Table 24 shows how different factors are connected to the success of Pentecostal

churches in Kenya.

Table 24: Correlation Matrix

Innovative Organisational Regulatory
Performance Leadership Culture Framework

Performance 1.000

Innovative
Leadership 0.800** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000

Organisational
Culture 0.702** 0.423 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.540
Regulatory
Framework 0.594** 0.412 0.538 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000 0.725 0.063

What the Table Shows: Table 24 shows how strongly the factors—Innovative
Leadership, Organizational Culture, Regulatory Framework, and Church Performance—
are related to each other in the study of Pentecostal churches in Kenya. It uses a
correlation coefficient (r) to measure these connections, with values closer to 1 indicating
stronger relationships. The table also includes p-values (Sig. 2-tailed) to show if these
connections are statistically significant (p < 0.05 means reliable).

 Performance and Innovative Leadership (r = 0.800, p = 0.000)**:

o Meaning: There’s a very strong connection between innovative leadership
(e.g., creative ideas, teamwork) and church performance (e.g., more
members, better community impact). When leaders are more innovative,
churches perform much better.
o Significance: The p-value (0.000) shows this connection is highly reliable.
 Performance and Organizational Culture (r = 0.702, p = 0.000)**:
o Meaning: A strong church culture (shared values and beliefs) is also
strongly linked to better church performance. A positive culture, where
members feel united, boosts success.
o Significance: The p-value (0.000) confirms this is a reliable connection.
 Performance and Regulatory Framework (r = 0.594, p = 0.000)**:
o Meaning: Following government rules (e.g., legal registration, financial
reporting) has a moderately strong connection to church performance. It
helps, but it’s not as impactful as leadership or culture.
o Significance: The p-value (0.000) shows this is reliable.
 Innovative Leadership and Organizational Culture (r = 0.423, p = 0.540):
 o Meaning: There’s a moderate connection between innovative leadership
and a strong church culture. Creative leaders tend to foster a better culture,
but the link isn’t very strong.
o Significance: The p-value (0.540) is not significant (p > 0.05), meaning
this connection might be due to chance and isn’t reliable.
 Innovative Leadership and Regulatory Framework (r = 0.412, p = 0.725):
o Meaning: There’s a moderate connection between innovative leadership
and following rules. Creative leaders may follow regulations, but the link
is weak.
o Significance: The p-value (0.725) is not significant, so this connection
isn’t reliable.
 Organizational Culture and Regulatory Framework (r = 0.538, p = 0.063):
o Meaning: There’s a moderate connection between a strong church culture
and following rules. A positive culture might help churches comply with
regulations, but the link isn’t strong.
o Significance: The p-value (0.063) is just above 0.05, so it’s not quite
significant, meaning the connection is borderline reliable.

What It All Means

 Key Drivers of Church Success: Innovative leadership (r = 0.800) and

organizational culture (r = 0.702) have the strongest connections to church
performance, meaning they are the biggest factors in making churches successful.
Following rules (r = 0.594) helps too, but it’s less impactful.
 Connections Between Factors: The relationships between leadership, culture,
and regulations are moderate (r = 0.412 to 0.538) but not statistically significant
(p > 0.05), suggesting they don’t strongly influence each other.

Table 25: Model Summary for Innovative Leadership

What the Table Shows: This table explains how well innovative leadership (e.g.,
creative thinking, teamwork, and adaptability) predicts the success of Pentecostal
churches in Kenya, such as growth in membership, community impact, or financial
management.

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .800a 0.641 0.639 0.41382

 R = 0.800: This number shows a very strong connection between innovative

leadership and church success. It means that when leaders are more innovative,
churches tend to perform much better.
  R Square = 0.641: This means that 64.1% of the differences in how well
churches perform can be explained by innovative leadership. In other words,
nearly two-thirds of a church’s success (like more members or better programs) is
tied to how innovative its leaders are.
 Adjusted R Square = 0.639: This is a slightly more cautious estimate, still
showing that about 63.9% of church success is linked to innovative leadership. It
adjusts for the fact that the model only looks at one factor (leadership).
 Standard Error of the Estimate = 0.41382: This number tells us how much the
actual data points differ from the predicted results. A smaller number (like
0.41382) means the predictions are fairly accurate, so the model fits the data well.
 Overall Meaning: Innovative leadership is a major factor in making churches
successful. It explains a big part of why some churches do better than others, and
the model is reliable for predicting church performance.

Table 26: ANOVA for Innovative Leadership

What the Table Shows: This table checks if the relationship between innovative
leadership and church success is strong enough to trust, using a statistical test called
ANOVA (Analysis of Variance). It looks at whether the model (innovative leadership
predicting performance) is reliable overall.

Table 26: ANOVA for Innovative Leadership

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 103.201 1 103.201 602.956 .000b

Residual 57.799 329 0.176
Total 161 330

 F = 602.956: This is a very large number, which means the model is highly
reliable. It shows that innovative leadership strongly predicts church success.
 Sig. = 0.000: This tiny number (p-value less than 0.05) means the results are
statistically significant. There’s almost no chance that the connection between
innovative leadership and church performance happened by accident.
 Sum of Squares (Regression = 103.201, Residual = 57.799):
o The regression number (103.201) shows how much of the church’s
success is explained by innovative leadership.
o The residual number (57.799) shows the part of the success that the model
can’t explain (like other factors not included in the study).
 Mean Square: These are calculated by dividing the sum of squares by the
degrees of freedom (df). For regression, it’s 103.201 ÷ 1 = 103.201, and for
residual, it’s 57.799 ÷ 329 = 0.176. These help calculate the F-value.
 Overall Meaning: The ANOVA test confirms that innovative leadership is a
trustworthy predictor of church performance. The strong F-value and tiny p-value
 show that the model works well, and innovative leadership has a real and
significant impact on how successful churches are.

Table 27: Regression Coefficients for Innovative Leadership and

Performance

What the Table Shows: This table explains how strongly innovative leadership (e.g.,
creative thinking, teamwork, risk management, and adaptability) predicts the success of
Pentecostal churches in Kenya, such as growth in membership, community impact, or
better financial management. It provides specific numbers to show the strength and
reliability of this relationship.

Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients

Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) 1.078 0.137 7.869 0.032
Innovative Leadership 0.587 0.035 0.681 16.821 0.021

 Constant (B = 1.078, Std. Error = 0.137, t = 7.869, Sig. = 0.032):

o The constant (1.078) is the starting point for church performance when
innovative leadership is zero. Think of it as the baseline performance score
before considering leadership.
o The standard error (0.137) shows how precise this number is—a small
error means the estimate is reliable.
o The t-value (7.869) and p-value (0.032) tell us this constant is statistically
significant (p < 0.05), meaning it’s a trustworthy baseline for the model.
 Innovative Leadership (B = 0.587, Std. Error = 0.035, Beta = 0.681, t =
16.821, Sig. = 0.021):
o B = 0.587: This means that for every 1-unit increase in innovative
leadership (e.g., a leader becoming more creative or collaborative), church
performance increases by 0.587 units. For example, better leadership
could lead to more members or stronger community programs.
o Std. Error = 0.035: This small number shows the estimate is precise,
meaning we can trust the 0.587 value.
o Beta = 0.681: This standardised number shows the strength of the
relationship. A Beta of 0.681 means innovative leadership has a strong
positive impact on performance, even when compared to other possible
factors.
o t = 16.821, Sig. = 0.021: The high t-value and low p-value (p < 0.05)
confirm that the relationship between innovative leadership and church
performance is statistically significant. This means the connection is real
and not due to chance.
 Overall Meaning:
 o Innovative leadership has a strong and reliable impact on how well
Pentecostal churches perform in Kenya. When leaders use creative ideas,
encourage teamwork, and adapt to challenges, churches see significant
improvements, like more attendees or better community outreach.
o The model is trustworthy because the p-values (0.032 for the constant,
0.021 for leadership) are less than 0.05, showing the results are
statistically significant.
o The Beta value (0.681) indicates that innovative leadership is a major
driver of church success, making it a key factor to focus on

Table 28: Model Summary for Mediating Effect

What the Table Shows: This table examines how organisational culture acts as a
"mediator" in the relationship between innovative leadership (e.g., creative thinking,
teamwork) and church performance (e.g., more members, better community impact, or
financial management). A mediator is something that helps explain why or how
leadership leads to better performance. The table shows four different models, each
testing a different part of this relationship, using data from 353 Pentecostal churches in
Kenya.

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 0.80 0.641 0.639 0.41382
2 0.77 0.590 0.588 0.45876
3 0.78 0.601 0.599 0.45321
4 0.81 0.659 0.657 0.42478

 Model 1:
o R = 0.80: There’s a very strong connection between innovative leadership
and church performance.
o R Square = 0.641: Innovative leadership alone explains 64.1% of the
differences in church performance. This means leadership is a major factor
in why some churches do better than others.
o Adjusted R Square = 0.639: After adjusting for the number of factors,
leadership still explains about 63.9% of church performance.
o Std. Error of the Estimate = 0.41382: This small number means the
model’s predictions are fairly accurate, as the actual data points are close
to the predicted results.
 Model 2:
o R = 0.77: The connection is still strong but slightly weaker than Model 1.
o R Square = 0.590: This model explains 59% of church performance,
which is a bit less than Model 1. It likely tests a different part of the
relationship, possibly just organizational culture or another factor.
 o Adjusted R Square = 0.588: After adjustments, it explains about 58.8%
of performance.
o Std. Error = 0.45876: The predictions are slightly less accurate than
Model 1, as the error is a bit higher.
 Model 3:
o R = 0.78: The connection is strong, similar to Model 2.
o R Square = 0.601: This model explains 60.1% of church performance,
slightly more than Model 2 but less than Model 1.
o Adjusted R Square = 0.599: After adjustments, it explains about 59.9%.
o Std. Error = 0.45321: The predictions are fairly accurate, with an error
close to Model 2.
 Model 4:
o R = 0.81: This model shows the strongest connection between the factors
and church performance.
o R Square = 0.659: This model explains 65.9% of church performance, the
highest among the models. It likely includes both innovative leadership
and organisational culture.
o Adjusted R Square = 0.657: After adjustments, it explains about 65.7%,
still very strong.
o Std. Error = 0.42478: The predictions are quite accurate, with an error
similar to Model 1.

What It All Means

 Mediating Effect of Organisational Culture: The table shows that

organisational culture (shared values, beliefs, and norms in the church) helps
explain how innovative leadership leads to better church performance. For
example, a leader’s creative ideas work better when the church has a supportive
culture where people feel included and motivated.
 Model Comparison:
o Model 1 likely tests innovative leadership alone, showing it explains
64.1% of church success.
o Models 2 and 3 probably test parts of the relationship, like organisational
culture alone or leadership without culture, explaining slightly less (59–
60.1%).
o Model 4 is the strongest, explaining 65.9% of church performance,
suggesting that combining innovative leadership with a strong
organisational culture gives the best results.
 Why It Matters: A strong church culture makes innovative leadership even more
effective. For instance, if a leader starts a new community program, a positive
culture ensures members support and participate in it, leading to better outcomes
like more attendees or stronger community impact.

Table 29: ANOVA for Mediating Effect

What the Table Shows: This table uses a statistical test called ANOVA (Analysis of
Variance) to check if the models in Table 28, which explore how innovative leadership
and organisational culture affect church performance (e.g., more members, better
community impact, or improved financial management), are reliable. It includes four
models, each testing a different part of the relationship, based on data from 353
Pentecostal churches in Kenya.

Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig.

Squares
1 Regression 103.201 1 103.201 602.956 .000a
Residual 57.799 329 0.176
Total 161 330
2 Regression 79.373 1 79.373 319.012 .000b
Residual 81.627 329 0.248
Total 161 330
3 Regression 81.144 1 81.144 333.246 .000c
Residual 79.856 329 0.243
Total 161 330
4 Regression 90.321 2 45.161 208.974 .000d
Residual 70.679 328 0.216
Total 161 330

 Model 1:
o Regression Sum of Squares = 103.201: This shows how much of the
church’s success is explained by innovative leadership alone.
o Residual Sum of Squares = 57.799: This is the part of church success
that the model can’t explain.
o Mean Square: For regression, it’s 103.201 ÷ 1 = 103.201; for residual,
it’s 57.799 ÷ 329 = 0.176.
o F = 602.956: This very large number means the model is highly reliable.
o Sig. = 0.000: The tiny p-value (less than 0.05) shows that the model is
statistically significant, meaning innovative leadership strongly predicts
church performance.
o Meaning: This model, likely testing innovative leadership alone, is very
trustworthy for explaining church success.
 Model 2:
o Regression Sum of Squares = 79.373: This model explains less of church
success compared to Model 1.
o Residual Sum of Squares = 81.627: More of the success is unexplained
compared to Model 1.
 o Mean Square: For regression, 79.373 ÷ 1 = 79.373; for residual, 81.627 ÷
329 = 0.248.
o F = 319.012: This is still a large number, showing the model is reliable but
less strong than Model 1.
o Sig. = 0.000: The p-value confirms the model is statistically significant.
o Meaning: This model might test organizational culture alone or another
part of the relationship, and it’s reliable but explains less than Model 1.
 Model 3:
o Regression Sum of Squares = 81.144: This model explains slightly more
than Model 2 but less than Model 1.
o Residual Sum of Squares = 79.856: Slightly less unexplained variation
than Model 2.
o Mean Square: For regression, 81.144 ÷ 1 = 81.144; for residual, 79.856 ÷
329 = 0.243.
o F = 333.246: This large number shows the model is reliable, stronger than
Model 2 but weaker than Model 1.
o Sig. = 0.000: The p-value confirms statistical significance.
o Meaning: This model likely tests another part of the mediation process,
such as the effect of leadership on culture or culture on performance.
 Model 4:
o Regression Sum of Squares = 90.321: This model explains more of
church success than Models 2 and 3 but less than Model 1.
o Residual Sum of Squares = 70.679: Less unexplained variation than
Models 2 and 3.
o Mean Square: For regression, 90.321 ÷ 2 = 45.161 (two predictors, likely
leadership and culture); for residual, 70.679 ÷ 328 = 0.216.
o F = 208.974: This is a large number, showing the model is reliable but less
strong than Model 1.
o Sig. = 0.000: The p-value confirms the model is statistically significant.
o Meaning: This model likely includes both innovative leadership and
organisational culture, showing they work together to explain church
success.

What It All Means

 Mediating Effect of Organizational Culture: Table 29 confirms that the models

in Table 28 (which showed how leadership and culture affect church
performance) are reliable. The low p-values (0.000) in all models mean we can
trust these results—they’re not random.
 Model Comparison:
o Model 1: Likely tests innovative leadership alone, explaining a lot of
church success (64.1% from Table 28) and is the most reliable (F =
602.956).
o Model 2: Might test organizational culture alone or leadership’s effect on
culture, explaining less (59%) and is less reliable (F = 319.012).
 o Model 3: Likely tests another step in the mediation process (e.g., culture’s
effect on performance), explaining 60.1% and is moderately reliable (F =
333.246).
o Model 4: Combines leadership and culture, explaining the most (65.9%)
after Model 1 and is reliable (F = 208.974). It shows that leadership works
better with a strong culture.
 Why It Matters: These results show that innovative leadership is a major driver
of church success, but organisational culture (shared values and beliefs) helps
make that leadership even more effective. For example, a creative leader who
starts new programs will see better results if the church has a supportive culture
where members work together.

Table 30: Regression Coefficients for Mediating Effect

What the Table Shows: This table explains how innovative leadership (e.g., creative
thinking, teamwork, adaptability) and organisational culture (shared values, beliefs, and
norms) work together to predict the success of Pentecostal churches in Kenya. It shows
four models, each testing a different part of this relationship, using data from 353
churches. The numbers tell us how much each factor contributes to church performance
and whether these contributions are reliable.

Table 30: Regression Coefficients for Mediating Effect

Model Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 1.078 0.137 7.869 0.000

Innovative Leadership 0.587 0.035 0.681 16.821 0.000
2 (Constant) 0.915 0.133 6.88 0.000
Innovative Leadership 0.635 0.034 0.702 18.695 0.025
3 (Constant) 0.856 0.131 6.534 0.000
Organizational Culture 0.647 0.033 0.71 19.611 0.000
4 (Constant) 0.523 0.129 4.054 0.012
Innovative Leadership 0.381 0.042 0.442 9.071 0.000
Organizational 0.349 0.043 0.383 8.116 0.000
Culture

 Model 1:
o Constant (B = 1.078, Std. Error = 0.137, t = 7.869, Sig. = 0.000): This is
the baseline church performance score when innovative leadership is zero.
The low p-value (0.000) means it’s reliable.
o Innovative Leadership (B = 0.587, Std. Error = 0.035, Beta = 0.681, t =
16.821, Sig. = 0.000): For every 1-unit increase in innovative leadership,
church performance increases by 0.587 units. The Beta (0.681) shows a
 strong impact, and the p-value (0.000) confirms this is highly reliable.
This model tests leadership alone.
 Model 2:
o Constant (B = 0.915, Std. Error = 0.133, t = 6.88, Sig. = 0.000): A
reliable baseline for performance.
o Innovative Leadership (B = 0.635, Std. Error = 0.034, Beta = 0.702, t =
18.695, Sig. = 0.025): A 1-unit increase in leadership boosts performance
by 0.635 units. The higher Beta (0.702) suggests a slightly stronger effect
than Model 1, and the p-value (0.025) shows it’s significant. This model
might test leadership’s effect on culture or a different aspect of
performance.
 Model 3:
o Constant (B = 0.856, Std. Error = 0.131, t = 6.534, Sig. = 0.000): A
reliable baseline.
o Organizational Culture (B = 0.647, Std. Error = 0.033, Beta = 0.71, t =
19.611, Sig. = 0.000): A 1-unit increase in organizational culture increases
performance by 0.647 units. The high Beta (0.71) shows a strong impact,
and the p-value (0.000) confirms reliability. This model tests culture’s
direct effect on performance.
 Model 4:
o Constant (B = 0.523, Std. Error = 0.129, t = 4.054, Sig. = 0.012): A
reliable but lower baseline, as it includes two factors.
o Innovative Leadership (B = 0.381, Std. Error = 0.042, Beta = 0.442, t =
9.071, Sig. = 0.000): Leadership increases performance by 0.381 units,
with a moderate Beta (0.442) and reliable p-value (0.000).
o Organizational Culture (B = 0.349, Std. Error = 0.043, Beta = 0.383, t
= 8.116, Sig. = 0.000): Culture increases performance by 0.349 units, with
a moderate Beta (0.383) and reliable p-value (0.000). This model tests
both leadership and culture together.

What It All Means

 Mediating Effect: This table shows that organizational culture helps explain how
innovative leadership leads to better church performance. When leaders are
creative and the church has a positive culture (e.g., members share values and
work together), the church does better.
 Model Breakdown:
o Model 1: Shows that innovative leadership alone strongly boosts church
performance (0.587 units per increase, Beta = 0.681). For example, a
leader starting new community programs can increase attendance.
o Model 2: Suggests leadership has an even stronger effect (Beta = 0.702) in
a different context, possibly showing how leadership influences culture or
another performance aspect.
o Model 3: Shows that a strong culture alone also boosts performance
significantly (Beta = 0.71), like when shared values keep members
engaged.
 o Model 4: Combines leadership and culture, showing both contribute to
performance (Beta = 0.442 for leadership, 0.383 for culture). The lower
Betas suggest culture partially explains leadership’s effect (mediation).
 Why It Matters: A creative leader is great, but their ideas work best when the
church has a supportive culture. For example, a new youth program will succeed
more if members feel united and motivated to participate.

Table 31: Model Summary

What the Table Shows: This table summarises how well different models predict the
success of Pentecostal churches in Kenya, using data from 353 churches. Each model
adds more factors (innovative leadership, organisational culture, and possibly regulatory
framework) to see how much they explain church performance. The table shows three
models, with each one improving the explanation of why some churches do better than
others.

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square R2 Change Std. Error of the Estimate

1 0.800 0.641 0.639 - 0.41382

2 0.845 0.714 0.712 7.3 0.36872
3 0.895 0.801 0.798 8.7 0.30921

 Model 1:
o R = 0.800: There’s a very strong connection between the factor(s) in this
model (likely innovative leadership alone) and church performance.
o R Square = 0.641: This model explains 64.1% of the differences in
church performance. For example, it accounts for why some churches
have more members or better programs.
o Adjusted R Square = 0.639: After adjusting for the number of factors, it
still explains about 63.9% of performance.
o R² Change = -: This is the baseline model, so there’s no change to report
yet.
o Std. Error of the Estimate = 0.41382: This small number means the
model’s predictions are fairly accurate, as the actual data is close to the
predicted results.
o Meaning: This model, likely testing innovative leadership alone, is a
strong predictor of church success.
 Model 2:
o R = 0.845: The connection to church performance is stronger than Model
1.
o R Square = 0.714: This model explains 71.4% of church performance,
better than Model 1.
o Adjusted R Square = 0.712: After adjustments, it explains about 71.2%.
o R² Change = 7.3: Adding a new factor (likely organizational culture)
explains an extra 7.3% of church performance compared to Model 1.
 o Std. Error = 0.36872: The predictions are more accurate than Model 1, as
the error is smaller.
o Meaning: Adding organizational culture (shared values and beliefs)
makes the model better at explaining church success.
 Model 3:
o R = 0.895: This model has the strongest connection to church
performance.
o R Square = 0.801: It explains 80.1% of church performance, the highest
of the three models.
o Adjusted R Square = 0.798: After adjustments, it explains about 79.8%.
o R² Change = 8.7: Adding another factor (likely regulatory framework)
explains an extra 8.7% of performance compared to Model 2.
o Std. Error = 0.30921: The predictions are the most accurate, with the
smallest error.
o Meaning: Including all factors (leadership, culture, and likely regulations)
gives the best explanation of church success.

What It All Means

 Combined Effects: Table 31 shows that innovative leadership (e.g., creative

ideas, teamwork) is a strong predictor of church performance (Model 1). Adding
organizational culture (Model 2) makes the prediction even better, and including
the regulatory framework (Model 3) explains the most, covering 80.1% of why
some churches perform better.
 Mediating and Moderating Effects:
o Organisational Culture: Likely acts as a mediator, meaning it helps
explain how leadership leads to better performance. For example, a
creative leader’s ideas work better when the church has a supportive
culture where members share values.
o Regulatory Framework: Likely acts as a moderator, meaning it
strengthens or weakens the leadership-performance link. For instance,
following government rules can make leadership efforts more effective.
 Why It Matters: The more factors you include (leadership, culture, and rules),
the better you can predict church success. Model 3 shows that combining all three
explains the most, suggesting churches need creative leaders, a positive culture,
and good rule-following to thrive.

Table 32: ANOVA for Moderating Effect

What the Table Shows: This table uses a statistical test called ANOVA (Analysis of
Variance) to check if the models that predict church performance are reliable when
including the regulatory framework as a moderator. A moderator is something that
changes the strength of the relationship between innovative leadership (or organisational
culture) and church performance. For example, following government rules might make a
leader’s creative ideas work better or worse. The table shows three models, each adding
more factors to see how they improve the prediction of church success.
Model Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
1 Regression 103.201 1 103.201 602.956 .000a
Residual 57.799 329 0.176
Total 161 330
2 Regression 114.954 2 57.477 422.789 .000b
Residual 46.046 328 0.140
Total 161 330
3 Regression 128.961 3 42.987 449.679 .000c
Residual 32.039 327 0.098
Total 161 330

 Model 1:
o Regression Sum of Squares = 103.201: This shows how much of the
church’s success is explained by the factor in this model (likely innovative
leadership alone).
o Residual Sum of Squares = 57.799: This is the part of the church's
success that the model can’t explain.
o Mean Square: For regression, 103.201 ÷ 1 = 103.201; for residual, 57.799
÷ 329 = 0.176.
o F = 602.956: This very large number means the model is highly reliable.
o Sig. = 0.000: The tiny p-value (less than 0.05) shows the model is
statistically significant, meaning innovative leadership strongly predicts
church performance.
o Meaning: This model, likely testing innovative leadership alone, is very
trustworthy for explaining church success.
 Model 2:
o Regression Sum of Squares = 114.954: This model explains more of
church success than Model 1.
o Residual Sum of Squares = 46.046: Less of the success is unexplained
compared to Model 1.
o Mean Square: For regression, 114.954 ÷ 2 = 57.477 (two predictors,
likely leadership and culture); for residual, 46.046 ÷ 328 = 0.140.
o F = 422.789: This large number shows the model is reliable, though
slightly less strong than Model 1.
o Sig. = 0.000: The p-value confirms the model is statistically significant.
o Meaning: This model likely includes innovative leadership and
organizational culture, explaining more of church success than leadership
alone.
 Model 3:
 o Regression Sum of Squares = 128.961: This model explains the most of
church success.
o Residual Sum of Squares = 32.039: The least amount of success is
unexplained, showing a better fit.
o Mean Square: For regression, 128.961 ÷ 3 = 42.987 (three predictors,
likely leadership, culture, and regulatory framework); for residual, 32.039
÷ 327 = 0.098.
o F = 449.679: This large number shows the model is very reliable.
o Sig. = 0.000: The p-value confirms the model is statistically significant.
o Meaning: This model includes leadership, culture, and the regulatory
framework (as a moderator), providing the best explanation of church
success.

What It All Means

 Moderating Effect of Regulatory Framework: Table 32 shows that the

regulatory framework (e.g., government rules like the Societies Act) changes how
strongly innovative leadership and organisational culture affect church
performance. For example, the following rules might make a leader’s creative
ideas more effective by providing stability.
 Model Comparison:
o Model 1: Likely tests innovative leadership alone, explaining 64.1% of
church performance (from Table 31, R² = 0.641) and is very reliable (F =
602.956).
o Model 2: Adds organisational culture, explaining more (71.4% from Table
31, R² = 0.714) and is still reliable (F = 422.789).
o Model 3: Adds the regulatory framework as a moderator, explaining the
most (80.1% from Table 31, R² = 0.801) and is highly reliable (F =
449.679). This shows that rules strengthen the leadership-culture-
performance link.
 Why It Matters: The regulatory framework makes a big difference. A creative
leader with a strong church culture will see even better results if the church
follows government rules, like proper registration or financial reporting. This
leads to more members, better community outreach, and stronger finances.

Table 33: Regression Coefficients for Moderating Effect

What the Table Shows: This table shows how innovative leadership and the regulatory
framework (e.g., government rules like the Societies Act) work together to predict church
performance. It includes three models, each adding more factors to test how the
regulatory framework changes the impact of leadership. The numbers tell us how much
each factor contributes to church success and whether these contributions are reliable. A
key focus is the “interaction” term (Innovative Leadership * Regulatory Framework),
which shows the moderating effect.
 Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.078 0.137 7.869 0.029
Innovative Leadership 0.587 0.035 0.800 24.555 0.036
2 (Constant) 0.654 0.128 5.109 0.047
Innovative Leadership 0.402 0.039 0.548 10.308 0.037
Regulatory Framework 0.328 0.040 0.436 8.200 0.041
3 (Constant) 0.543 0.127 4.276 0.036
Innovative Leadership 0.315 0.042 0.429 7.500 0.013
Regulatory Framework 0.247 0.044 0.328 5.614 0.021
Innovative 0.298 0.045 0.358 6.622 0.028
Leadership*Regulatory
Framework

 Model 1:
o Constant (B = 1.078, Std. Error = 0.137, t = 7.869, Sig. = 0.029): This is
the baseline church performance score when innovative leadership is zero.
The p-value (0.029) means it’s reliable (p < 0.05).
o Innovative Leadership (B = 0.587, Std. Error = 0.035, Beta = 0.800, t =
24.555, Sig. = 0.036): For every 1-unit increase in innovative leadership
(e.g., more creativity or teamwork), church performance increases by
0.587 units. The high Beta (0.800) shows a very strong impact, and the p-
value (0.036) confirms it’s reliable. This model tests leadership alone.
o Meaning: Innovative leadership alone strongly boosts church success, like
increasing attendance through new programs.
 Model 2:
o Constant (B = 0.654, Std. Error = 0.128, t = 5.109, Sig. = 0.047): A
reliable baseline for performance.
o Innovative Leadership (B = 0.402, Std. Error = 0.039, Beta = 0.548, t =
10.308, Sig. = 0.037): Leadership increases performance by 0.402 units,
with a moderate Beta (0.548) and reliable p-value (0.037).
o Regulatory Framework (B = 0.328, Std. Error = 0.040, Beta = 0.436, t
= 8.200, Sig. = 0.041): Following rules increases performance by 0.328
units, with a moderate Beta (0.436) and reliable p-value (0.041).
o Meaning: Adding the regulatory framework shows that both leadership
and following rules contribute to church success, but leadership’s impact
is reduced slightly (Beta drops from 0.800 to 0.548).
 Model 3:
 o Constant (B = 0.543, Std. Error = 0.127, t = 4.276, Sig. = 0.036): A
reliable baseline.
o Innovative Leadership (B = 0.315, Std. Error = 0.042, Beta = 0.429, t =
7.500, Sig. = 0.013): Leadership increases performance by 0.315 units,
with a moderate Beta (0.429) and reliable p-value (0.013).
o Regulatory Framework (B = 0.247, Std. Error = 0.044, Beta = 0.328, t
= 5.614, Sig. = 0.021): Rules increase performance by 0.247 units, with a
moderate Beta (0.328) and reliable p-value (0.021).
o Innovative Leadership * Regulatory Framework (B = 0.298, Std.
Error = 0.045, Beta = 0.358, t = 6.622, Sig. = 0.028): This “interaction”
term shows the moderating effect. A Beta of 0.358 and p-value of 0.028
mean that the regulatory framework strengthens the link between
leadership and performance. For example, leadership works better when
rules are followed.
o Meaning: The regulatory framework makes innovative leadership more
effective. Leadership and rules together, plus their interaction, explain
church success best.

What It All Means

 Moderating Effect: The regulatory framework (e.g., following government rules)

changes how strongly innovative leadership affects church performance. The
interaction term in Model 3 (B = 0.298, p = 0.028) shows that leadership has a
bigger impact when churches follow regulations properly. For example, a creative
leader’s new community program will succeed more if the church has proper legal
registration.
 Model Comparison:
o Model 1: Tests innovative leadership alone, showing a strong impact
(Beta = 0.800, explains 64.1% from Table 31, R² = 0.641).
o Model 2: Adds the regulatory framework, reducing leadership’s impact
slightly (Beta = 0.548) but showing rules also help (Beta = 0.436, explains
71.4% from Table 31, R² = 0.714).
o Model 3: Includes the interaction term, showing that leadership and rules
work together to boost performance even more (explains 80.1% from
Table 31, R² = 0.801). The interaction (Beta = 0.358) confirms the
moderating effect.
 Why It Matters: Creative leaders are key to church success, but their efforts
work best when the church follows rules. For instance, a leader’s plan to expand
outreach will have a bigger impact if the church complies with financial reporting
laws, ensuring stability.

Table 34: Model Summary for Moderated Mediation Effect

What the Table Shows: This table summarises how well two models predict the success
of Pentecostal churches in Kenya. It tests the “moderated mediation” effect, which means
it looks at how organisational culture (mediator) explains the link between innovative
leadership and church performance, and how the regulatory framework (moderator)
changes the strength of this relationship. The table compares two models: one with basic
factors (likely leadership alone) and one with the full combination of leadership, culture,
and regulations.

Table 34: Model Summary for Moderated Mediation effect

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .800a 0.641 0.639 0.41382

2 .893a 0.798 0.795 0.31209

 Model 1:
o R = 0.800: There’s a very strong connection between the factor(s) in this
model (likely innovative leadership alone) and church performance.
o R Square = 0.641: This model explains 64.1% of the differences in
church performance. For example, it accounts for why some churches
have more members or better programs due to creative leadership.
o Adjusted R Square = 0.639: After adjusting for the number of factors, it
still explains about 63.9% of performance.
o Std. Error of the Estimate = 0.41382: This small number means the
model’s predictions are fairly accurate, as the actual data is close to the
predicted results.
o Meaning: This model, likely testing innovative leadership alone, is a
strong predictor of church success.
 Model 2:
o R = 0.893: The connection to church performance is much stronger than
Model 1.
o R Square = 0.798: This model explains 79.8% of church performance, a
big improvement over Model 1.
o Adjusted R Square = 0.795: After adjustments, it explains about 79.5%,
still very strong.
o Std. Error = 0.31209: The predictions are more accurate than Model 1, as
the error is smaller.
o Meaning: This model likely includes innovative leadership, organizational
culture (as a mediator), and the regulatory framework (as a moderator),
explaining much more of church success than leadership alone.

What It All Means

 Moderated Mediation Effect: Table 34 shows that organizational culture helps

explain how innovative leadership leads to better church performance (mediation),
and the regulatory framework makes this relationship stronger or weaker
(moderation). For example, a creative leader’s new community program works
 better when the church has a supportive culture (everyone shares values) and
follows government rules (e.g., proper registration).
 Model Comparison:
o Model 1: Likely tests innovative leadership alone, explaining 64.1% of
church performance. It shows that creative and adaptive leaders (e.g.,
those who start new programs) significantly boost church success.
o Model 2: Adds organizational culture and the regulatory framework,
explaining 79.8% of performance. This big jump (from 64.1% to 79.8%)
shows that culture and rules make leadership even more effective. For
instance, a supportive culture encourages members to join the leader’s
initiatives, and following rules ensures stability.
 Why It Matters: The combination of innovative leadership, a positive church
culture, and following regulations explains almost 80% of why some churches
perform better than others. This means churches need all three—creative leaders,
a united community, and proper rule-following—to achieve the best results, like
more members or stronger community outreach.

Table 35: ANOVA for Moderated Mediation Effect

What the Table Shows: This table uses a statistical test called ANOVA (Analysis of
Variance) to check if the models in Table 34, which predict church performance using
innovative leadership, organisational culture (mediator), and regulatory framework
(moderator), are reliable. The “moderated mediation” effect means that organisational
culture helps explain how leadership leads to better performance, and the regulatory
framework changes how strong this relationship is. The table compares two models to see
how well they predict church success.

Table 35: ANOVA for Moderated Mediation Effect

Model Sum of Squares df Mean F Sig.

Square
1 Regression 103.201 1 103.201 602.956 0.000
Residual 57.799 329 0.176
Total 161 330
2 Regression 128.478 4 32.12 329.485 0.000
Residual 32.522 326 0.097
Total 161 330

 Model 1:
 o Regression Sum of Squares = 103.201: This shows how much of the
church’s success is explained by the factor(s) in this model, likely
innovative leadership alone.
o Residual Sum of Squares = 57.799: This is the part of church success
that the model can’t explain.
o Mean Square: For regression, 103.201 ÷ 1 = 103.201; for residual, 57.799
÷ 329 = 0.176.
o F = 602.956: This very large number means the model is highly reliable.
o Sig. = 0.000: The tiny p-value (less than 0.05) shows the model is
statistically significant, meaning innovative leadership strongly predicts
church performance.
o Meaning: This model, likely testing innovative leadership alone, is very
trustworthy for explaining church success.
 Model 2:
o Regression Sum of Squares = 128.478: This model explains much more
of church success than Model 1.
o Residual Sum of Squares = 32.522: Less of the success is unexplained,
showing a better fit.
o Mean Square: For regression, 128.478 ÷ 4 = 32.12 (four predictors, likely
leadership, culture, regulatory framework, and their interaction); for
residual, 32.522 ÷ 326 = 0.097.
o F = 329.485: This large number shows the model is reliable, though less
strong than Model 1 due to more predictors.
o Sig. = 0.000: The p-value confirms the model is statistically significant.
o Meaning: This model includes innovative leadership, organisational
culture, the regulatory framework, and likely an interaction term (e.g.,
leadership * regulatory framework), providing a better explanation of
church success.

What It All Means

 Moderated Mediation Effect: Table 35 confirms that the models in Table 34,
which combine innovative leadership, organisational culture (mediator), and the
regulatory framework (moderator), are reliable for predicting church performance.
Model 2 shows that including all these factors together explains more of why
churches succeed (79.8% from Table 34, R² = 0.798) than leadership alone
(64.1% from Table 34, R² = 0.641).
 How It Works:
o Mediation: Organizational culture helps explain how innovative
leadership leads to better performance. For example, a creative leader’s
new community program works better when the church has a supportive
culture where members share values.
o Moderation: The regulatory framework (e.g., following government
rules) makes the leadership-culture-performance link stronger or weaker.
For instance, proper legal registration can make a leader’s ideas more
effective by ensuring stability.
  Model Comparison:
o Model 1: Tests innovative leadership alone, explaining 64.1% of
performance (from Table 34) and is very reliable (F = 602.956).
o Model 2: Adds organisational culture, the regulatory framework, and
likely an interaction term, explaining 79.8% of performance (from Table
34). It’s still reliable (F = 329.485) but slightly less strong due to more
factors.
 Why It Matters: Combining leadership, culture, and regulations explains almost
80% of why some churches perform better. This means churches need creative
leaders, a positive culture, and proper rule-following to achieve the best results,
like more members or stronger community outreach.

Table 36: Regression Coefficients for Moderated Mediation Effect

What the Table Shows: This table details how innovative leadership, organisational
culture, and the regulatory framework predict church performance, focusing on the
“moderated mediation” effect. This means organisational culture helps explain how
leadership leads to better performance (mediation), and the regulatory framework
changes how strong this relationship is (moderation). The table shows two models: one
testing leadership alone and one combining leadership, culture, regulatory framework,
and their interaction. The numbers show how much each factor contributes to church
success and whether these contributions are reliable.

Table 36: Regression Coefficients for Moderated Mediation Effect

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 1.078 0.137 7.869 0.016
Innovative Leadership 0.587 0.035 0.80 24.56 0.036

2 (Constant) 0.217 0.094 2.309 0.025

Innovative Leadership 0.231 0.049 0.32 4.714 0.034
Regulatory Framework 0.259 0.048 0.34 5.396 0.027

Organizational Culture 0.245 0.051 0.27 4.804 0.039

Regulatory 0.196 0.051 0.22 3.843 0.048

Framework*Organization
al Culture

 Model 1:
 o Constant (B = 1.078, Std. Error = 0.137, t = 7.869, Sig. = 0.016): This is
the baseline church performance score when innovative leadership is zero.
The p-value (0.016) means it’s reliable (p < 0.05).
o Innovative Leadership (B = 0.587, Std. Error = 0.035, Beta = 0.80, t =
24.56, Sig. = 0.036): For every 1-unit increase in innovative leadership
(e.g., more creativity or teamwork), church performance increases by
0.587 units. The high Beta (0.80) shows a very strong impact, and the p-
value (0.036) confirms it’s reliable. This model tests leadership alone.
o Meaning: Innovative leadership alone strongly boosts church success, like
increasing attendance through new programs.
 Model 2:
o Constant (B = 0.217, Std. Error = 0.094, t = 2.309, Sig. = 0.025): A
reliable but lower baseline, as it includes multiple factors.
o Innovative Leadership (B = 0.231, Std. Error = 0.049, Beta = 0.32, t =
4.714, Sig. = 0.034): Leadership increases performance by 0.231 units,
with a moderate Beta (0.32) and reliable p-value (0.034). The lower Beta
compared to Model 1 shows its impact is reduced when other factors are
included.
o Regulatory Framework (B = 0.259, Std. Error = 0.048, Beta = 0.34, t =
5.396, Sig. = 0.027): Following rules increases performance by 0.259
units, with a moderate Beta (0.34) and reliable p-value (0.027).
o Organizational Culture (B = 0.245, Std. Error = 0.051, Beta = 0.27, t =
4.804, Sig. = 0.039): A strong culture increases performance by 0.245
units, with a moderate Beta (0.27) and reliable p-value (0.039).
o Regulatory Framework * Organizational Culture (B = 0.196, Std.
Error = 0.051, Beta = 0.22, t = 3.843, Sig. = 0.048): This “interaction”
term shows the moderated mediation effect. A Beta of 0.22 and p-value of
0.048 (p < 0.05) mean that the regulatory framework strengthens the way
organizational culture mediates the leadership-performance link. For
example, a supportive culture works better when rules are followed.
o Meaning: This model shows that leadership, culture, and regulations, plus
their interaction, all contribute to church success. The interaction term
confirms that a strong culture and rule-following make leadership more
effective.

What It All Means

 Moderated Mediation Effect: Table 36 shows that organizational culture helps

explain how innovative leadership leads to better church performance (mediation),
and the regulatory framework makes this relationship stronger (moderation). The
interaction term (B = 0.196, p = 0.048) confirms that a supportive culture is more
effective when the church follows government rules, like proper financial
reporting.
 Model Comparison:
 o Model 1: Tests innovative leadership alone, showing a strong impact
(Beta = 0.80, explains 64.1% from Table 34, R² = 0.641). For example, a
creative leader starting a new program boosts attendance.
o Model 2: Includes leadership, culture, regulatory framework, and their
interaction, explaining more (79.8% from Table 34, R² = 0.798). The
interaction term (Beta = 0.22) shows that culture and regulations together
enhance leadership’s impact.
 Why It Matters: A creative leader is key, but their ideas work best when the
church has a supportive culture (e.g., members share values) and follows rules
(e.g., legal compliance). This combination explains almost 80% of why some
churches perform better, leading to more members, stronger community outreach,
and better finances.