Understanding of Who You Are and What You Might Do
  • Upon Declaring Leadership Minor, meet with CFL Coach
  • Take Emotional Intelligence Assessment
  • Connect with a Mentor
  • Connect with Mentees (40 hours)
  • Job Shadow
Co-Curricular Requirement: Coaching

  • Enhancing a Deeper Understanding of Who You Are and What You Might Do
  • Upon Declaring Leadership Minor, meet with CFL Coach
  • Take Emotional Intelligence Assessment
  • Connect with a Mentor
  • Connect with Mentees (40 hours)
  • Job Shadow
LDRS 291/LDRS 391: Leadership and Service I and II (4 credits)

  • Understanding 4 Perspectives on Influence
  • Putting into Practice 4 Perspectives on Influence: Consulting
LDRS 231/MGMT 395: Entrepreneurial Leadership (May Substitute for LDRS 291/LDRS 391) (4 credits)

  • Understanding 4 Perspectives on Innovation
  • Putting into Practice 4 Perspectives on Innovation: Starting Lean and Bootstrapping
Co-Curricular Experience (Not Required but Highly Recommended to Apply For): CFL Consulting Team

  • Further Developing Problem Defining and Solving Skills As Well As Skills in Influencing Others: Boot Camp and Part-time job
  • Working on For-Profit, Non-Profit, and Societal Challenges
  • Apply Via Hope’s Career Development Center: Jobstop
Co-Curricular Experience (Not Required by Highly Recommended to Apply For): CFL Incubator

  • Further Developing Problem Defining and Solving Skills As Well As Skills in Influencing Others: 10-week Summer Program and Full-time Job
  • Creating Your Own Job: Launching a Start-Up For Profit or Non-Profit Business
  • LDRS 231 Prerequisite
  • Apply Via CFL Website
Electives (8 credits)

  • Obtaining Additional Relevant Knowledge and Skills
  • 2 from: COMM 210, COMM 220, COMM 330, COMM 335
  • Substitute:  LDRS 395
Electives (May Substitute for COMM Courses) (8 credits)

  • Obtaining Additional Relevant Knowledge and Skills
  • 2 from ACCT 221, ART 205, CPSC 295, LDRS 390, MGMT 331
LDRS 399: Internships in Leadership (4 credits)

  • Enhancing Emotional, Social, Organizational, Cultural Intelligence Skills
  • Internship
  • May Substitute for LDRS 399: Internship in Chicago Semester, Philadelphia Semester, or 4 credit internship from another Hope program along with extra reading and writing assignment.
LDRS 399: Internships in Leadership (4 credits)

  • Enhancing Emotional, Social, Organizational, Cultural Intelligence Skills
  • Internship
  • May Substitute for LDRS 399: Internship in Chicago Semester, Philadelphia Semester, or 4 credit internship from another Hope program along with extra reading and writing assignment.
LDRS 401: Transition/Capstone (2 credits)

  • Smoothing the Transition
  • Reflecting on the Program and Learning How to Tell Your Own Story
  • Working with Hope’s Career Development Center
LDRS 401: Transition/Capstone (2 credits)

  • Smoothing the Transition
  • Reflecting on the Program and Learning How to Tell Your Own Story
  • Working with Hope’s Career Development Center


Summary:  To help students transform and transition: to help them better understand who they are and what they can do from a biblical perspective while enhancing their (personal and team) leadership and problem-defining/solving skills, upon declaring the minor, students are assigned a coach, provided a list of mentors, and expected to mentor others.  In LDRS 201, students put into practice servant leadership.  In LDRS 291, students learn four perspectives of influence; in LDRS 391 they apply those perspectives by engaging in a consulting project for a local organization.  In LDRS 399, students leverage a work experience to further enhance their emotional, social, organizational, and cultural skills.  (Students also choose two courses from other disciplines to enhance their knowledge and skill in different areas.)  Finally, in LDRS 401, students reflect on their CFL experiences and work with Hope’s Career Development Center to better tell their story.

  • LDRS 201: Introduction to Leadership (2 credit hours).  Students learn what it means to be a servant leader from a Christian perspective, and they learn by reading, reflecting, and doing.

“The class was very rewarding and I recommend every student take it. It will help students learn so much that is crucial to know about themselves at this age.” — Meredith Faas.

  • LDRS 231: Entrepreneurial Leadership (4 credit hours).  Students learn about four perspectives of innovation and the process of starting a for-profit or non-profit business, and they learn by engaging in bootstrapping and starting lean.

“The entrepreneurial class was an experience like no other. It was something that was different than any other being that it was a class designed around the idea of creating something and growing it. Instead of doing typical textbook learning, and typical classroom lectures, this class’ main idea seemed to be finding the entrepreneur in you.” – Russell Fife

  • LDRS 291: Leadership and Service I (2 credit hours).  Students learn about four perspectives of influence: Telling, Forcing, Participating and Transcending and reflect on how they will change the world.
  • LDRS 391: Leadership and Service II (2 credit hours).  Students take one more step toward changing the world by applying change strategies, building a team, are introduced to consulting and solving a problem for a local organization.

“Leadership and Service II was…one of my favorite classes….The course is set up as one big consulting project. I was not given petty time consuming assignments, didn’t have my hand held, and was able to ‘do something that actually mattered.’ I was treated as a professional who had important skills and knowledge that would benefit [the client]. My classmates and I were able to come together as a team and learn not only the consulting processes but how to work on a team, work for a client, and work with subject matter experts.” — Morgan Boersma

  • LDRS 399: Internship (4 credit hours). Students deepen their emotional, social, organizational, and cultural intelligence, and sense of calling by integrating work (12 hrs/week), reading, and reflecting. NOTE: Students can petition the CFL director to fulfill the LDRS 399 course requirement through The Philadelphia Center (or Chicago Semester, or other Hope approved program) if the following conditions are met: (i) students receive permission from the CFL director; (ii) students complete additional readings and papers normally assigned in LDRS 399 during their off-campus experience.
  • LDRS 401: Capstone (2 credit hours). Students continue their transition from college by reflecting on and integrating their CFL experiences with the assistance of their peers, Hope’s Career Development Center experts, community leaders, and alumni.

“I have become more aware of who I am, who I am not, what my weaknesses are, what my strengths are, when I am succeeding, when I am failing, when I am holding myself accountable, and when I am not. That’s what LDRS 401 and three months time has shown me.” — Reed Swift

  • CFL Coaching for LDRS Minors: The purpose of CFL Coaching is to help student answer the questions Who Am I? and What Will I Do? and to enhance their emotional and social intelligence competencies. The process begins when students declare the leadership minor (Minor in Organizational Leadership Practice). Upon declaring the minor, students are connected with CFL coach, Mark de Roo, who performs an assessment and connects with our mentoring program, in which student mentor and are mentored.
  • 8 Communication Credits:  Normally two of the following four Communication courses: COMM 210 (Interpersonal Communication), COMM 220 (Task Group Leadership), COMM 330 (Organizational Communication), COMM 335 (Leadership Skills and Perspectives); however, exceptions have been granted for the Start-Up/Entrepreneurship Track. See the  table above. To receive an exception, contact the CFL Director before enrolling.
  • May Term Senior Seminar: Thriving in Transition




Emotionally Intelligent Leadership (Class Notes)


“How many of you have worked on a group project — either at work or in school?  How many have been on a project in which the group produced outstanding results?  How many have been on a project in which the group produced mediocre results — meaning results that didn’t reflect what the group was capable of given the talents of the people involved?  What do you think were some of the reasons for this?”

“How many of those reasons are IQ-related; that is, related to the mental or cognitive intelligence of the players in the group?”

“How may of those reasons are EQ-related, that is, related to the emotional intelligence of the players in the group?”

“Group, or better yet, team performance depends on both the IQ and EQ of the members of the team, as well as the IQ and EQ of the leader.  Today let’s focus on EQ and a framework for understanding it.”


“From Shawn Achor in The Happiness Advantage I learned this activity.  Count off in 1s and 2s.  For the next minute, 1s are to look 2s in the eye and show absolutely no emotion for as long as you can.   2s are to look 1s in the eye and smile at them genuinely.  Ready?  Go!”

“OK, how long were the 1s able to show no emotion?”


“We’re all connected emotionally.  Our brains have mirror neutrons that sense and mimic the feelings, actions, and physical sensations of others.  Some call this the “limbic dance.”  The point is this: the emotions of a group, team, organization, society are not random.  You and I can change them.”


“So let’s practice being emotional contributors.”

“First, let’s break into groups of 3-4.”

“Second, let’s ask each group to elect a leader to lead the group for the next 15 minutes.”

“Third, let’s ask each elected leader to meet with me for a very brief conference.”

Leaders are given a 100-peice jigsaw puzzle and an index card that describes one of the following leadership styles:

  • Affiliative: an emotional leadership style that involves the sharing of feelings and emotions; emphasizing individual’s feeling over the task that needs to be completed; and striving to keep people happy and create harmony.
  • Coaching: an emotional leadership style that involves having personal conversations with individuals to explore their dreams, goals, and hopes; helping them identify their strengths; and giving them assignments/tasks that allow them to utilize their strengths and reach their goals.
  • Commanding: an emotional leadership style that involves providing forceful direction in order to get better and quicker results; taking forceful steps to get things done; and even getting angry with the appropriate person in the appropriate way and time to achieve a goal — putting the goal or task over the person’s emotional health.
  • Democratic: an emotional leadership style that involves seeking advice from others to solve a problem or meet a challenge; getting feedback in order to make improvements; and emphasizing collaboration and teamwork.

After the conference, leaders return to their groups and commence acting out their emotional leadership styles while the group works on the 100-peice puzzles.


After 10 minutes or when the puzzles are completed — whichever happens first, ask the groups to comment on their emotional status.

“How do you feel?  Are you happy or sad?  Frustrated or fulfilled?  Tense or terrific?”

Then ask the groups to comment on the emotional leadership style of their leaders.

“How would you describe the emotional leadership style of your leader?   What impact did it have on your group?   In your opinion, did this leadership style make the group more or less productive?”


“Daniel Goleman, in an article “Leadership That Gets Results” and in a book called Primal Leadership (which he co-wrote with Boyatzis and McKee) suggests that:

  • Results/productivity depend on the emotional environment of the organization
  • The emotional environment of the organization depends on the emotional leadership styles used by the leader
  • The emotional leadership styles used by the leader depend on the leaders’ emotional intelligence
  • Emotional intelligence depends on the leader’s awareness of her/his own emotions; her/his ability to manage those emotions; the leader’s awareness of others’ emotions; and the leader’s ability to manage the emotions of others–in particular, by choosing the appropriate emotional leadership style.
  • That the ability to manage the emotions of others also requires knowing when to use which emotional leadership style”

“Here (below) is a brief description, goal, occasion, and outcome of each style.”


“Now, why should we care about emotional intelligence?”

“Let’s take a biblical view.   Let’s go all the way back to the time of Genesis.  I believe one lesson from Genesis is that we have been put in charge of God’s creation and are to be good stewards of the resources God has given us.  That includes our minds and our emotions.  That includes leadership frameworks and the discoveries of science, including Goleman et al’s emotional intelligence framework.”

“Going back to the beginning of today’s class: what emotional intelligence leadership styles are most prevalent among group work you’ve been involved in at work or in school?   To what level have we made us of the talents God has given us through the personal strengths of the people involved?  How might Goleman et al’s framework enlighten our group work in the future?  The point is we need to provide the right climate for people to do their best work and that means creating the proper emotional environment.


Style Description Goal Occasion Outcome
Affiliative People’s feelings come first To create harmony and emotional bonds To heal emotional rifts and reduce tension; to make people feel comfortable in the early stages of team-building Positive if not overused or used exclusively; otherwise mediocrity
Coaching Connects individual’s strengths to goals To develop people To better position people and assign tasks in an organization Positive if not overused or used exclusively; otherwise can diverge people’s efforts from organizational goals and performance
Commanding Directs people’s attention to the task at hand. To get immediate compliance In a crisis—emergencies—or with a certain action is needed immediately Positive in the very, very short term; otherwise negative (use of power erodes moral “authority”)
Democratic Collects people’s thoughts; collaborate To gather input to better understand a situation or solve a problem When the leader is new to the job; when buy-in and is needed (especially in the middle stages of team-building). Positive if not overused or used exclusively; otherwise very time consuming and trying of people’s patience
Pacesetting Leads by example; takes on the work of poor performers To set high standards and expectations for effort To get more results from an already highly motivated team Positive in the very, very short term; otherwise negative because people can feel pushed and not trusted
Visionary Articulates a vision and asks people to come along To create long-term momentum toward a desired end When clear direction is needed Positive if not overused or used exclusively; otherwise people see the leaders as a dreamer but not a doer