Journal of Vincentian Social Action Volume 7 Issue 1 Spring 2023

JOURNAL of VINCENTIAN SOCIAL ACTION

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Volume 7 Issue 1

May 2023

Cover Cover

Article 1

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Business Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Law Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

Recommended Citation

Recommended Citation

(2023) "Cover," JournalofVincentianSocialAction: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 1. Available at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa/vol7/iss1/1

This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Vincentian Social Action by an authorized editor of St. John's Scholar. For more information, please contact JoVSA@stjohns.edu

JOURNAL of VINCENTIAN SOCIAL ACTION

Cover Description

Forests are nothing more than a manifestation of the power and greatness that mark their trees. It is a space that invites us to demonstrate the deep willingness that all of them have to take care of and democratize each other.

The leadership of a tree makes others have their regenerative capacity, beyond their immobility and permanence, creating a model existence for other trees.

Entering a forest terrifies us but also worries us, because within it, there are fluids, signs, encounters and cooperative events being exchanged.

From the roots of the trees to their crowns, they seek the light that links and conditions them.

A forest is fundamentally a complex network of relationships, a fabric where each tree collaborates with the other, forming a kaleidoscopic mantle of symbiosis and alliances.

Whether tree or being, the meeting between each other is always transformative and inseparable from what is contained: dimensionality of its extension, the projection of its decisive collaboration and its internal synergies through its roots.

All trees turn their cooperation and knowledge into a model to be taken into account by human nature.

The forest wins the battle and the encounter with it makes it easier for us to bond more to ourselves, to cover more field and survive better.

We must become aware of what nature shows us in order to deal better with our lives.

The forest tells us that a new being is the result of the relationship of others. The leadership of a being or tree stimulates others to grow and transform into a great spirit.

Let’s start a path inside the forest to know the encounter with other walkers and link in their way of leading their survival strategies and thus not feel lost in the immensity of the thickness of the forests.

CARMEN COLOGAN. TENERIFE 2022

Translation by Carmen Collins

Cover Credits:

Carmen Cólogan

Jardines del Desierto. Alcornoque

Oil/ Graphite on wood

100 x 81 cm

Tenerife 2017

www.carmencologan.com

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Volume 7 Issue 1

May 2023

Editors Editors

Article 2

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Business Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Law Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

Recommended Citation

Recommended Citation

(2023) "Editors," JournalofVincentianSocialAction: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa/vol7/iss1/2

This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Vincentian Social Action by an authorized editor of St. John's Scholar. For more information, please contact JoVSA@stjohns.edu

Editors

Editor in Chief

Marc E. Gillespie Ph.D.

Vice Provost for Graduate Education, Clinical Operations and Research, and Assessment

Professor of Pharmaceutical Sciences

St. John’s University

Queens, NY USA gillespm@stjohns.edu

Assistant Editor

Anthony C. Marziliano

Director of Academic Assessment

Office of the Provost

St. John’s University

Queens, NY USA marzilia@stjohns.edu

Special Editor

Basilio G. Monteiro, Ph.D

Chair and Associate Professor

Division of Mass Communication Director, Institute for International Communication St. John’s University monteirb@stjohns.edu

Guest Editors

Garfield Benjamin

Carmen Collins

Tara DeWorsop

Franklin Ezoreah

Victoria O’Keefe

Shweta Sinha

Editorial Board

John M. Conry, Pharm.D.

Clinical Professor Director, The Urban Institute College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

Chair, Faculty Research Consortium

Vincentian Institute for Social Action St. John’s University

Elissa J. Brown, Ph.D.

Professor of Psychology

Founder and Executive Director, Child HELP Partnership

St. John’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

Howard Abadinsky, MSW, Ph.D.

Professor of Criminal Justice

Collins College of Professional Studies

Roberta L. Hayes, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Coordinator, Scientific Inquiry Core Institute for Core Studies

St. John’s College of Liberal Arts and Science

Robert Eschenauer, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Chair of the Counselor Education Department The School of Education

Aleksandr Gevorkyan, Ph.D.

Associate Professor Economics and Finance

The Peter J. Tobin College of Business

St. John’s University

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Volume 7 Issue 1

May 2023

TOC TOC

Article 3

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Business Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Law Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

Recommended Citation

Recommended Citation

(2023) "TOC," JournalofVincentianSocialAction: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 3. Available at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa/vol7/iss1/3

This Front Matter is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Vincentian Social Action by an authorized editor of St. John's Scholar. For more information, please contact JoVSA@stjohns.edu

JOURNAL of VINCENTIAN SOCIAL ACTION

Table of Contents

Description

The Journal of Vincentian Social Action (JoVSA) is published biannually, engaging the greater community in the service of the disadvantaged.

St. John’s University is rooted in the Catholic Vincentian tradition. As a community we are engaged in research and direct service to those most in need. We seek insight into the causes and consequences of poverty and believe that these actions can help alleviate suffering.

JoVSA is open-access, freely available online, to all.

Aims and Scope

The journal provides a scholarly forum for those working to address communitydefined needs; a forum where practical solutions are presented to address the plight of the disadvantaged and needy. Measurement and assessment of these efforts connecting action to outcome are a critical component ensuring positive results and real change in the lives of the disadvantaged.

JoVSA welcomes research articles, position papers, and conference proceedings.

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Volume 7 Issue 1

May 2023

Article 4

Ministrare Non Ministrari: Urgently Needed Servant Leaders

Ministrare Non Ministrari: Urgently Needed Leaders

Basilio G. Monteiro

St.John'sUniversity-NewYork, monteirb@stjohns.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Business Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Law Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Monteiro, Basilio G. (2023) "Ministrare Non Ministrari: Urgently Needed Servant Leaders," Journalof VincentianSocialAction: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 4.

Available at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa/vol7/iss1/4

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Vincentian Social Action by an authorized editor of St. John's Scholar. For more information, please contact JoVSA@stjohns.edu

MINISTRARENONMINISTRARI: URGENTLY NEEDED SERVANT LEADERS

Basilio G. Monteiro

Leader or servant? For most people, it is an oxymoron. It does not conjure up in the imagination that a good leader is or ought to be a servant. By and large, our imaginations are corporatized and along with it, our professional roles. The industrialization of all sectors of human activity demands efficiency as the driver of productivity. Presently, leadership is constructed as a command-control vertical structure, focused on overseeing personnel, crafting core values statements, and issuing directives for employees at every level. Very few leaders take on the characteristics of a “company servant,” someone who listens with empathy, awareness, and foresight.

Vertical structure of the management generates human distance, anonymity between the leader and the lower rank employees, which allows the leader to mechanize the functioning of the employee for maximum productivity. The anonymity and distance provide less or nonemotional involvement, which makes it easier to demand or extort “productivity.” The more the distance between the leader and the employees, the more dehumanization is generated by issuing disembodied directives. The “corporatized” leaders are obsessed with maximum productivity, invariably, at a stupendous cost of the employee’s human dignity, as their measure of success. The mechanization of “efficiency” has spawned an industry to professionalize virtues of heart as “trainable” skills by way of series of workshops; thus, the industry of “training workshops.” Corporatized leadership in its structure is an affront to human dignity as it sees the human being as a cog in the wheel, at the service of the corporation. To “manage” human beings as production spigots has become a prized axiom in

the practice of management, which is a euphemism for “measuring” the work of an employee.

Tragically, almost all organizations, including the ‘non-profits,” academic and religious institutions have appropriated the “corporate” model of management as the paradigm of “good management.”

Good leaders influence, not intimidate, promote, encourage, and foster respectful and meaningful relationships. People, like a leader who is engaged and present, not someone who pops up solely through meetings, memos, or emails.

People value someone who communicates with integrity. That means getting to the heart of the matter, especially when times are tough, not clouding crucial developments with euphemisms.

Servant leaders place the needs of others over their own self-interests. Robert K Greenleaf believed leaders have a social responsibility to care for the disenfranchised and to serve them first; he proposes shifting power to those who are being led.

Academic institutions have embraced the industry leadership paradigm and industrialized “academia” where education is an enterprise. Academic leaders, who follow corporatized leadership models are canonized by the corporate pantheon as model leaders.

The contributors to this issue, dedicated to exploring various dimensions of servant leadership, have eloquently and convincingly explored and argued the significance and urgency to adopt servant leadership to manage and lead, particularly, academic institutions. Larry W. Boone makes it clear from the outset and as he develops

the ten supporting attitudes, that leadership is “attitude” (not skill set) and “it involves the type of person you are.” Ricardo Colasanti, in his tightly constructed essay, makes a compelling case that servant leadership is about changing the society by way of changing management. Anthony Nicotera, Dawn Apgar and Ines Murzaku bring together Catholic Social Teaching and Social Work’s core commitments of dignity, service and justice to develop a theology of servant leadership by looking at “Mother Theresa as an exemplar of CST in Action.” Joseph D’Mello, while examining servant leadership bottom-up from the workers perspective, takes us to a long ride back into the history to demonstrate that “servant leadership” has a long and respected life in its different iterations. Robert Sr. Margaret Mary Fitzpatrick, S.C., makes a compelling argument why the Catholic Educational Institutions have a sacred responsibility to practice servant leadership. Sr. Sally Duffy, SC., herself grounded in humility, explores the spirituality of servant leadership by pointing out that “a servant is the person in right relationship with God.” Sr. Sally, as a child of St. John’s University, examines the interweaving of

gospel values and leadership as “ministry… rooted in God, of God and for God and others and for all creation…” Shweta Sinha, doctoral candidate in Multi-Sector Communication conducts an empirical study to examine the post-pandemic rise of Great Resignation and Quiet Quitting across various sectors and comes to a conclusion that “servant leadership style of management” could have mitigated the harshness of professional work requirements. Tara DeWorsop examines, through the lens of a police lieutenant, how community policing is about servant leadership; Franklyn Ezeorah looks at the roots of servant leadership in African culture.

We hope this focus on servant leadership will initiate a robust conversation on our St. John’s University campus and lead to ministrare non ministrari.

ABOUT THE EDITOR

Basilio G. Monteiro, PhD, Chair and Associate Professor, Division of Mass Communication, Collins College of Professional Studies

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Volume 7 Issue 1

May 2023

Servant Leadership and Ten Supporting Attitudes Servant and Ten Supporting

Larry W. Boone

UniversityofthePhilippines, boonel@stjohns.edu

Article 5

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Business Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Law Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Boone, Larry W. (2023) "Servant Leadership and Ten Supporting Attitudes," JournalofVincentianSocial Action: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 5.

Available at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa/vol7/iss1/5

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Vincentian Social Action by an authorized editor of St. John's Scholar. For more information, please contact JoVSA@stjohns.edu

SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND TEN SUPPORTING ATTITUDES*

Larry W. Boone

*This article contains extracts from Dr. Boone’s book Servant Leadership: Attitudes, Skills and Behaviours, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019.

ABSTRACT

The popular concept of servant leadership is discussed as are the characteristics of servant leaders and the relationships between the servant leader approach and power usage and service. Servant leadership is compared and contrasted to several other common leadership styles. Ten attitudes that support and facilitate servant leadership behaviors are identified from the leadership literature. Leadership practices that flow from these attitudes are examined. Emphasis is placed on the supportive, enabling work environment created by servant leaders.

PROLOGUE

Like many workers, my early career consisted of several different jobs with several different organizations. Before, during and after college, I was a concession stand attendant, road repair worker, telephone company driver, steel mill pipefitter’s helper, production engineer, quality assurance engineer and quality assurance manager. Some of my personal work experiences were highly satisfying and enjoyable; others were decidedly not. I became very curious about what made the difference between the places I wanted to work and the places I didn’t. The environment of work became such a personal interest that after my first graduate degree in Engineering Management I decided to pursue doctoral studies in business management and organization behavior.

Upon attaining my Ph.D. and beginning my teaching career I came to know many college students searching for their first job, and I have had the pleasure of staying in touch with many of them through their early careers. I noticed that they had very similar experiences to my own. Some were very happy, comfortable and motivated with their work situations while others realized they had made a poor job choice and soon resumed their employment search. In general, I believe it is fair to say, many simply accepted the

highest paying position offered to them or the one with the employer of highest reputation or perhaps the one closest to their “dream” location, assuming all job environments were pretty much the same once they entered their employer’s door. Large numbers of these former students came to know that compensation, employer reputation and geographic landing spots were not the most important contributors to their satisfaction with work. This is no surprise to many experienced workers, of course. But it was enlightening to see how many early career workers thought money, prestige or location were the answers in their search for satisfaction and motivation at work.

Through my own teaching and research, I focused on what I thought was the true differentiator between good places to work and poor ones –the quality of leadership. Over time, I came to realize that servant leadership was the single most influential factor in creating a successful work environment.

A SERVANT LEADERSHIP WORK ENVIRONMENT

Servant leaders do many special things for their organizations. One of their major contributions is setting the stage for other people to succeed. Because high numbers of followers achieve success, servant-led organizations accomplish great things.

This article addresses the characteristics of servant leaders and the attitudes servant leaders adopt. In a less detailed way, it is about the skills servant leaders develop and apply as well as the behaviors they practice over time to create the environment for others to succeed. The focus is on what servant leaders do to establish and maintain a supportive, facilitative climate where people strive together to enact a compelling shared vision of a better future, where people simultaneously accomplish tasks and build relationships and where leaders empower workers to meet high expectations while holding them accountable for their performance and behaviors.

Different terms and approaches are used by many authors to describe the environment servant leaders create. For example, Ken Blanchard (2004) describes a climate where people willingly contribute their hearts, minds, creativity and excellence toward mutually beneficial goals–an environment where workers commit to the mission and to becoming the best they are capable of becoming.

is demanded, people are held accountable for performance and community is built.

John Maxwell (2007) says leaders empower people in the workplace. His Law of Empowerment states that leaders themselves have a strong sense of selfworth, and they believe not only in themselves but also in their mission and their people. To Maxwell, empowering followers means leaders help others reach their potential by being on their side, encouraging them, giving them power and helping them to succeed.

James Autry (2001) says servant leadership is concerned with creating a place in which people can do good work while finding meaning in their efforts. It’s a place where followers are free to bring their spirits to work.

building trust and facilitating relationships while followers are strengthened by enhancing self-determination and supporting development of their competence and confidence.”

James Kouzes and Barry Posner (2012) write about enabling others to act through fostering collaboration and strengthening them. Collaboration is fostered by building trust and facilitating relationships while followers are strengthened by enhancing self-determination and supporting development of their competence and confidence.

Nancy Ortberg (2004) writes that servant leaders release others to do their work by trusting them as they trust themselves to accomplish outstanding results.

James Hunter (2004) describes the servant-led environment as one in which leaders are driven by the institution’s mission and where their followers simultaneously accomplish goals and build relationships. It is a climate where excellence

Of great interest here is how servant leaders affect others through who they are and what they do. That is, how followers’ satisfaction, commitment, productivity and creativity are improved through the environment servant leaders create. This is where servant leadership shines. This environment is applicable to the workplace, the community, the congregation, the family, the sports team or whatever particular unit may be guided by the servant leader.

Creating such a climate is attractive to many leaders. It’s not hard to imagine that it should be. It is an environment where people “want to” work instead of feeling like they “have to” work. It’s an environment that supports participants’ dedication to mission, personal fulfillment, pride in accomplishment, sense of responsibility for achieving results, desire to be both effective and efficient and willingness to create new methods and relationships.

However, acting as servant leader for one’s enterprise, agency, community, family or team is

“Collaboration is fostered by

not a simple matter. It’s a way of behaving one adopts over the long term. It’s individual as well as organizational. Servant leadership is based on values, both personal and institutional, as well as relationships. The servant leadership style can be learned and applied by people who possess the intent to change, grow and improve. That is, servant leadership involves the type of person you are as well as the style you apply to lead others.

Generally speaking, leadership is a process through which a leader influences the behaviors of others toward a common goal. A vast amount of research informs us that an enterprise’s performance is related directly to its leadership quality. Leadership accounts for the difference between long-term success and failure no matter how performance is assessed–in terms of growth, quality of service, financial results, innovativeness or any other means.

Because leadership is so important to people and institutions, the topic has been the subject of much interest and research for many decades. The contingency approach dominates the extensive literature on the subject. The appropriate style of leading others depends upon the situation. Some contexts call for autocratic leadership, some for democratic or participative leadership. Best results are attained in other situations by using transformational or transactional approaches, and still others call for bureaucratic, charismatic or laissez-faire leadership styles–and so on.

Servant leadership’s timeless relational and values-based principles help to address many of the myriad challenges facing those in leadership positions today. Organizations around the globe are revamping their approaches toward people, relationships and leadership. And servant leadership is emerging as a preferred practice as demonstrated by its adoption at numerous successful and admired business enterprises across all industries and cultures as well as at many government agencies and multitudes of not-forprofit organizations and religious institutions.

According to Lichtenwalner (2017, April 29), Fortune magazine and others, some of the organizations seeking and/or developing servant leaders include: 7-Eleven, Balfour Beatty Construction, Catholic Relief Services, Darden Restaurants, Evergreen Freedom Foundation, Federal Express, Heartland Health, Herman Miller, Hess Corporation, Marriott International, McKinney Capital & Advisory, Medtronic, Nordstrom, Opportunity International, SAS, ServiceMaster, Southwest Airlines, Starbucks, Synovus Financial, TD Industries, Toro Company, U.S. Cellular, U.S. Army/Marine Corps/Navy, Wal-Mart Stores, Vanderbilt University, Whole Foods, Yum Brands and Zappos.com. Many enterprises are including the practice of servant leadership principles as necessary or desired on the job descriptions they are posting when recruiting for various leader, manager and administrator positions.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND CHARACTERISTICS OF SERVANT LEADERS

Researching the background of servant leadership as well as what it takes to be a servant leader quickly leads to the finding that the servant leadership approach is not new. Jesus was the ultimate servant leader. He tells us that he comes to serve, not to be served. However, the term servant leadership was introduced into the modern leadership literature in 1970 when Robert Greenleaf published his seminal essay “The Servant as Leader.” Greenleaf spent a long and highly successful career at AT&T working in the fields of management, research, development and education. His essay was based on his personal experiences and offered a unique insight into the nature of leadership and a holistic slant to the behaviors distinguishing excellent leadership.

He believed the effective leader leads with a compelling vision shared with all who contribute to an organization’s efforts, sets clear behavioral expectations and serves as an authentic practitioner of the values proclaimed.

Among its many features, Greenleaf’s approach to leading included a dedication to the value of service, a call to personal transformation and an emphasis on community. He recognized the need to produce high-quality work, achieve challenging goals and hold people accountable for their results and behaviors. But his relational and communal emphasis distinguished his ideas from prevailing leadership practice by emphasizing more about the power of love and less about the love of power, more about listening and connecting to others and less about watching and correcting and more about finding out what people want, less about telling people what to do.

There is broad agreement that Greenleaf’s “servant as leader” approach draws upon and fosters the best within individuals and organizations.

1

Characteristics of Servant Leaders

Listening

Primarily, servant leadership focuses on the growth and well-being of people and the communities in which they operate. At its core is respect for the human person and for the dignity of work. Servant leaders place the needs of others first, share power, involve others in decision-making and help people reach their full potential.

Larry Spears, President and CEO of the Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership from 1990-2007 as well as author and editor of hundreds of articles, books and other publications on servant-leadership, has identified ten characteristics of critical importance to servant leaders. This set of attributes provides a valuable overview of the effective, caring leadership provided by those who see themselves as serving others.

Servant leaders strive to identify the will of a group and also help clarify that will. Servants listen receptively to what is said and unsaid. They also listen to their own inner voices. Listening, combined with self-reflection, is necessary for the growth and well-being of servant leaders.

Empathy

Servant leaders are skilled empathetic listeners. They accept and recognize people for their special, unique spirits. Co-workers’ and colleagues’ good intentions are assumed. They are not rejected as people even when leaders must refuse to accept their certain behaviors or performance.

Healing

Many people possess broken spirits and emotional hurts. This is part of being human. Servant leaders recognize the potential for healing self and relationships to others. They seek opportunities to make whole those with whom they interact.

Awareness

While servant leaders have their own inner serenity, their keen awareness of general conditions awakes and disturbs them to action. It helps them to understand ethical, power and values issues. Awareness helps servants observe situations from an integrated and holistic perspective.

Persuasion

Servant leaders do not coerce others into compliance by relying on the traditional authoritarian model of leading within organizations. Rather, they rely upon persuading, convincing others. They are effective consensus builders within their groups.

(Continued)

Figure

Figure 1 (con’t) Characteristics of Servant Leaders Conceptualization

Servants lead by visioning. They dream great dreams. They balance their necessary focus on day-to-day issues and problems with a conceptualizing perspective on what can be. Opportunities matter. Servant leaders call others forward to a grand future none could be capable of achieving alone.

Foresight

Rooted within the intuitive mind, foresight enables servant leaders to integrate past lessons, current realities and the likely future consequences of their decisions. Foresight is the hardto-define ability to anticipate potential outcomes of a situation. It is closely related to the conceptualization characteristic.

Stewardship

Since above all servant leaders recognize and attend to the needs of others, they view their role as holding their organizations in trust for the greater good of society. Leaders do so by emphasizing openness and persuasion, not control.

Commitment to the Growth of People

A belief that people have intrinsic value beyond their tangible contributions as workers drives servant leaders’ strong commitment to every constituent’s personal and professional growth. Servants nurture others’ development through funding for training, taking personal interest in their ideas, encouraging participative decision-making and many other practices.

Building Community

Servant leaders strive to build community within their institutions. Emphasizing common pillars, like mission, vision and values, helps create shared identity and unity of direction and expected behavior.

(Spears, 2010)

Fundamentally, Greenleaf discussed leading others not from the pedestal-style sources of authoritative power, control or dominance but as an attitude and perspective about self, about others and about a meaningful, fulfilling life. The simplicity of his message has reverberated in people of different generations and across many cultures. Greenleaf believed that by first learning to be a good follower, a servant leader acquires “habits”–ways of being with others and for others–or what ethicists would term “virtues.”

The other-centered personal habits of a servant leader emanate from strong self-awareness and social consciousness, and they translate into positive organizational behaviors and leadership approaches.

They meld into a distinctive posture that allows a person to be both leader-servant and servant-leader simultaneously. From this dual position questions of “For whom do I work?” or “Whom do I serve?” and “Why do I work?” or “For what purpose do I serve?” are active continuously to keep leaders on track, that is, focused on a better future for the organization and all its constituents.

With personal humility servant leaders place themselves at the service of others. The servant leadership approach focuses on the needs and interests of others. Leaders serve followers, not the other way around. The personal needs of the servant leader are subservient to the desire to help followers grow both personally and professionally. According

to Greenleaf (2008), servant leadership begins by demonstrating integrity, creating relationships based on trust and assisting others in learning, growing and developing into leaders themselves. Because leaders are committed to developing their followers, they encourage the freedom to experiment and take risks as well as to make mistakes without fearing punishment.

Some of Greenleaf’s intriguing people-growing and community-building tenets of servant leadership may be expressed as:

• leaders and leadership can emerge from any place in any enterprise, agency, congregation or community; leaders are not necessarily those with formal position and authority;

• the best leaders are dedicated followers (servants) first, then emerge as leaders; and

• most group members realize intuitively who their real leaders are.

What led Greenleaf to develop this concept that has been embraced by practitioners, academics and consultants over the years and has been adopted by hundreds of organizations as their leadership philosophy? Two stories help to relate his motivation.

First, in Greenleaf’s (2002, p. 21) own words we come to understand the genesis of his realization: The idea of the servant leader came out of reading Hermann Hesse’s Journey to the East. In this story we see a band of men on a mythical journey, probably also Hesse’s own journey. The central figure of the story is Leo, who accompanies the party as the servant who does their menial chores, but who also sustains them with his spirit and his song. He is a person of extraordinary presence. All goes well until Leo disappears. Then the group falls into disarray and the journey is abandoned. They cannot make it without the servant Leo. The narrator, one of the party, after some years of wandering, finds Leo and is taken into the

Order that had sponsored the journey. There he discovers that Leo, whom he had known first as servant, was in fact the titular head of the Order, its guiding spirit, a great and noble leader… to me, this story clearly says that the great leader is seen as servant first, and that simple fact is the key to his greatness. Leo was actually the leader all of the time, but he was servant first because that was what he was, deep down inside.

Second, while a student in a college course titled “Sociology of the Labor Problem,” Greenleaf accepted a challenge issued by his professor to develop a way to make the world a better place. His particular professor wasn’t charismatic or dynamic, personal traits often mistakenly associated with leadership. Instead, Greenleaf’s teacher was advanced in years and a quiet man who asserted that social change occurs only when people within organizations, not outside them, choose to make their institutions themselves forces for public good. Greenleaf accepted the professor’s challenge. He became such a force during his AT&T career.

The wise teacher’s advice is still applicable today. A few brief passages from Greenleaf’s writings illustrate his insights into human nature and the prudence of servant leadership.

On who the servant leader is:

The servant-leader is servant first … It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from the person who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions… The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature.

The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other peoples’ highest priority needs are being served.

The best test, and difficult to administer, is: do those served grow as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, will they not be further deprived?

(Greenleaf, 2008, p. 15)

On considering what one is trying to do:

A mark of leaders, an attribute that puts them in a position to show the way to others, is that they are better than most at pointing the direction. As long as one is leading, one always has a goal. It may be a goal arrived at by group consensus, or the leader, acting on inspiration, may simply have said, “Let’s go this way.” But the leader always knows what it is and can articulate if for any who are unsure. By clearly stating and restating the goal the leader gives certainty to others who may have difficulty in achieving it themselves (Greenleaf, 2002, p. 29).

On seeking, listening to others, hope and optimism:

But if one is servant, either leader or follower, one is always searching, listening, expecting that a better wheel for these times is in the making. It may emerge any day. Any one of us may find it out of their own experience (Greenleaf, 2008, p. 11).

On power and authority:

A fresh critical look is being taken at the issues of power and authority, and people are beginning to learn, however haltingly, to relate to one another in less coercive and more creatively supporting ways. A new moral principle is emerging which holds that the only authority deserving one’s allegiance is that which is freely and knowingly granted by the led to the leader in response to, and in proportion to, the clearly evident servant stature of the leader (Greenleaf, 2008, p. 11-12).

Transforming from conventional leader to servant leader is not a simple task. It requires conscious effort to change one’s ways of thinking, acting and reacting. It means ensuring one has the requisite attitudes, skills and behaviors of a servant leader.

James Autry (2001), author of The Servant Leader: How to Build a Creative Team, Develop Great Morale, and Improve Bottom-Line Performance, writes that it is easier to develop an attitude of service if leaders develop ways of being authentic, vulnerable, accepting, present and useful to others.

Authenticity means being who you really are in all circumstances, practicing the same values in whatever role you fulfill. Being vulnerable requires courage because it entails giving up some traditional notions of a leader always being in control. Vulnerability means being open and honest about your feelings in the work environment. It means expressing candidly your doubts, fears or concerns about personal ideas or a constituent’s performance. Also, vulnerability includes admitting your mistakes to others and being able to say, “I was wrong” and “I am sorry.” Acceptance requires embracing disagreement as part of the work process. Humans will disagree. Acceptance doesn’t imply that you agree with others’ ideas merely because they have been expressed. Rather, it means that you accept ideas as valid for discussion, review and critique and that you focus on the ideas themselves and not on the individual who offers them. Being present means applying your values at all times to tasks and decisions at hand and being fully available to others as you react to their issues or problems. Finally, by being useful, Autry means providing service to others, seeing yourself as a resource to them and for them.

Those who lead as servants put the needs of their organization and people before their own; conceptualize what “can be” and lead with an inspiring vision for the future; listen to, understand and empathize with others; and accept others with tolerance for their imperfections but may refuse to accept some of a person’s effort or performance as sufficient, that is, they hold people accountable for their performance and behavior. Also, servant leaders persuade rather than coerce; appreciate the value of learning; adapt to change readily; work hard to gain trust; help others reach their potential; encourage others to try new things and new ways; support people in healing when

necessary; and withdraw regularly to renew themselves through reflection.

Servant leaders do not lead from the top. They do not always visualize themselves at the peak of an organizational pyramid. Instead, servants see themselves in various flexible positions within any hierarchy. As servant leaders they do not force people to follow through authoritarian means but walk among followers, helping them move in a direction that unites all in a common vision by facilitating, educating and coaching them. Several researchers have developed scales for measuring servant leadership. Some of the behavioral dimensions identified are: accountability, altruistic calling, authenticity, behaving ethically, conceptual skills, courage, creating value for the community, emotional healing, empowering, forgiveness, helping subordinates grow and s ucceed, humility, interpersonal acceptance, organizational stewardship, persuasive mapping, putting subordinates first, relationships, standing back and wisdom.

From these results it can be seen that servant leaders give first priority to the interests of others while delivering necessary support and affording credit to others for accomplished tasks. They demonstrate genuine concern for others’ career growth and professional development by providing encouragement and aid, even mentoring. Servant leaders use their deep organizational knowledge to facilitate others, especially immediate followers, in identifying and solving problems as well as determining when and how to complete tasks. They interact openly, fairly and honestly with others, make genuine efforts to know, understand and support others in the institution and emphasize building long-term relationships with close followers. Importantly, servants foster a proactive, self-confident attitude among followers and engender in them a sense of personal power. They hold others accountable for performance they can control while keeping their own accomplishments in perspective and, when appropriate, admit their own fallibility and mistakes. They take reasonable risks and embrace new approaches to problems and

situations. Servant leaders take responsibility for the organization’s well-being, acting as caretakers for their institution and role models for others. They have a conscious and sincere concern for helping the community as well as demonstrate sensitivity to others’ personal concerns.

The servant leader employs a powerful shared vision to inspire others to work enthusiastically and to be committed to a brighter future which benefits the collective interests of the group, the organization and/or society. Among widely diverse constituents, servant leaders build community by emphasizing unity as defined by common mission, values and vision.

LEADERSHIP AND POWER

Greenleaf points out that leaders’ influence over others necessarily involves power. Power is the ability to act. It moves people and organizations. Power is to leadership what energy is to physics; it makes things happen.

However, Greenleaf describes very different types of power. Servant leaders may influence others through persuasion and example. In these approaches “power is used to create opportunity and alternatives so that individuals may choose and build autonomy” (Greenleaf, 2002, p. 55). Followers’ behaviors may be influenced by leaders’ articulation of superior organizational knowledge derived from their “closer to the ground” position within the enterprise; leaders hear, see and know things others may not.

Another potential power source for leaders is coercion. Greenleaf writes that coercive power is used “to dominate and manipulate people … into a predetermined path” (Greenleaf, 2002, p. 55). Coercive power derives from leaders’ positions of formal authority and their ability to sanction the actions of others by providing or withholding effort, support or money. The author warns of negative consequences when coercive power is exercised; it strengthens resistance among followers. Accordingly, servant leaders avoid the exercise of coercive power.

Referent power is another source of influencing behavior, and it is afforded to people to whom others naturally refer when leadership is necessary. This type of influence does not depend on the authority that accompanies a formal position of organizational leadership. Rather, referent power emerges from a voluntary relationship between leader and followers. Others sense that their referent leader possesses personal characteristics and appeal, inspiration, wisdom or expertise. Seeking guidance and direction, followers are drawn to them even though they are not formal leaders within their enterprise. Servant leaders tend to be high in referent power.

It is interesting, perhaps fascinating, to view power as possessing something of a mystical quality. Under certain conditions power is not depleted when it is used. Rather, power multiplies. When leaders’ power is applied for the purpose of meeting the needs of the institution or advancing the capacity of followers to accomplish work, power is not an exhaustible resource or even a zero-sum game among powerholders. The more power is shared, given away by leaders, the more it accrues back to them. Sharing power increases followers’ willingness to work toward organizational goals as well as the resources (connections to authority) they need to make things happen. Thus, the effectiveness of workers increases. When followers accomplish more, organizations thrive, and leaders are recognized as effective. Effective leaders garner more responsibility and power.

What does this power multiplication look like in day-to-day operational terms? Leaders share power with everyone, including those closest to where organizational action takes place–for example, where well-trained, self-confident and clearlydirected nurses care for patients, faculty teach students, attendants serve passengers, mechanics repair equipment, designers create products, salespersons sell to customers and so forth. At all points where followers contact clients they may be far removed in place and time from their hierarchical leader, but they are able to make decisions and take actions that bring to fruition

the organization’s vision without checking all the way back through the chain of command. In other words, followers are empowered.

Servant leaders’ attitudes and skills are applied to develop many specific behaviors that contribute directly to workplace environments where followers feel empowered to act. This is the real “magic” of servant leadership.

Should leaders be perceived as using power to satisfy their own personal needs, followers judge them to be self-serving leaders, not servant leaders. In that case, followers tend to limit leaders’ power to the formal authority they have to tell people what to do on the job. Workers will do what is necessary to keep their jobs, and that’s about all. Self-serving leaders see their power to affect workers’ behaviors dwindle over time.

But power used effectively, as it is by servant leaders, can be viewed as demonstrating a mystical quality. When it is used to meet the legitimate needs of the organization and its workers, power multiplies.

LEADERSHIP AND SERVICE

While servant leadership involves the exercise of power, as do all forms of leadership, it also is about service, caring about others’ needs and interests and about the organization’s well-being. Like power, service can be viewed as having a mystical quality.

Leaders serve others by advancing their capacities for achieving success. Because servant leaders facilitate, educate and coach their followers, people grow in self-awareness, abilities, organizational knowledge, connections and self-confidence. They feel capable because they are aware of vision and values–what the institution wants to accomplish and how everyone is expected to behave. They are motivated because they believe their work is important. They feel valued and supported. Leaders serve others by creating this environment for success. Also, servant leaders model their leadership style for others. They educate and inspire through example. And service multiplies when followers being served are inspired to serve others. As Greenleaf suggests, one of the results of servant

leadership is that followers are more likely to become servant leaders themselves.

VIRTUES, VALUES AND TRAITS

Effective leaders and their followers practice virtues and act on their shared values. Practicing virtuous behavior, which entails acting with courage, wisdom, justice, patience, humility or other virtues, builds character in leaders and others. Practicing values, such as the espoused core values of an organization, builds community among leaders and their followers.

No one is born with character. Rather, it is developed through an inward journey supported by virtuous living, honest reflection and selfdiscipline. That is why it is often said that great leadership starts with self-awareness, realizing what is important to us, and self-knowledge, such as recognition of our personal motivators, strengths and weaknesses.

Applying ideas emanating from the inspiring and highly practical leadership research of James Kouzes and Barry Posner (2012) as published in their book, The Leadership Challenge: How to Make Extraordinary Things Happen in Organizations, once we know ourselves well, we can find our own voice and start to develop effective relationships between ourselves and others. After all, in the end, leadership is not about me or about you; it’s about you and me.

One key aspect of self-awareness related to servant leadership is a personal understanding of whether we attain satisfaction and fulfillment by serving others or by acting in more self-serving ways. The servant leader, of course, is called to serve others first. Those with different sources of satisfaction and fulfillment will most likely be more comfortable with other leadership styles.

Leadership finds its personal origins in faith. Faith in ourselves is confidence, a widely recognized trait associated with leadership. Faith in each other is trust, a critical success factor for any interdependent group, team or organization. Faith in an institution is loyalty and commitment, highly

prized organizational attributes that contribute to operational stability and long-term success. Of course, it should be recognized that for many people, faith begins with their relationship with God. And the stronger their faith in God, the easier they find it to have faith in themselves and each other.

Leaders become trusted by others, that is, they become trustworthy, by acting with integrity. Integrity is the integration of leaders’ values and behaviors. In other words, leaders demonstrate their integrity when they practice what they preach, walk their talk and honor their promises. When followers observe integrity, they find it possible to believe in their leaders. As a result, leaders possess what Kouzes and Posner (2012) call credibility, the most critical trait for exemplary leadership. One will do well to attend to Kouzes and Posner’s First Law of Leadership: if people don’t believe in the messenger, they won’t believe the message.

LEADERSHIP STYLES

For many decades two major approaches to studying leadership have involved traits and behaviors. Trait studies consider particular elements of character or personality as well as social, physical or intellectual attributes that differentiate leaders from non-leaders. Traits describe “what leaders are made of.” If all we needed to know about leadership involved traits, we could select the potentially effective leaders from among any population.

Behavior studies describe a leader’s actions, practices or performance. In other words, behaviors describe “what leaders do.” If all we needed to know about leadership involved behaviors, we could readily train just about anybody to be an effective leader.

Appreciating servant leadership requires an understanding of both traits and behaviors.

Many different leadership styles have been identified and studied. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Each tends to be effective under certain circumstances such as the types of followers being led, the structure of tasks undertaken, the relative power positions of leaders and followers,

the culture within which leadership is practiced and a host of other factors. Here the purpose is to help the reader better understand the concept of servant leadership by suggesting other leadership styles that are very different from servant leadership or similar to it.

Autocratic leadership, or the classic command-andcontrol leadership style, involves exercising high levels of power over people. It is a very different approach compared to servant leadership. The autocratic leader issues commands to others and practices close control over them. Autocrats tend to make solo decisions, rely on the formal power vested in their organizational position and are likely to exercise power for personal interests and seek personal recognition and status within their enterprise. Servant leaders, on the other hand, delegate responsibilities to others, support followers’ initiatives (as long as they are directed toward the organization’s vision and comply with the organization’s values), involve others in decisions, emerge from anywhere within the organization (with or without a formal power position), access organizational power for use by team members and give credit to others instead of accepting it personally. In the long term, servant leaders engage and free others while classic autocratic leaders can deaden motivation and erect barriers to progress.

The servant leadership style has often been compared to other leadership approaches such as transformational, transactional and charismatic leadership.

Transformational leaders are said to transform people and organizations through their focus on enterprise-wide change and a shared vision of the future. They are often described as demonstrating integrity and high emotional intelligence and as being self-aware, authentic, empathetic and humble. Transformational leaders are highly visible and spend much time communicating. They tend not to lead from the front, but delegate responsibilities among team members, and then expect the best from them. They are concerned that followers reach their personal potential; they challenge others to reach higher levels of motivation and performance; they listen and react to individual’s needs; and they

seek to inspire others to achieve extraordinary outcomes. Through these behaviors and processes, transformational leaders support followers’ efforts to become leaders themselves by developing their own personal leadership capabilities. As a result, followers’ self-confidence increases, and they become more concerned with their personal growth and achievement.

There are many similarities between servant and transformational leadership, and differences can be somewhat subtle. Some authors observe that transformational leaders’ primary focus tends to be on the organization. Thus, those applying this leadership style direct followers’ commitment toward institutional objectives. Servant leaders’ focus, on the other hand, is on followers. They try to find out what people need to be successful. They want to make a difference in others’ lives and, in the process, impact the organization. For servant leaders accomplishing organizational objectives, while still important, is subordinate to meeting followers’ needs. With followers being first in servant leadership, servant leaders do not dominate, direct or control, but instead prefer to share control and influence with their followers. This can be somewhat different in transformational leadership where leaders may act to influence and motivate their followers.

Perhaps another difference involves servant leaders’ stronger emphasis on the role of personal and organizational values as guidelines or boundaries for followers’ behaviors. For servant leaders results and behaviors are important. This leads some analysts to suggest that a strong link exists between servant leadership and ethical behavior in institutions.

Transactional leaders are thought by many observers to be more managers than leaders. That is, they focus more on day-to-day or short-term tasks. They do not attend to “bigger picture” strategic issues, such as future visions for the organization, like transformational and servant leaders. Transactional leadership begins with the premise that team members agree to do what they are told by their leader when they accept payment for their labor; the “transaction” is that the enterprise pays them and they comply with their leaders’ commands.

Effectiveness derives from transactional leaders’ close attention to clarifying peoples’ roles and responsibilities, organizing their efforts and keeping people motivated to work toward common goals through systems of rewards and consequences. This leadership style has significant limitations for knowledge-based or creative work, but it is a very widely applied style in numerous institutions.

A key point to understand here is that every organization has need for an effective mix of leaders (like servant and transformational leaders who inspire through compelling “big picture” visions) and transactional leaders or managers (who organize people, equipment, materials and other resources and motivate followers daily through rewards and punishments). Many organizations are under-led and over-managed.

Charisma can be described as a special attraction between a leader and followers. Followers at first may identify strongly with the message and later with the persona of the leader. Charismatic leaders can be spellbinding communicators or charming individuals on an interpersonal basis. All leaders benefit from at least a little bit of charisma. Otherwise, they may attract no followers at all.

Charismatic leadership can appear similar to servant or transformational leadership in that the leader injects high amounts of enthusiasm into the team and is very capable of driving others forward. However, charismatic leaders may not be other-centered. They may not listen to others well, believing more in themselves than in their team members. They may not be “organization builders” like servant and transformational leaders. They may not create a foundation for future success by supporting team members in their own personal growth and development and may not cultivate new generations of leaders. Thus, there is real risk that a project, or even an entire organization, may collapse if its charismatic leader exits their position or the enterprise.

Around the globe today people are looking for those who stand out in front of others to conceptualize

a better future, communicate it effectively to constituents and inspire all to work together in community to achieve it. They seek honest, authentic leaders who care about both results and relationships and strive to make the world a better place. And they welcome leaders who see their role as humble facilitators, educators and coaches who build strong organizations that will thrive under future generations of “home grown” leaders. Those capable of applying servant leadership fill the bill.

LEADERSHIP’S THREE-LEGGED STOOL

Servant leadership can be viewed as a three-legged stool - leadership is based upon a foundation of 1) attitudes, 2) skills and 3) behaviors.

Attitudes: general outlooks on life, work, relationships and so on that largely determine the way we experience reality. An attitude is a mental state of readiness we learn and organize through our experiences. Commonly, attitudes are thought to be functions of our personalities, perceptions, feelings and motivations. The remainder of this article will discuss 10 common attitudes of servant leaders identified in the literature.

Skills: abilities to do certain things well stemming from one’s knowledge, practice or aptitude. Typically, skills are proficiencies acquired through deliberate, systematic and sustained efforts. Leaders, of course, require a very large number of skills no matter what style(s) of leadership they may prefer. Skills particularly relevant to servant leadership include acute awareness of one’s personal values and ability to share those values with others; communicating (including listening; asking questions; telling stories; being optimistic; saying “we”; stimulating informal conversations); visioning; managing time; running a meeting; and forgiving.

Behaviors: applications of leaders’ adopted attitudes and developed skills. Neither attitudes nor skills create real value for leaders or their organizations until they are put to use through leaders’ behaviors. The behaviors relevant to servant leadership and the facilitative work environment it creates are: being

proactive; establishing credibility; building trust; building networks; empowering others to act (the result of the previous four behaviors); embracing change; planning the future; and reflecting.

ATTITUDES OF SERVANT LEADERS

A few common personal attitudes (defined previously) involve what we think about our own adaptability, confidence, flexibility, optimism, passion, pride, self-respect and satisfaction. For example, how we would rate ourselves “high-low” on each of these individual characteristics. Some relationship-based attitudes–outlooks we have about others–include acceptance, approval, devotion, disdain, dislike, intolerance, rejection, respect, scorn, skepticism and trustworthiness.

Attitudes are determinants of behavior. That is, attitudes have a significant effect on the way we respond to people, objects and situations. Additional factors affect our behavior, but attitudes play a key role in determining how we act.

How we perceive others and how they see us depends on attitudes. A generally positive attitude toward others (acceptance, approval) likely leads to friendly, supportive behaviors and positive outcomes in relationships. A negative attitude toward others (disdain, skepticism) typically leads to unhelpful behaviors and negative relationship outcomes. To be sure, attitudes drive behavior. They are precursors, pre-determinants of behavior. And they affect the outcomes of our relationships.

ATTITUDES BEHAVIORS OUTCOMES

about self and others toward others of relationships

Attitudes provide an emotional basis for our interpersonal relationships and identification with others. Therefore, attitudes relate to our comfort and willingness to use specific leadership styles–such as autocratic, participative or servant leadership styles.

Leadership is about relationships, and you can choose whether or not to adopt certain relationshiporiented attitudes. To behave like a servant leader, you have to have the attitudes of a servant leader. The purpose of the following discussion is to identify and review ten attitudes that are linked closely to servant leadership behavior in the literature. If you possess naturally, or if you can willingly adopt the attitudes discussed here, servant leadership may well be an effective leadership style for you.

1. Think and say “We” not “I”

Servant leaders are other-centered. They place the needs, desires and contributions of others above their own. Therefore, they seldom think about saying “I,” but tend to use the inclusive “we” when

referring to efforts they lead. “We envision our future.” “We recognize and celebrate our common values.” “We plan together.” “We succeed.” In communications, the terms “we,” “us,” and “our” are used much more frequently than “I,” “me,” and “my.” Servant leaders do not seek personal success in organizational efforts. They seek the common good achieved by collective efforts–and use speech that coincides with that attitude. Servant leaders are the ultimate team players. They naturally share the credit for successful organizational performance with their followers who contributed to it. While they are quick to point out the contributions of others, they do not seek attention for their own contributions. They share credit, emphasize the team over themselves, and define success collectively rather than individually.

When is it acceptable for a servant leader to say “I”? When things go wrong, when goals are not achieved, when failure is encountered, servant leaders shoulder the blame personally, shielding the group they lead from their responsibility for failure. This is not to say that servant leaders will not meet

with followers privately to discuss each constituent’s role in failure. They will hold people accountable, and they will discuss how better performance will be

achieved in the future. However, in public, servant leaders will say “That failure is my responsibility.”

2. Value statements are meant to be practiced, not stored on a shelf Cooperation, customer focus, growth, honesty, innovation, learning, productivity, profitability, quality, respect, service, teamwork, winning. These are only a few of the values organizations tend to include as elements of their official values statements.

Expression of organizational values has become quite popular over the past few years. That’s a very good thing. Businesses, not-for-profits, government agencies and the like have recognized the important role values play in their identity and operations. Values statements are expressions of what community members believe collectively. They are principles and standards that serve as common ground for all members. They are the truths that bind together otherwise diverse constituents, providing a common foundation for behavior, decision-making and action-taking within the organization.

Far too often, however, after initial development and publication, usually as part of an organization’s strategic planning process, value statements are relegated to a dusty shelf never again to see the light of day. Therefore, they fail to fulfill their impactful promise. They guide no behavior. They do not form members’ common ground.

Servant leaders give life to their organization’s values in many ways. They are used to define unity

and community within promotional and public relations documents that link the organization to its environment. Values are applied internally to community-building by forming the foundation of interviews with potential workers, hiring decisions (“getting the right people on the bus”), on-boarding programs, performance evaluation systems as well as recognition and reward schemes.

Sometimes the 4-6 values typically expressed in an organization’s values statement are designated one per year for special attention. That is, one of several organizational values is identified annually for continuous emphasis in leaders’ speeches, celebrations, letterheads and other forms of communication. Importantly, values are given life in the stories a servant leader tells about the organization’s heroes–past and current members who have achieved success by living the organization’s values. Through such stories all can learn how “we” think, act, decide, relate, serve and succeed.

Servant leaders know that values have a central place in the organization’s vision. Why does a community envision a particular future? The answer has to be structured around the community’s common beliefs. Values and vision unify communities of workers. But values are only pretty words unless leaders give them life through continuous use.

3. Vision isn’t everything, but it’s the beginning of everything

The goal of servant leadership is to institutionalize the virtue of serving others first, not serving oneself. This can only be accomplished if the leader leads with a compelling vision, sets clear behavioral expectations, and serves as an authentic practitioner of the values proclaimed.

First and foremost, servant leaders lead through their vision, their motivating description of what tomorrow will be like. Their vision is the mental picture of success they create for others. It expresses high ideals and values, giving focus to human energy. A servant leader’s vision inspires both the leader and his or her followers to take action and to accomplish goals.

Visions incorporate hopes, dreams and aspirations. They are ambitious and optimistic. David McAllister-Wilson writes, “Vision isn’t everything, but it’s the beginning of everything” (2004, p. 56). Sometimes visions require leaps of faith. McAllisterWilson describes visions as necessarily hyperbolic, unrealistic and irresponsible. That is, they are far from being safe and practical. They have a rainbow quality. Very often new leaders of mediocre, unsuccessful or failing organizations say, “There are so many problems. Where do I start?” The best approach is to start by developing a vision. A vision

is a good story, an energizing future story. It is a call to action.

Where do visions come from? Often, they emanate from followers themselves. Leaders know what inspires their constituents because they invest time listening to constituents’ needs and desires. Leaders listen deeply with their ears, eyes and hearts–not just to followers’ words but to their emotions. Servant leaders know how to enlist others in a common vision by appealing to shared aspirations that can be shaped into a unified purpose. Effective leaders apply what they hear from constituents to formulate an appealing vision that demonstrates how each individual’s personal needs can be met while serving the common good of the organization and/or the constituents served by the organization.

Sipe and Frick (2009) tell us that servant leaders see where to go in the future through their own foresight, stimulated by collecting information from their followers. Then they paint a compelling picture of the destination, the vision, and invite others to “Come, follow me.” They suggest that a worthy vision doesn’t need to be grandiose, but it must be grand. That is, it must appeal to workers at all levels of an organization. Followers must see it as a means of attaining their own personal satisfaction. A vision shows them they can be part of something they value that is bigger than themselves. Through visioning, servant leaders give voice to constituents’

feelings. Workers at all levels of an organization have to see their stake in the organization’s vision. They must recognize their own aspirations. A vision statement is not likely to excite followers unless they help create it and recognize their own aspirations within it.

“Growing return on sales to 8% per year” or “increasing market share to 15%” is not a vision. These may represent worthwhile organizational goals, but they don’t motivate all followers to get out of bed in the morning and give their all for the cause. Neither does a generic call to achieve something like “be recognized for world class customer service.”

An excellent vision will provide heroic context for even workers with the most mundane tasks. With an effective vision, everyone and everything counts. “Every activity is a small sparkle that contributes to the larger light the team is generating” (Sipe & Frick 2009, p. 120).

All followers at all hierarchical levels should see their stake in the enterprise’s success and their contribution to its vision. Servant leaders’ foresight is possible if and only if their organizations and their members have the vision to know who they are, whom they serve, how they serve and where they want to go in the future.

Visions define the future. They direct human endeavor, inspire and motivate. They are not just ‘pretty words’. “As you sit down with colleagues to express or revise a vision, remember that this is not an exercise in semantics. It is the stuff of your very identity” (Sipe & Frick, 2009, p. 121).

Kouzes and Posner discuss the vision as a shared sense of destiny:

Teaching a vision–and confirming that the vision is shared–is a process of engaging constituents in conversations about their lives, about their hopes and dreams. Remember that leadership

is a dialogue, not a monologue. Leadership isn’t about imposing the leader’s solo dream; it’s about developing a shared sense of destiny. It’s about enrolling others so that they can see how their own interests and aspirations are aligned with the vision and can thereby become mobilized to commit their individual energies to its realization. A vision is inclusive of constituents’ aspirations; it’s an ideal and unique image of the future for the common good.

(Kouzes & Posner, 2002, p. 143)

Helpfully, Kouzes and Posner recommend Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech as a model for people who are drafting a vision. The speech is about seven minutes long; about two typed pages or so. It is not just a sentence or a slogan (although millions of people inspired by Dr. King’s famous call to action remember it by its four-word title, which was repeated throughout the speech). Visions take on many formats. It can be a 5-10 minute speech, a letter to constituents, a paragraph in an annual report, a 30-second elevator pitch, a slogan or a word. Passion matters, not length. As a truly effective vision statement, Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech is long enough to deliver vivid detail for people curious to know where a leader wants to be several years into the future–and how it feels to be there, really. That’s the power and emotional connection, the call to action, a servant leader can deliver through a vision.

Now, many visions are abbreviated into a slogan or a sentence or two so they can be shared quickly and, hopefully, remembered. That’s the vision form with which most people are likely to be familiar. In Figure 4 a few examples of these types of well-constructed, broadly appealing vision statements are provided (It is up to the reader to judge whether or not these statements inspire). However, it is important to realize that these represent only one form of a vision statement. Effective servant leaders have much more richly developed visions to deliver in a conversation, speech or document.

Figure 4

Vision slogan examples

• Shaping the future by preserving our heritage, discovering new knowledge, and sharing our resources with the world (Smithsonian)

• To transform communities by inspiring people throughout the world to open their minds, accept and include people with intellectual disabilities and thereby anyone who is perceived as different (Special Olympics)

• To enrich people’s lives with programs and services that inform, educate and entertain (The BBC)

• To make people happy (Disney)

• Creating community through food (BiRite)

• Better health and active ageing for all Australians (Australian Department of Health)

• To be the number one advocate in the world for human worth in organizations (Ken Blanchard, consultant and writer)

• A South Africa in which all our people have access to lifelong learning (South African Department of Education)

• Spreading the power of optimism (Life is Good)

• Capture and share the world’s moments (Instagram)

Servant leaders actively use a vision as a tool for communicating, unifying and motivating. The vision is not a static document or statement. Once the vision is in place, a servant leader will refer to it frequently, using it to paint a compelling picture of what it means to work with these people for these ends. A servant leader will constantly reinterpret the vision and not be afraid of refining it. This is all part of being a “visionary leader” (Sipe & Frick, 2009, p. 121).

Inspirational leadership is not about selling a vision to others. Rather, it’s about showing people how the vision can benefit them and how their personal needs can be satisfied. Servant leaders strive to sense the purpose in others. Followers don’t really want to hear the leader’s vision. They want to learn how their own aspirations will be met. They want to learn how their hopes and dreams will come to fruition. They want to be able to see themselves in the future picture being painted by the leader. The

best leaders know that it’s about inspiring a shared vision, not about selling their own personal views of the future.

Through careful listening and assimilation, leaders identify their followers’ common themes, then serve as the unifying force for their organization by expressing these themes as a vision for a better tomorrow. Consider a skilled craftsperson working with a fine piece of hardwood. The wood has a grain. It can be shaped successfully into some forms–and not into others. Groups of followers also have a “grain.” They can be shaped into some futures–and not others. An effective servant leader reads the grain.

Also, consider that people support what they help to create (and they tend not to support what they don’t help to create). If constituents are convinced their leader has listened to their aspirations and included them in the vision, they are more likely to become motivated followers.

Of course, leaders must also be motivated personally by the vision. Therefore, they may infuse the “big picture” with their own personal desires to which they can commit and from which they can derive a personal sense of achievement. A vision, then, may meld the best of what constituents desire and what the servant leader personally wants to accomplish.

Consider this vivid image: as spokespersons for their organizations, leaders hold up a mirror and reflect back to their constituents what they most desire. Servant leaders can articulate what their group of followers are thinking and feeling. They know that the secret to winning the support of numerous constituents is to lead them (at least in part) where they already want to go. The servant leader assimilates the collective vision then empowers constituents to achieve it.

Visions can also serve as useful recruiting tools. A well-communicated vision can aid in attracting

those who share the values and aspirations expressed in the vision. Attracted followers are strong “fits” for the community the servant leader is seeking to build and maintain. Conversely, those who do not share the vision’s expressed values and aspirations will realize that this is not the purpose that will help them fulfill their personal passion–and in the long run potential members’ decisions not to join a team can be just as valuable to effective community-building as decisions to join.

The first step of a servant leader’s success journey involves expressing a vision that will unify, energize and attract followers to what everyone can recognize will be a better tomorrow. An effective servant leader realizes that “vision isn’t everything, but it’s the beginning of everything.” Servant leadership starts by expressing how you and your followers will serve in a meaningful way.

4. Everyone is good at something (and I am a talent scout helping people connect their talent to the organization’s vision)

Often people do not see in themselves what someone else sees in them. Effective servant leaders share a common attitude that “everyone is good at something” (Ortberg 2004, p. 93). Imagine the positive environment that is created when leaders adopt this perspective. Upon encountering an employee or peer, servant leaders realize it is their responsibility to identify that person’s special talents and help them realize how they can apply their gifts toward achievement of the organization’s vision.

This is a powerful approach to human resource development. Followers’ contributions are not limited by their formal organizational role or by their specific job description. They are enabled by a servant leader to use their special talent to take the organization toward its vision via new, perhaps unplanned, directions.

Servant leaders see themselves as talent scouts. They believe that everyone has a unique contribution to offer. Further, they believe it is their job to recognize it (even if the follower does not) and direct it toward vision attainment.

5. I am committed to your success

Another attitude that reflects the servant leader’s other-centered approach involves seeing the leader’s role as facilitator, educator and coach (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).

The support of a servant leader can make a difference in the lives and careers of their followers. Servant leaders let followers know they will be working with them to help them grow. Leaders observe followers executing tasks, encouraging them and doing everything possible to develop them into high performers and future servant leaders. If they sense there is something they cannot develop personally, they will find others who can and bring their tutelage into play. Servant leaders will make sure followers’ gifts are fanned into flames so that constituents are strengthened and serve others well.

Followers, in turn, come to believe in their leaders and trust their intentions to help them develop skills. Strong leaders stand apart because they assess the abilities of others and assist them in capturing the best of those abilities. Figuratively speaking, servant leaders can bring others to life. They can improve a follower’s performance dramatically because the leader cares deeply for each constituent and has faith in his or her capabilities. Followers can respond positively to the leader’s high standards and expectations because they possess the necessary abilities and because they trust the support and encouragement the leader extends to them.

Of course, facilitating followers’ talents has a payoff for the organization’s long- term success as well. John Maxwell’s Law of Reproduction states: “It takes a leader to raise up a leader.” Focusing on the

growth of others and helping them develop their skills is what helps develop the next generation of organizational leaders. “It takes one to know one, show one, and grow one” (Maxwell, 1998, p. 141). According to Nancy Ortberg (2004), some of the most powerful words a leader can offer to a follower are, “I am committed to your success” (p. 95).

Take an example from the animal kingdom. As wild geese fly thousands of miles annually, they cheer each other on by honking encouragement to one another. Leaders who cheer those around them, offering well-directed praise for things done right, are leaders who will win the hearts of others and see great things accomplished by their team.

Servant leaders are motivated by the intention of serving others and are committed to develop their followers. When leaders work toward building character and competence among their followers, they add to their own credibility as well as the credibility of their team members. By directing followers’ special talents toward accomplishing the organization’s vision, servant leaders create a collaborative and effective team environment by utilizing everyone’s strengths.

An important prerequisite to developing followers’ talents is trust. The servant leadership style

contributes to trust building with employees, customers and communities. Servant leaders learn to put into others the same trust they have in themselves. Then leaders can release followers to do their work. Trust is the foundational element of good leadership. Of course, trust has to be earned. Leaders have to establish trust with followers before they can do their best.

Leaders can earn trust by working hard to recognize each follower’s special talent, helping them see how it can be applied toward the vision and committing to the success of each follower. When this is accomplished, the leader’s credibility increases, each follower’s contribution grows and the organization thrives.

Servant leaders take a trusting approach to managing the talented followers they have recruited for their community. They understand that vision communicates the desired future and that organizational values serve as behavioral guidelines (or constraints, if you like). As long as followers are working toward shared vision and applying organizational values, they are pursuing the desired ends through the expected means. Trust them to do the work. Let them go. Servant leaders set the stage for success, and they trust followers to do the right things. There is no need to look over their shoulders.

6. It’s useful to give my power away

Many people are motivated to attain positions of leadership because they seek the legitimate authority associated with the leader’s position. They conclude that formal authority within their organization will allow them to issue commands, implement their

ideas, allocate resources and rewards and, generally, make things happen. They like to get things done and they see “being the boss” as the means to be effective.

Servant leaders, however, are motivated by their desire to serve others. They view leadership as the

best way to achieve this service objective, and they recognize the paradox of power; they become more powerful when they give their power away. Servant leaders are probably least motivated by and least dependent upon the legitimate power base (having a formal leadership position, being “the boss”), but they frequently find themselves building a strong referent power base as they give away their power to constituents through delegation, empowerment and the practice of subsidiarity.

Do servant leaders give all their power away? Certainly not. The assumption that they relinquish all influence and assume the role of cheerleader is one basis for the frequently encountered misunderstanding that servant leadership is passive–or even “warm and fuzzy.” Servant leaders are very strong, even autocratic, in certain aspects of running an organization. They are careful to control definitions of mission, values, vision, standards (how the organization defines and measures excellence) and accountability (what consequences accrue when there are gaps between standards of excellence and actual performance). Servant leaders don’t commission a poll, hold a meeting or take a vote among constituents to answer these questions. In fact, people look to the leader to establish such direction. However, upon developing direction through mission, values, vision, standards and accountability, servant leaders help followers succeed by turning the traditional organizational structure upside down. Leadership becomes responsive to those being led. Leaders facilitate the success of others who are closer to those whose needs are being served.

For servant leaders, giving away power contributes to their personal goal of facilitating others in growing to their maximum potential. Good leaders give away power by applying the organizing principle of subsidiarity. They push decision-making down. That is, they believe that matters ought to be decided and dispatched by the smallest, lowest or least centralized component authority and that higher level leaders should maintain a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at the local level. Therefore, servant leaders tend to pass along as much decision-

making authority and control as possible to the organizational level closest to those whose needs are being served. In other words, at the operational level the organizational pyramid is turned upside down. Effective leaders strengthen others by creating a climate in which followers are engaged and feel in control of their own work. Constituents have latitude to make decisions based on vision and values. They work in an environment where they can develop their abilities to complete assignments and build self-confidence. They hold themselves accountable for results and feel ownership of their achievements.

Maxwell’s Law of Empowerment (2007) states that only secure leaders give power to others. That is, leaders who give power to others make themselves indispensable by making themselves dispensable (at the operational level). By giving their followers power, leaders are empowering followers to reach their potential. When a leader can’t or won’t empower others, organizational barriers are created and workers cannot overcome them. If the barriers remain long enough, workers lose motivation, perform minimally or they move to another organization where they believe they can maximize their potential.

Giving away power may be challenging for many leaders, but a true servant doesn’t always lead from the top. Leaders who give their power away do not blindly agree with the opinions and decisions of their followers. Rather, they accept the views of others and give them the ability to practice power. A servant leader applies Autry’s (2001) Law of Acceptance which does not imply that the leader accepts everyone’s ideas without critical analysis, discussion and judgment–only that the leader accepts ideas as valid for discussion and review, and that decision makers focus on the ideas themselves, not on the person who presented them. Giving followers the opportunity to express their ideas makes them feel like they are in control and have a say in decisions, bolstering job satisfaction as well as team and organizational success.

Servant leaders fulfill their roles as coaches and facilitators by moving from being in control to

giving control away. Fulfilling the coach’s role, servant leaders learn to trust each follower with the work that they are doing. Leaders are willing to delegate their authority while maintaining their organizational responsibility, standing on the side lines helping followers achieve their best results. Leaders place constituents at the center of organizational operations, not themselves. Leaders use their power in service to others, not in service of themselves. Others may not do a job exactly the way

the servant leader would do it. That doesn’t make it wrong, just different. Results count. Don’t judge approach and methods; measure performance.

Power holders will do well to learn to be servant leaders and not self-serving leaders. Humility is the key to a servant’s heart and approach. Servant leaders don’t think less of themselves, they just think of themselves less.

7. I don’t have to be right all the time

Related closely to the practice of humility, servant leaders adopt the attitude that they need not be right all the time. They listen. They know and act on the concept that other people have good ideas, too. Their job is to surface the best ideas, not just their own. And they are comfortable crediting good ideas to others. In fact, they realize that is their job as a servant leader.

Further, servant leaders demonstrate their humility by admitting their mistakes. When appropriate, they admit errors. They know everyone is human and all of us make mistakes. In a work environment characterized by trust, leaders and followers admit their mistakes and work together to pursue continuous improvement.

8. Listening is hard work –and it’s worth the effort

Servant leaders listen first. Robert Greenleaf (2008)) writes, “Only a true natural servant automatically responds to any problem by listening first. When he is a leader, this disposition causes him to be seen as servant first” (p. 18).

Greenleaf goes on to suggest that the best test of whether we are really getting through to a communication partner is to first ask ourselves if we are really listening. Are we really listening to the one we want to communicate to? Also, he reminds us that we must not be afraid of a little silence because a relaxed approach to dialogue will involve welcoming some quiet, silent moments.

James Kouzes and Barry Posner (2012), authors of the best-selling book The Leadership Challenge, advise leaders to “listen first–and often.”

Management guru Peter Drucker (2006) advised leaders to remember this good communication practice: when in a leadership position, “listen first and speak last.” John Maxwell (2007) proposes this valuable lesson: “…inexperienced leaders are quick to lead before they know anything about the people they intend to lead. But mature leaders listen, learn, and then lead.” Also, Maxwell offers his Law of Addition. He observes that we add value to others when we know and relate to what others value. How do we know what others value? We listen to them.

By asking good questions, servant leaders can identify their followers’ dreams and aspirations. Listening allows the servant leader to sense the purpose in others, enhancing the leader’s ability to incorporate their followers’ hopes and dreams into a compelling vision that gives voice to followers’

feelings. Kouzes and Posner (2002, p. 149-150) tell us, “Leaders find the common thread that weaves the fabric of human needs into a colorful tapestry. They develop a deep understanding of collective yearnings; they seek out the brewing consensus among those they would lead.”

Servant leaders are present. That is, they are available to their constituents. They “walk the shop,” engaging in informal conversations in order to know their followers and be known by them. Servant leaders ask open-ended questions about both work-related and personal issues to draw out constituents’ opinions and attitudes. They listen deeply with their ears, eyes and hearts. In so doing, they glean the emotional content of their follower’s conversations so they can align the organization’s vision with the professional and personal goals of constituents.

Of course, when the number of followers is too large to permit informal conversations with all, attitude and/or opinion surveys can be utilized as supplemental listening techniques. Surveys can help canvas large numbers of followers efficiently and effectively–and help the servant leader perceive changes in dreams, desires, attitudes and opinions over time.

Effective servant leaders are willing to adhere to the 2:1 ratio of questions to commands often suggested by trainers during listening skill development sessions. That is, when auditing their personal behaviors, it is apparent that servant leaders ask two questions for every direct order or instruction they deliver to followers.

Perhaps the most significant direct effects of listening involve: 1) building trust between the servant leader and followers and 2) increasing the self-

esteem of followers. When a leader listens intently to followers’ ideas, she demonstrates respect for their opinions, helping to develop a bond of trust. And trust is the cornerstone of the leader-follower relationship. Also, when a leader listens, followers conclude their ideas are important, helping to bolster their self-esteem and improve related outcomes such as job satisfaction, productivity and organizational commitment. Moreover, listening can inform servant leaders of their followers’ experiences and lead to adapting such experiences to enhance organizational innovation.

Servant leaders maintain a strong commitment to listening. They share the understanding that listening is hard work which demands a considerable investment of their personal time and cognitive effort. Also, they share the attitude that the numerous positive outcomes of listening to one’s constituents are worth every ounce of energy expended.

9. Feedback is a gift

Another aspect of a servant leader’s humility involves welcoming and accepting feedback. Since servant leaders recognize their purpose as serving others, what better way to improve their service than to receive from those served direct feedback regarding their performance and perceived effectiveness?

Feedback is a good thing if leaders adopt the attitude that others’ opinions and perspectives provide an opportunity for personal improvement. Otherwise, feedback can be a threat.

A helpful method for telling the difference between servant leaders and self-serving leaders is to observe how they react to negative feedback. If leaders attempt to “kill the messenger,” they are self-

serving. Criticism ignites their deepest fears. When leadership flaws are pointed out, that may mean followers don’t want them any longer. Since their position defines who they are, negative feedback is a serious personal threat. Since self-serving leaders are committed to maintaining both their position and their control, leaders may well dismiss the offered feedback and the bearers of this bad news. However, servant leaders consider feedback a gift. Welcoming feedback is, of course, an important form of listening. Even negative feedback is received with appreciation. All feedback–positive and negative–should receive a reply similar to: “Thanks, I value all comments and suggestions I receive because I am always trying to improve. I am happy to consider your feedback along with all other comments I collect.”

When things go poorly, servant leaders look in the mirror and ask, “What could I have done differently?” Ideas offered by those they serve are welcomed humbly because servant leaders have the attitude that feedback is a gift.

Sipe and Frick adapt some ideas from Fred Nickols to offer very useful guidelines for servant leaders receiving feedback:

If you want to know how you are doing, you have to accept the responsibility of finding out. By inviting feedback you have a chance to measure how you are doing on progress toward attaining your goals. When receiving feedback, you should strive to be:

1. Open

Listen without interruption, objections, or defensiveness.

2. Responsive

Be willing to hear the speaker out without turning the table. Ask questions for clarification.

3. Thoughtful

Seek to understand the effects and consequences of your behavior.

4. Calm

Be relaxed, breathe. Assume a comfortable body posture. Be aware of your own emotional reactions.

5. Explicit Make it clear what kind of feedback you are seeking, and why it is important to you. Offer a structure for the feedback–questions, rating scales, stories.

6. Quiet

Refrain from making or preparing to make a response. Do not be distracted by the need to explain, defend or fix.

7. Clear with your commitment

Describe how you have benefitted from the feedback and what specific steps you will take toward improvement.

8. Accepting Open to assuming their good will.

9. Clarifying Make sure you are clear about what they are seeing, saying, and recommending. (Sipe & Frick, 2009, p. 65-66)

10. I am a community builder

Servant leaders realize their success derives from the attitude that they are leading an organizational effort to develop a productive community. They strive to build a community centered on members’ shared values and vision. And they employ collaborative decision-making and action-taking. Servant leaders know that leadership is a team sport, not a solo performance. It involves a relationship between those who seek to serve by leading others and those who make the conscious choice to follow. Organizations are built on trust, and trust develops from effective relationships between leaders and followers. Taking responsibility for relationships is more than a necessity, it is a duty.

To build community successfully it is imperative to select the right people. For servant leaders it is vital to know who to recruit, who to retain, who to develop and who to extricate from the ranks. Jim Collins (2001) explains that the “Good to Great” leaders in his research “… first got the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus and the right people in the right seats” (p. 13). Strong communities are built around people who share the organization’s values, are passionate about the vision and are motivated by it, and whose strengths match the organization’s needs for achieving the vision–or at least they are ready, willing and able to be trained to develop such strengths.

Peter Drucker (2005; 2006) discusses the importance of looking for people’s strengths. Developing the attitude to ask “What can a person do?” instead of “What can a person not do?” helps a leader see strengths clearly and determine whether or not those strengths can be directed productively toward the common vision.

Servant leaders stoke the fire of community through appeal to common vision. They help constituents see that their work is bigger than themselves. It is even bigger than the enterprise they work for. Their work is something ennobling. It serves vital needs, uplifts those served and even enriches society. This “bigger picture” approach lifts morale and increases motivation. The work is important, it matters to the

servant leader–and that attitude is passed along to workers.

Organizational effectiveness depends on the strength of the community the leader builds, and the community’s strength depends on choosing the right people. This is addressed by Maxwell’s Law of the Inner Circle. The potential of the leader, as well as the potential of the entire organization, is determined by those closest to the leader. Building a community creates a cohesive network of personnel capable of achieving success in any situation. Maxwell (1998) explains that an effective leader brings into her inner circle people with five qualities:

1. potential value: those who raise up themselves

2. positive value: those who raise morale in the organization

3. personal value: those who raise up the leader

4. production value: those who raise others, and

5. proven value: those who raise up people who raise up other people.

A productive community is not a place free of conflict. Rather, servant leaders recognize that there should be a degree of conflict in a healthy community so that the best ideas emerge from honest discussions and analyses based upon high performance standards. A strong community is a place of conflict resolution, not conflict avoidance. Healthy conflict resolution is supported in an environment where people treat each other with respect, listen to each other, are comfortable being assertive in achieving high standards, are open to challenges, value diversity within the team and feel safe to be themselves. An organization’s shared values either support such behavior or they work against it.

Additionally, community building is supported by taking care to celebrate successes. This calls for leaders’ involvement in hosting and/or addressing gatherings of constituents. Gatherings, of course, may include formal meetings, annual events, assemblies to mark milestone achievements, holiday celebrations and the like. Community may not be a

characteristic of mediocre organizations, but it is the hallmark of great ones–ones with strong cultures. Servant leaders are aware that every gathering is an opportunity to renew organizational and employee commitment. They don’t miss chances to ensure that followers know why they are gathered and how a particular celebration connects to values and vision. Through the inevitable daily encounter of problems and distractions, servant leaders keep constituents focused on these two key organizational guiding lights.

Servants walk the shop to provide listening opportunities, as discussed previously. However, walking the shop also contributes to community building. Leaders visit frequently the sites where work is being accomplished, where consumers’ needs are being served. They make sure they observe their followers doing the right things so that, as leader, they can compliment followers on their successes, encouraging their hearts through verbal

recognition. (You can’t do this sitting behind your desk.) This helps develop community by affirming the type of work that supports the vision.

Also, servant leaders take care to recognize both individual contributions and team achievements through rewards, awards, gifts and “thanks-you” of many types. Presenting a plaque, naming an employee-of-the-month and honoring a retiree are just a few of the numerous opportunities to tell the stories of workers’ successes and to reinforce the community’s shared values and common vision. Productive communities require building and tending. Servant leaders are aware of their vital role in bringing together the right people who are energized to achieve great things through shared values and vision. They also know that without a leader’s continuous reinforcement, organizational values diffuse and visions blur. Therefore, servant leaders recognize the important role of gatherings and celebrations in maintaining community.

CONCLUSION

To conclude this discussion, I offer a simple and, I believe, profound idea about servant leadership that is taken from previous authors on the topic. My hope is that it will encourage those with a servant’s heart (and I am sure there are many) to consider the servant leadership style and conclude that it is okay to behave this way.

In my many years as a management professor I have read a lot of text books on management, leadership and associated topics. In none of them did I run across the word “love.” When I started to read

about servant leadership, I did.

Leaders should love their followers. That is, leaders should be patient with others and treat them with kindness and respect. In their dealings with others, leaders should be honest, humble, selfless and forgiving (another word not often found in management text books). Leaders should listen to others and be committed to high principles based on their own personal values as well as their organization’s values. Finally, leaders should love others by expecting them to achieve great things and hold them accountable for doing so while

seeing their own leadership role as facilitating their followers’ success. Is this not the way people express love for each other outside the workplace?

REFERENCES

Autry, J. A. (2001). The servant leader: How to build a creative team, develop great morale, and improve bottom-line performance. Prima Publishing.

Blanchard, K. (2004). Reflections on encourage the heart. In J. M. Kouzes & B. Z. Posner (Eds.), Christian reflections on the leadership challenge (pp. 101–118). Jossey-Bass.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don’t. Harper Collins.

Drucker, P. F. (2006). The effective executive: The definitive guide to getting the right things done. Harper Business.

Drucker, P. F. (2005). Managing oneself. Harvard Business Review 83(1), 100-109.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2008). The servant as leader. The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

Hunter, J. C. (2004). The world’s most powerful leadership principle: How to become a servant leader. Waterbrook Press.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Lichtenwalner, B. (2017, April 29). Servant leadership companies list. Modern Servant Leader. https://www. modernservantleader.com/featured/servantleadership-companies-list/

When leaders love their followers, work environments become places where people want to do their best knowing their work is important and their contributions will be appreciated.

Maxwell, J. C. (2007). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership (10th Anniversary ed.). Thomas Nelson.

Maxwell, J. C. (1998). The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership. Thomas Nelson.

McAllister-Wilson, D. (2004). Reflections on inspire a shared vision. In J. M. Kouzes & B. Z. Posner (Eds.), Christian reflections on the leadership challenge (pp. 55–68). Jossey-Bass.

Ortberg, N. (2004). Reflections on enable others to act. In J. M. Kouzes & B. Z. Posner (Eds.), Christian Reflections on The Leadership Challenge (pp. 85-98). Jossey-Bass.

Sipe, J. W., & Frick, D. M. (2009). Seven pillars of servant leadership: Practicing the wisdom of leading by serving. Paulist Press.

Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1(1), 25–30.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Larry W. Boone, Ph.D. is Professor Emeritus at St. John’s University. From 1987-2015 he served as a faculty member in the Management Department at the Peter J. Tobin College of Business. Currently, he is active as a speaker and consultant in leadership and management. In 2019, Larry published a book titled Servant Leadership: Attitudes, Skills and Behaviours through the U.K.’s Cambridge Scholars Publishing group.

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Volume 7 Issue 1

May 2023

Article 6

Robert Greenleaf: Changing Management to Change Society

Robert Greenleaf: Management to Change

Riccardo Colasanti colasanti.riccardo@live.it

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Business Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Law Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Colasanti, Riccardo (2023) "Robert Greenleaf: Changing Management to Change Society," Journalof VincentianSocialAction: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 6.

Available at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa/vol7/iss1/6

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Vincentian Social Action by an authorized editor of St. John's Scholar. For more information, please contact JoVSA@stjohns.edu

ROBERT GREENLEAF: CHANGING MANAGEMENT TO CHANGE SOCIETY

Riccardo Colasanti

ABSTRACT

This paper is a critique of the thought provoking, if not problematic, ideas presented in Robert Greenleaf’s pamphlet, The Servant as Leader (Greenleaf, 2008) which appeared in print in the 1970’s. This text constituted the seminal work upon which a progressive, transformational movement was created in the training of management cadres in North American companies, with the transition of the concept of a “leader boss” to that of “leader as a servant”. The limits of Greenleaf’s servant leadership model are tested against the capitalist society within which we live and found contradictory, but no less inspiring in its attempt to humanize both the leader and the corporate world. There is a clear contradiction in Greenleaf’s desire to eliminate the competition laws of the market while maintaining faith in capitalism. The principles of rehumanizing the corporate world are often more a process of corporate advertising, or virtue signaling, than the actual reality of the corporate world.

The very breadth of Greenleaf’s expansive insight provokes the need for two tests, or rather two critical approaches, which require further investigation. The two critical lines I propose are (i) on the spiritual principles of Servant Leadership and (ii) on the effectiveness of Servant Leadership as a governance tool within a competitive, capitalist environment.

A NEW WAY OF MANAGEMENT

The Servant as Leader (Greenleaf, 2008), written by Robert Greenleaf, appeared in print in the 1970’s. The text constituted the seminal work upon which a progressive, transformational movement was created in the training of management cadres in North American companies, with the transition of the concept of a “leader boss” to that of “leader as a servant”. The book heralds the birth of a change in corporate management.

Greenleaf asks how it is possible to move from being a manager -a hierarchical role to which we are elected by appointed - to becoming an authentic leader of the group -which is instead consensus granted by the team. This line of thinking is achieving gradual success in a modern Western world where authoritarian principles have been demonized and where an attitude of being as inclusive and integrating the wills of a company’s human resources is being sought more and more every day.

It must also be said that these principles of rehumanizing the corporate world are often more a process of corporate advertising, or virtue signaling, than the actual reality of the corporate world. One need only consult a network of the business world such as LinkedIn, where the difference between proclamations and corporate reality, between what companies’ messages of inclusiveness say and the arrogant attitudes of bosses, is often blatant.

The foundational idea proposed by Greenleaf is that leaders acquire their authority not because of the office they receive but because of their commitment to the service of their co-workers. The attitude of caring for others and one’s work group is typical of those who believe that others are important to them. One is first ‘Servant’ says Greenleaf and only afterward ‘Leader’. Such thinking may seem bizarre in a capitalist society that has typically divided the world into the soft philanthropic section (ie. religious congregations, charities) where fraternal charities reign, or the

Robert Greenleaf: Changing Management to Change Society

hard business one (i.e. money-making companies in the stormy ocean of the market and competition) where self-interest and selfishness rule.

Indeed, the natural and only driving force in this economic world is precisely self-interest. Is it not a mantra repeated by all economic gurus --the Adam Smith’s superclassical quote-- that self-interest is the hidden engine for the world’s wealth? In exchange, relations with market actors we address “not to their humanity but to their self-love and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages” (Smith, 1776). And, is it not the case that the liberalism, that is the historical foundation of capitalism, was born precisely on certain pessimistic foundations about the nature of man, typically Hobbesian, and that a selfish and vicious society will ultimately be the richer one provided certain rules of capitalism are maintained? Mandeville (1714) reminds us that a society of ascetics will undoubtedly be poorer than another where envy, ambition, selfishness, and pride will lead to competition and, thus, to the most significant economic movement.

Greenleaf’s stance is far from these authors. He is closer to the vision of North American democratic capitalism. We do not know what he thought of the conceptions of Chicago monetarists like Milton Friedman or the epigones of the Austrian School like Von Hayek. He is familiar with the corporate world, in the U.S. In fact, he was Director of Management Research at AT&T. Greenleaf believes that capitalism needs to be transformed not in its structural rules, but in the approach to the actions of the individuals called upon to run companies and society.

The strength of Greenleaf’s oxymoronic concept is rooted in the theme of recognition. Greenleaf believes that if the leader cares for his or her

employees, only then will the team recognize him or her as a leader by giving not only obedience to the authority but, more importantly, the moral authority for which the team has faith in the leader. However, there is also a reverse movement: only with the ways of persuasion, only with an attitude of persuasion and listening, the behaviors of the team members can be changed to the optimal efficiency and to optimal performance.

A united group that shares a mission- because of spiritual and emotional factors- should be victorious over an institution whose only social glue is selfishness or economic interest. The manager humanizes his or herself. An organizational theory seeks, in the corporate structure, those deep forces that unite individuals with prophets, messiahs, and visionary leaders.

SERVANT-LEADERSHIP AS A GLOBAL PROJECT

Although Greenleaf came from and spoke to the world of management, it seems to me that his proposal is much more than just a new technique of business leadership. Indeed, it is a comprehensive thinking that wants to transform, not only, the world of companies but also the world of higher education, of churches of organized religions, of health care, and more. This transformation emerges from training the cadres toward a vision in which the leaders of an organization acquire the authority of leadership through serving others, transforming their institution and, eventually, the whole society.

This drive for global change came to Greenleaf when, after his retirement from AT&T where he worked from 1926 until 1964, he began a consulting business for higher education institutions at the same time the university establishment was clashing with the student protest movement that wanted a drastic change in the “system.” The idea of servant leadership

Robert Greenleaf: Changing Management to Change Society

“A united group that shares a mission- because of spiritual and emotional factors- should be victorious over an institution whose only social glue is selfishness or economic interest.”

dates back to 1968 when Greenleaf believed that the situation of universities was “beyond repair by patchwork” (Frick, 2004), and that deep transformation was needed: not changing the “system” as the students shouted in the rallies, but changing the behavior of the management.

Greenleaf, with an evocative, poetic, sometimes prophetic prose tinged with messianism typical of certain evangelical thought, argued that genuine transformation of society can only occur if its leaders understand that their power is a consequence of service to others.

Interestingly, Greenleaf was never a manager, a “frontline” man, or rather never wanted to be one, preferring to influence managers across the board, by persuasion and bot command. Another noteworthy fact is the importance Greenleaf gives to board members. They are the ones who are free from the pressing issues of decision-making, the corporate line of fire, and can be the natural stimulus for managers to achieve humanization of leadership.

THE CHRISTIAN ROOTS OF GREENLEAF’S THOUGHT

There is no doubt that Greenleaf’s vision draws from Christian and biblical roots. Classically, servant-leadership is defined by Christ in Matthew 20:25-28.

But Jesus summoned them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your Servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Here lies the difference with the pagan world, where authority is not the child of service but only an expression of primacy and dominion.

Greenleaf was fully aware of these Christian roots. Nevertheless, because of his Quaker vision, for

which Revelation does not end with scripture, and because of his own interest in a pluralist vision in which religions do not create fences- he preferred not to limit himself to the Bible tradition (Frick, 2004). His texts, alongside the Scriptures, are thick with the most diverse and unusual literary and artistic quotations (from Camus to Kropotkin).

Above all, his reference author is Hermann Hesse of “Journey to the East.” Reading this book kindled in Greenleaf’s mind the conception of Servant-Leadership in the figure of Leo, the leader who hides in the Servant’s shoes to better lead.

NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS

The very breadth of Greenleaf’s magnificent insight provokes the need for two tests, or rather two critical approaches, which require further investigation. The two critical lines I propose are (i) one on the spirit of the project and (ii) another on the effectiveness of the project. The first on the spiritual principles of Servant Leadership, the second on the effectiveness of Servant Leadership as a governance tool.

On the former, i.e., the spirit of “Servant,” one may ask whether a servant-leadership approach is possible without a belief in a transcendent God. The question is how one can act as a “servant”, not only as a technique of leadership but, as Greenleaf intended-as an authentic mission, without spiritual deepening.

In Europe, from the wars of religion onward, we have seen the gradual dilution of the figure of God, which some argue was followed by the death of values and, eventually, with the death of posthumanism, that of human.

Out of the necessity to coexist without bloodshed due to differences of faith, first we relegated the transcendent God to a theism of expediency, then seeing the dullness of such a figure too pale to be true, we erased him with the “death of God,” and of values of Nietzschean memory. And, finally, without values we ended up as Foucault prophesied, with the death of man: only a mark on the sand that can disappear with even a light wave.

Robert Greenleaf: Changing Management to Change Society

The great political polarization of the U.S. makes apparent the gravity of a dieresis between two visions of the American people. On the one hand, a paleoconservative moment and on the other a neoliberal approach closer to Critical Theory than to the Founding Fathers. Is it possible to be not only good citizens, but “servants” if one has no religious background?

The second problem is the more specifically practical one of corporate performance. The criticism comes from the same world Greenleaf belonged to: the corporatist world. Greenleaf believes that his model is not only valid for Christian religious communities, seminaries, and charities, but is also the most effective mechanism for the organizational management of a business in an advanced capitalist society. It is, therefore, not only the best ethically, but also the most effective and efficient.

It must be said that this thought is countered by at least three points of discussion (there would be many more but they cannot be dealt with for brevity in this text). There are three questions that need to be answered in order to give an assessment of Greenleaf’s project:

1. How is it possible to evaluate the business effectiveness of Servant Leadership? With what metrics?

2. How do we behave in a contemporary world where responses must be increasingly shortterm, where the quarterly letter becomes as important as the annual financial statement?

3. How to integrate the concept of competition with that of Servant Leadership?

Greenleaf does not refer to an evaluation of the impact or goodness of a “servant as a leader” versus a “boss led” company using the usual company indicators (such as bottom line, market share, etc.). Nevertheless, he indicates the criteria for evaluating a manager’s servant goodness is the well-being of his employees. There is, however, no uncorroborated data that indicates happy and engaged employees lead, without fail, to success in the marketplace.

The second aspect, that of short-term vision, is a well-known problem. Greenleaf himself indicates the problem: “Administrators, important and necessary as they are, tend to be short-range in their thinking and deficient in a sense of history-limitations that preclude their producing visions” (Greenleaf et al., 2014) .

This is one of the biggest problems: modern corporations need short-term, indeed very shortterm, results. Investors do not have an interest in the improvement of companies over the long-term but in the production of short-term profits. Managers find themselves in an awkward position: that of prioritizing the short-term performance of the company over that of employee well-being. This issue arises from modern corporate transformation, where the ownership-company connection is increasingly limited to only a financial one. It is unclear whether a manager with a training in Servant Leadership should direct his or herself “to serve” to the company and not just serve its employees or stakeholders. The old-fashioned manager who is only interested in his own selfinterest (remember the Enron executives?) is as bad as the one who, in order to defend his employees and collaborators, determines choices that reduce quarterly performance, negatively impacting the stakeholders. For finance, only numerical results count. The ideal manager in this case is the Servant as a leader, but not of his employees, but of the company. This is the new abstract behemoth of modern world.

The problem of time is at the root of capitalism. Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations, points out that the persuasive approach, the affective one, the non-interest-centered one, needs time...

Certainly, Greenleaf’s vision is grandly ethical. It appeals to the business world, universities, the health care arena, but that does not mean that it is automatically the most efficient in the actual marketplace in the short term.

The third question of integrating the concept of competition with Servant-Leadership, is perhaps the

Robert Greenleaf: Changing Management to Change Society

most difficult. In the stormy ocean of the market, the struggle between companies is ruthless. The dog-eatdog ideology is the essence of neoliberal capitalism and its destructive force. Von Hayek sees in the death of weaker firms, in this market Darwinism that selects only the most innovative and profitable ideas to survive, the reason for capitalism’s superiority to centralist forms of planned economy. This is the not-hidden great secret of the west.

We saw during the pandemic how the fight for survival led to the dismissal of thousands of employees of certain kinds of companies, such as hospitals and airlines, who suddenly found themselves with a significant reduction in sales. In this case, a good corporate boss manager lays off employees, while the Servant Leader tries to keep employees on payroll. At what point does the Servant Leader make the decision to lay off employees to save the company?

If it is true that Servant Leadership is finding more acceptance in the corporate world every day, it is also true that a “disruptive economy”, with all its baggage of illustrious corporate casualties, has become a new mantra. We are in an historical period in which the “life expectancy” of even the largest and most famous companies is limited. Kodak, Polaroid, Xerox, Sperry (who remembers their glorious past times?) are some of the outstanding victims of a world that has made instability its hallmark and disruptive competition its dogma.

It seems that Greenleaf underestimates, or at least does not emphasize, this issue. He is still in the happy post-war world in which the American establishment protected with its supremacy the market stability.

This can also be found out in the list of traits that -according to Greenleaf, good managers must possess. Most of them are relational skills (listening skills, team-building skills, empathy, ability to take care of the group) and only two (conceptualization and foresight) are useful tools for those who must operate in the battlefield. There seems to be a lack of integration with other talents (prudence, audacity, decision-making skills, cunning, tactical elasticity) typical of those who operate in the trenches.

If the market approves the best performance, somewhat like when a team has to climb a mountain, then no doubt Greenleaf’s characteristics are essential. However, if, on the other hand, the model is the competitive one between two teams, between two armies, between two competitors, if the model is the war for survival, then it is necessary to train management with other added skills.

Greenleaf is well aware of the problem and asks:

How can we elicit optimal service from people and institutions, as long as competition is uncritically accepted as good and is deeply imbedded in the culture? In the preparation of young potential servants to be servant-leaders, the issue of competition must be critically examined, and alternatives sought.

(Greenleaf et al., 2014, p. 50)

The problem is that alternatives to market competition are only achievable with a profound alteration of the liberal capitalist system-perhaps with its very death. Greenleaf finally concludes: “My position is: if we are to move toward a more caring, serving society than we now have, competition must be muted, if not eliminated” (Greenleaf et al., 2014, p. 51). This is the weakest point in Greenleaf’s thinking. For it is one thing to train leaders for a more just society, another to eliminate the competition laws of the market, yet maintain faith in capitalism.

On the world’s chessboard, the new Asian capitalisms are trying to seize power while automation, artificial intelligence, robotics are changing modes of production; the transhumanist movement are recreating seemingly inexhaustible market niches with the complete transformation of the biological person into something very different. Will the goodwill of Leo, Hesse’s Servant-leader, manifest itself by serving?

With all the above distinctions, I believe Greenleaf’s proposal for an organization is too important not to be fully pursued... Before it is too late.

REFERENCES

Frick, D. M. (2004). Robert K. Greenleaf: A life of servant leadership. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2008). The servant as leader. Center for Servant Leadership.

Greenleaf, R. K., Spears, L. C., & Peter, B. (2014). The power of servant-leadership: Essays. RHYW.

Mandeville, B. (1714). The fable of the bees: Or, private vices, publick benefits. J. Roberts.

Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. W. Strahan and T. Cadell.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Riccardo Colasanti, M.D. was the CEO of the UTPL Hospital in Ecuador and Secretary General of Caritas in Rome (Italy). He currently teaches “Humanidades” at UPAEP University in Puebla (Mexico).

Robert Greenleaf: Changing Management to Change Society

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Volume 7 Issue 1

May 2023

Article 7

Centering those on the periphery: Mother Teresa as exemplar of

Centering on periphery: Mother Teresa as exemplar

Catholic Social Thought (CST) and social work core commitments

Catholic Thought social core to dignity, service, and justice to dignity, service, and justice

Anthony Nicotera anthony.nicotera@shu.edu

Dawn Apgar SetonHallUniversity, dawn.apgar@shu.edu

Ines Murzaku SetonHallUniversity, ines.murzaku@shu.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Business Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Law Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Nicotera, Anthony; Apgar, Dawn; and Murzaku, Ines (2023) "Centering those on the periphery: Mother Teresa as exemplar of Catholic Social Thought (CST) and social work core commitments to dignity, service, and justice,"

JournalofVincentianSocialAction: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 7.

Available at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa/vol7/iss1/7

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Vincentian Social Action by an authorized editor of St. John's Scholar. For more information, please contact JoVSA@stjohns.edu

CENTERING THOSE ON THE PERIPHERY:

Anthony Nicotera

Dawn Apgar

Ines Murzaku

ABSTRACT

The literature is void of scholarship on the integration of Catholic Social Thought (CST) and social work. While social work has been historically devoted to helping those who are marginalized and oppressed and recognizes the impact of religion/spirituality on those served, there are almost no articles published that link CST and social work pedagogy and practice. This article identifies why there is a natural fit between CST and social work values. Mother Teresa is presented as an exemplar of CST in action and an inspiration for further integration of CST into social work education. This integration is needed to help social work continue to center those on the periphery, namely those who are marginalized, vulnerable, and oppressed. An innovative interdisciplinary initiative operating at one university in the United States is described as an example of how Catholic studies and social work are complementary, and formal and informal linkages should be encouraged in the future. The ways in which scholarship in CST and social work can inform one another are presented to assist faculty and students to advance supports to those on the periphery.

INTRODUCTION

Society should be assessed based on how it provides and cares for its most vulnerable members. Service to and care for society’s most vulnerable persons, those who are pushed to the margins and forced to live on the periphery, is central to both Catholic Social Thought (CST) and social work pedagogy and practice (Council on Social Work Education, 2022; National Association of Social Workers, 2021; O’Neill, 2021; Shank, 2007). Arguably, the act of centering the poor and vulnerable is itself an act of justice (Nicotera, 2019). Pope Francis’ urgent call for social justice resurges and re-centers the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable to the heart of the Church’s mission (Pryce et al., 2016). This call challenges injustice by challenging the Church to be “a poor Church for the poor” (Pryce et al., 2016, p. 90). This call invites solidarity with and centering of those on the

margins. It summons the Church, and all committed to justice, to do both the work of direct service, in particular with those in greatest need, and the work of structural change, in order to transform the systems and institutions that oppress, create, and perpetuate deprivation, devastation, and dehumanization.

Catholic social work education prepares students for practice consistent with the goals of Christian service and social justice (Shank, 2007). Social work faculty and students should be particularly attentive to the poorest and to those who suffer economic, social, cultural, or religious injustice. Central to the mission of social work is a commitment to promoting individual change (service) and social reform (justice). This commitment embraces micro, clinical, and macro, social change, practice. It asserts that direct service to persons on the periphery, service that centers their inherent human dignity,

Centering those on the periphery: Mother Teresa as exemplar of Catholic Social Thought (CST) and social work core commitments to dignity, service, and justice

MOTHER TERESA AS EXEMPLAR OF CATHOLIC SOCIAL THOUGHT (CST) AND SOCIAL WORK CORE COMMITMENTS TO DIGNITY, SERVICE, AND JUSTICE

nourishes and cultivates the soil that enables the work of justice to take root.

Though social work’s core values, ethical precepts, and commitments to service are consistent with primary Catholic Social Thought (CST) principles, there has been limited research and scholarship examining the congruence between Catholic social work education and CST core principles. The integration of CST principles into social work education and practice invites a ‘both/and’ approach to centering those on the periphery. Persons of faith and good will are called to do both the work of service, meeting basic needs, and social justice, transforming oppressive structures that create need. For both CST and social work, service to those in greatest need and most vulnerable is essential to the work of justice. Those who are poor and those on the periphery cannot exert the power they possess to transform oppressive structures if they do not have the necessities of life, such as food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and education. Thus, social work aimed at helping individuals meet these basic needs is a form of CST in action. In serving those on the periphery, their dignity is centered, which itself is an act of justice, challenging dehumanizing, oppressive systems and structures.

work and other curricula to carry on the legacy of Mother Teresa are presented.

MOTHER TERESA’S THEOLOGY OF SERVICE AND SERVANT LEADERSHIP

“Social work provides a professional path for students who are dedicated to promoting the dignity and worth of those on the periphery.”

Social work provides a professional path for students who are dedicated to promoting the dignity and worth of those on the periphery. CST also helps social work faculty with assisting students to understand the reasons that their service is so important. This article provides an overview of the work of Mother Teresa as it relates to servant leadership, a core tenet of CST. Mother Teresa should be viewed as an exemplar of CST in action. Inspired by Mother Teresa, a university has formally integrated CST and social work which provides a home for scholarship and education focused on servant leadership. Continued efforts to integrate CST and social work are needed to create a just society and center those who have been marginalized and oppressed. Ways of strengthening CST in social

Mother Teresa and the order the Missionaries of Charity became famous internationally for their assiduous service to the poorest of the world’s poor and for their solicitous work to alleviate the world’s misery, loneliness, and abandonment, one person at a time. Mother Teresa thought and acted concretely. Using what in pedagogy is called a casebased evaluating approach, she focused on finding solutions in specific scenarios, giving full attention and resolution to one case at a time with undivided attention. Mother Teresa, although considered a living saint, was as ordinary as ordinary can get; she did not possess supernatural powers and was not performing supernatural service. Mother Teresa’s service represented by the media, which followed and contributed to making her a world-famous figure of charity, missed the theological substance of her service and works of charity. Her service to the poorest of the poor was read in black and white: she was seen as a religious sister who founded a vibrant religious order to alleviate poverty in a third-world country, India; the media ignored what was behind Mother Teresa’s theology of service and the challenge to which Mother Teresa and her servanthood invite us: a total identification with Jesus and the poor.

What exactly was Mother Teresa’s theology of service or the significance of the gratuitous, joyful service that she and the Missionaries of Charity provided to the poorest of the poor? Has Mother Teresa left behind a theology and legacy of service to be emulated by posterity? What is at the core of her theology of service-leadership? How does this theology of service embody both a commitment to centering the inherent dignity of all persons and the work of justice?

Centering those on the periphery: Mother Teresa as exemplar of Catholic Social Thought (CST) and social work core commitments to dignity, service, and justice

Chapter 10 of the Constitutions of the Missionaries of Charity, written by Mother Teresa, entitled “Consecrated Service to the Poorest of the Poor,” presents a refined case for the theology of service, focusing on Christ’s call to wholehearted and free service to the poorest of His poor (Teresa, 1988). Gratuitous, wholehearted service constitutes the fourth vow of the Missionaries of Charity: an additional vow sisters take besides the traditional monastic vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience. The fourth vow is, unique in Church history. For the Missionaries of Charity, the vow of service is triple binding and bonding. Servanthood binds a religious community, but also binds the sisters to the people they serve: the poorest of the poor (Germani, 2016). The Missionaries of Charity are bound to love and serve the poor, and to live as the poor with the poor (Devanada, 1985b), totally identifying with them. But, most importantly, service is binding to Christ, because for Mother Teresa, union with God means giving oneself entirely in loving service to others (Berisha, 2014).

It is only through love that humans accomplish union with God, and this union is made manifest in service and charity (Germani, 2016). Mother’s virtuous works of self-giving, serving the poor on the world’s peripheries, proceed flawlessly because her soul was in union with Christ—she had reached theosis, through which God lives in and through persons, and persons become God-like, without each (God and humans) losing their essence (Murzaku, 2021). Union with God brought joy, a deep-felt spiritual and interior joy which translates into interior peace. Mother Teresa’s joy was real, as one could tell from her gentle touch, broad smile, happy eyes, and radiant face. Her goal for the Missionaries of Charity was to be able to smile 24 hours a day (Champagne, 2016). In her spiritual testament, written hours before her death on September 5, 1997, Mother Teresa wrote of keeping the Little Flower’s trust, love, and joy, which were rooted in the love of Christ (Murzaku, 2022, September 22)— doing not great, extraordinary works, but rather small, seemingly insignificant, ordinary works of kindness and service, with great love. For Mother Teresa, this love, God’s love, was available on earth; it was not distant:

We all long for heaven where God is, but we have it in our power to be in heaven with him right now, to be happy with him this moment. But being happy with him now means loving as he loves, helping as he helps, giving as he gives, serving as he serves, rescuing as he rescues –and being with him twenty-four hours a day. (Teresa, 2001, p. 137)

Mother’s theology of loving service is scriptural, Christlike, and Christ-centered. The backbone of Mother Teresa’s theology of service is based on the theology of the Gospel of Matthew: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers [and sisters] of mine, you did it for me” (Bible, n.d., Mt. 25:40), followed by her application or in-action maxim: faith in action is love. Love in action is service (Teresa, 1988). It is in this gospel passage that according to Pope Francis (2020), Jesus, the evangelizer par excellence, and the Gospel in person, identifies especially with the little ones, the least and most vulnerable. It is the least, which includes the poor in spirit (Bible, n.d., Mt. 5:3), who have the heart of the poor, the same attitude as the poor, and are dependent on God; they are the little ones (Bible, n.d., Mt. 10:42). The least too are the those who become like children, those who humble themselves (Bible, n.d., Mt. 18:3-4), the persecuted and those who give their lives serving others (Bible, n.d., Mt. 20:26-28).

Jesus did not identify with the one seated at the table waiting to be served. Instead, he was the one who had come to serve. He was a servant leader– “I am among you as the one who serves” (Bible, n.d., Lk. 22:27), “for the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Bible, n.d., Mk. 10:45). Jesus added, “let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant” (Bible, n.d., Lk. 22:26). Prominence is not found in how many people serve the leader but in how faithfully the leader serves people. Jesus’ leadership was not a domineering style of leadership— “but whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant” (Bible, n.d., Mt. 10:43). Mother Teresa sought to follow Jesus’ teaching. In so doing, she humbled herself, focused on those in greatest need, did not seek fame, fortune,

Centering those on the periphery: Mother Teresa as exemplar of Catholic Social Thought (CST) and social work core commitments to dignity, service, and justice

or honor, but rather sought to be fully present in the here and now to those in greatest need, serving one person at a time, with undivided attention. For Mother Teresa, servant leadership invited and embodied solidarity with the poorest of the poor and emulated Jesus’ wholehearted, unceasing, centering of the least, those most vulnerable. Mother Teresa’s response was to quench Jesus’ thirst for love on the Cross through service to the poorest of the poor (Francis, 2016, September 20). Echoing the words of Jesus in Matthew 25, You did it for me, became Mother Teresa’s Gospel and prayer (Cantalamessa, 2018), her servant leadership mantra and talisman.

Mother Teresa’s servant leadership also centered the human rights and inherent dignity of all persons, challenging a material-centered society that prioritized profit and possessions over people.

All my years of service to the poor have helped me to understand that they are precisely the ones who better understand human dignity. If they have a problem, it is not lack of money, but the fact that their right to be treated humanely and with tenderness is not recognized (Teresa, 2013).

Mother Teresa’s service was based on love and dignity— not love that seeks its own advantage (Benedict XVI, 2005, December 25), but selfless love in action, honoring the inherent dignity of all persons, especially the poor. Following the last supper, Jesus instituted a new commandment, a new law: the law of love, which he required his disciples to follow— “as I have loved you, so you also should love one another” (Bible, n.d., Jn. 13:34). The disciples were called to serve by imitating God’s love, a love that prioritizes, and preferentially opts for, the poor and marginalized.

There are two identifying marks of the fourth vow of the Missionaries of Charity: their service is offered wholeheartedly—so there is missionary joy in serving, and the service is gratuitous, offered free of charge to all (Teresa, 1988). Someone once told Mother Teresa that not even for a million dollars would they touch a leper. Mother Teresa was quick

to respond: “Neither would I. If it were a case of money, I would not even do it for two million. On the other hand, I do it gladly for love of God”— and this was the source of Mother Teresa’s sense of perfect joy in serving (Murzaku, 2021). This response reflects a subverting of the world order, directly challenging systems and structures that would prioritize profit and material possessions over human beings and their inherent dignity. Though social workers and Mother Teresa prioritize service, justice, and the inherent dignity of all persons, especially those on the periphery, Mother Teresa distinguished the Missionaries of Charity from social workers. The Missionaries of Charity are not like people in the world who are paid for their labour. They exist on charitable support from the Church and people of good will. In this way, the Missionaries of Charity are paid by God, and do their work for the greater glory of God (Devanada, 1985b) and for the love of God (Teresa, 1985). The work of the Missionaries of Charity is not a profession, but a vocation, chosen freely in consecrated obedience and total surrender. Though many, if not most, social workers would consider their work to be a vocation or calling, it is not necessarily a religious or God-centered calling. However, for social workers, as with Mother Teresa, loving service is a way of honoring the inherent dignity of all persons. Mother Teresa would add that service is love of God in action. A social work perspective might use different language, but also talk about being mission-centered, in love, to serve and accompany those in greatest need, to build beloved community. Mother Teresa might call this working to build the kingdom of God.

There are five pillars in Mother Teresa’s theology of service: it is scriptural, Christlike, Christ-centered, wholehearted, and free of charge. There was persistence, an unclouded vision, and a thoughtful and balanced style in her servant leadership (Bose & Faust, 2011). Mother Teresa was a clear thinker who never failed to lead by example. Her handson servanthood focused on the here and now, one person at a time. She was the servant who led by witnessing (Greenleaf, 2003). A more complete

Centering those on the periphery: Mother Teresa as exemplar of Catholic Social Thought (CST) and social work core commitments to dignity, service, and justice

exploration of the similarities and distinctions between Mother Teresa’s theology of service and social work’s ethical commitment to justice and mission to serve those in need, with a particular focus on those who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty, would be a compelling topic for further research and reflection.

MOTHER TERESA AS EXEMPLAR OF CST IN ACTION

This paper focuses the common commitment of CST and the social work profession to centering those on the periphery, and to the core principles of dignity, service, and justice. It also presents Mother Teresa as an exemplar of CST in action.

For Mother Teresa, service was integrally interconnected with justice. Her work to serve the poorest of the poor sought to help those in greatest need get to a place where they could feed, clothe, and care for themselves. Once they could do so, she invited others to work in solidarity with the poor to change oppressive structures and systems that defiled their dignity, dehumanized them, and created their poverty and need. Consistent with CST principles, Mother Teresa acknowledged that her call to loving direct service in no way precluded structural social justice work. In fact, she advocated for a ‘both/and’ approach to, and understanding of, the work of justice as embracing service and social transformation. Her work to feed the poorest of the poor and the soul of society was rooted in love, God’s love for those on the periphery, God’s love for the unwanted, unloved, uncared for, and forgotten. Mother Teresa believed that love given freely in service has the power to transform hearts and minds, and in so doing, build beloved community, the one body of Christ.

From Mother Teresa, to Gaudium et Spes, to Pope Francis, the Church invites and challenges all people of good will to center and embrace a preferential option for the poor. Mother Teresa embodied CST’s preferential option for the poor and service rooted in love. She shared that the fruit of love is service, and the fruit of service is peace. Thus, the thread that connects service, justice, and peace is God’s love, a love from a social work perspective that

centers those in greatest need and asserts that all persons have inherent dignity and worth. This love also compels both direct service with persons who are poor, and transformation of systems that oppress the poor (A. Nicotera, personal conversation, 1997).

This centering of, and preferential option for, the poor is consistent with a CST commitment to justice, since it humanizes and lifts up the dignity of all persons and in so doing labors to transform systems that would perpetuate poverty (Motte, 2013; O’Brien & Shannon, 2021; O’Neill, 2021). Pope Francis, the day after becoming Pope, centered the poor, calling the church to be for the poor (Motte, 2013). Being ‘for the poor’ means direct service and a commitment to justice. This loving service arguably is a work of justice inasmuch as it challenges the domination system that would dehumanize, alienate, and oppress the poor. Mother Teresa, in serving the poorest of the poor, was challenging and confronting social structures and systems that maintained and perpetuated oppression and suffering. This is CST in action, as working to transform the systems and structures that oppress them. Mother Teresa embodied a commitment to service, in love, centering the most vulnerable and oppressed. In this way, she sought to transform how we see the other, how we love. In this way, Mother Teresa personified service, dignity, and justice in action, principles at the core of both CST and social work.

SETON HALL UNIVERSITY’S “CATHOLIC SOCIAL THOUGHT IN ACTION ACADEMY”

A unique example of a commitment to CST’s service, dignity, and justice is Seton Hall University’s Catholic Social Thought in Action Academy (“the Academy”). The commitment to service, dignity, and justice as exemplified by Mother Teresa and social work core commitments lies at the heart of the Academy. Pope John Paul II’s (1990) Ex Corde Ecclesiae calls upon Catholic universities to include the study of contemporary problems such as the dignity of the human person, the promotion of justice for all, the quality of personal and family life, the pursuit of peace, a just sharing of resources, and economic justice in their research

Centering those on the periphery: Mother Teresa as exemplar of Catholic Social Thought (CST) and social work core commitments to dignity, service, and justice

and teaching agendas. In response to this call, the Academy explores the intersection of CST and social work core principles and precepts. The Church’s call to universities to teach core values of dignity, peace, and justice is consistent with social work’s educational policy accreditation standards, and ethical principles (Council on Social Work Education, 2022; National Association of Social Workers, 2021). Catholic institutions of higher education must be firmly committed to the promotion of social justice. Thus, service from a social work and CST perspective, by virtue of a rootedness in love, and respect for the humanity and inherent dignity of those being served, participates in, and promotes movement toward a more socially just society.

The Academy invites connections between the core values and mission of CST and the social work profession, as promulgated by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), to enhance human wellbeing and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty (National Association of Social Workers, 2021). The Academy is one Catholic university’s effort to initiate a unique, innovative double major in Catholic Studies and Social Work, develop university core courses at the intersection of CST and social work; create and implement CST in Action service-learning courses; partner with other Catholic universities nationally and internationally in the work of service and justice; and host conferences, workshops, and presentations, and engage in research, writing, and publishing, at the intersection of social work, social justice, and CST. The Academy gives life to Pope Francis’ call to institutions of higher learning to be engaged in the work of shaping environments of creative thinking and dismantling structures of injustice – the work of faith doing justice in loving service of neighbor. Enlightened by Mother Teresa’s spirituality in action, the Academy integrates CST principles into the social work curriculum in a way that respects students with diverse religious beliefs. The Academy supports service-learning courses, open to all undergraduate students, and academic,

professional, faith-based, and community-based conferences aimed at generating further scholarship and learning about CST in action.

The vision of the Academy also centers the insight of Mother Teresa – namely peace is not possible if there is not a strong commitment of belonging to one another. Through service, research, writing, presenting, publishing, teaching, conversation, and conferences, the Academy challenges students, and all persons of good will, to honor the inherent dignity and interconnectedness of all human persons, all life. In the spirit of Mother Teresa (Murzaku, 2021; Teresa, 1997, 2007), King (1967, April 4), Nhat Hanh (1993, 2014), and Kaur (2020), the Academy spurs pedagogy and practice of holiness, belonging, beloved community, interbeing, revolutionary love, and a spiritually sensitive, socially just, transformative social work practice (Canda & Furman, 2020; Dudley, 2016; Nicotera, 2022; Pyles, 2018) rooted in love of those in greatest need, for they are us. The Academy prioritizes CST and social work’s commitment to centering social justice and a preferential option for the poor; respecting the inherent dignity of all persons; meeting people where they are, from a person-in-environment perspective; and engaging in healing work that is empowering and transformative personally and socially. The Academy centers the inherent dignity of the least, and labors in service, the fruit of love, for peace and justice. In this way, the Academy seeks to be a continuation of Mother Teresa’s witness to a faith that does justice.

CONCLUSION

The social work profession and CST hold in common core commitments and values. These core values include a commitment to the inherent dignity of all persons, service, and social justice. Despite these common principles, there has been little research at the intersection of CST and social work pedagogy and practice. There is a need for additional research and scholarship on this intersection, especially at Catholic educational institutions that have social work programs. With respect to these core values, historically, both the Church, and the profession of social

Centering those on the periphery: Mother Teresa as exemplar of Catholic Social Thought (CST) and social work core commitments to dignity, service, and justice

work, have struggled to confront the reality of failure to fully adhere to them, and at times their respective participation in structures and systems of oppression. Additionally, there has existed in both the Catholic church and the social work profession a tension between a commitment to service and social justice. Both the Church and social work emphasized one over the other at certain times in their respective histories. Exploration of this historical tension is also important in understanding the current moment and invitation to the coexistence and complementarity of service and justice as presented in this article. However, additional research and scholarship are needed to continue to understand the synergies and inherent challenges with strengthening the connection between CST and social work.

Mother Teresa’s love in action and theology of service offer one example of CST in action and servant leadership, as dignity for the poorest should be the basis of service and justice. This is a powerful, inspiring, even saintly witness to core social work values and CST principles made manifest in action. However, inasmuch as social work is a profession and CST is a source of guidance for persons of faith in a particular religious tradition, further study of what Mother Teresa’s theology of service can teach the profession of social work, as well as the limitations of lessons to be learned, is warranted. There remains an important, arguably significant distinction between the practice of the profession of social work and ministry or faith-inspired service.

Additionally, tensions historically have existed both within the Church and the profession of social work with respect to definitions of charity and justice, and whether and to what extent service is a form of social justice or exists in tension with it. This article endorses a both/and approach to CST and social work that understands the inherent dignity of all persons, emphasizing and centering the dignity of those on the periphery, as the thread that weaves together and connects service and justice. Thus, CST and social work notions of service and justice are held in creative tension without devolving into destructive polarities inasmuch as they both center

the dignity of all persons, with a particular emphasis on centering those on the periphery, the poorest of the poor, and those most vulnerable and oppressed.

Arguably, persons practice social work and commit to faith-inspired servant leadership as a response to a calling, inspired by a commitment to mission and core values. However, clearly there are both similarities and differences with respect to a religious calling rooted in faith, as opposed to a calling to the profession of social work. These commonalities and distinctions are being explored by the CST in Action Academy, and will hopefully provide additional insight into how dignity, service, and justice are to be understood and practiced at the intersection of social work and CST. A helpful tool for this exploration, being utilized by the Academy, is the Circle of Insight’s See, Reflect Act framework (Nicotera, 2018), which is inspired by and rooted in CST principles. The Circle process invites gathering data and examining the complementarity and creative tension at the intersection of CST and social work; critically reflecting on this data, in light of core social work values and CST principles; and acting in a way that invites deeper liberation and insight. This model might help inform further research, writing, teaching, and practice.

Centering those on the periphery is an act of love. Mother Teresa lived this call to love in service to the poorest of the poor as a matter of faith, as a response to Jesus’ love. Social workers live this call to love in micro, mezzo, and macro practice. Centering those on the periphery offers not only social work and Catholic faculty, students, and practitioners, but all persons of conscience and good faith committed to dignity, service, and justice, an opportunity to have a greater impact, to learn from one another, and to join together in the work of deepening transformative, liberatory practice. CST can help social work understand more fully the mission-driven center of the profession, as a labor of love and a calling. Social work can help inform CST about practical, practice and evidencebased practices. Both CST and social work can help inform the other with respect to notions of inherent human dignity, service, and social justice.

Centering those on the periphery: Mother Teresa as exemplar of Catholic Social Thought (CST) and social work core commitments to dignity, service, and justice

REFERENCES

Benedict XVI. (2005, December 25). Deus caritas est [Encyclical letter]. https:// www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/ en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est.html

Berisha, A. N. (2014). Doracak per Nënën Terezë. Argeta.

Bible. (n.d.). United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) Online. https://bible. usccb.org/bible

Bose, R., & Faust, L. (2011). Mother Teresa, CEO. Unexpected principles for practical leadership. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Canda, E. R., & Furman, L. D. (2020). Spiritual diversity in social work practice (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Cantalamessa, R. (2018). Madre Teresa. Una santa per gli atei e gli sposati. San Paolo Edizioni.

Champagne, M. (2016). The way of Thérèse and the spirit of Mother Teresa. Teresianum, 67(1), 95–131. https://doi.org/10.1484/j. ter.4.2018029

Council on Social Work Education. (2022). Educational policy and accreditation standards for baccalaureate and master’s social work programs. https://www.cswe. org/getmedia/94471c42-13b8-493b-9041b30f48533d64/2022-EPAS.pdf

Devananda, A. (Ed.). (1985b). Total Surrender. Servant Publications.

Dudley, J. R. (2016). Spirituality matters in social work: Connecting spirituality, religion, and practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315797144

Francis. (2016, September 20). Address for world day of prayer for peace, Assisi. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/ en/speeches/2016/september/documents/papafrancesco_20160920_assisi-preghiera-pace. html

Francis. (2020). The Gospel of Matthew: A spiritual and pastoral reading. Orbis.

Germani, G. (2016). Madre Teresa e Ghandi. L’etica in Azione. Mimesis Edizioni.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2003). The servant-leader within: A transformative path (H. Beazley, J. Beggs, & L. C. Spears, Eds.). Paulist Press.

John Paul II. (1990). Ex Corde Ecclesiae: apostolic constitution on Catholic universities. United States Catholic Conference.

Kaur, V. (2020). See no stranger: A memoir and manifesto of revolutionary love. Random House.

King Jr., M. L. (1967, April 4). Beyond Vietnam: A time to break silence, Address delivered to the clergy and laymen concerned about Vietnam, at Riverside Church. https://www. crmvet.org/info/mlk_viet.pdf

Motte, M. (2013). Pope Francis, Christian mission, and the church of Saint Francis. International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 37(3), 165-166. https://doi. org/10.1177/239693931303700309

Murzaku, I. A. (2021). Mother Teresa: Saint of the peripheries. Paulist Press.

Murzaku, I. A. (2022, September 22). Mother Teresa’s last spiritual testament, 25 years later. The Catholic World Report. https://www.catholicworldreport. com/2022/09/05/the-less-known-motherteresas-spiritual-testament/

National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Code of ethics. NASW Press.

Nhat Hanh, T. (1993). Love in action. Parallax Press.

Nhat Hanh, T. (2014). No mud, no lotus: The art of transforming suffering. Parallax Press.

Centering those on the periphery: Mother Teresa as exemplar of Catholic Social Thought (CST) and social work core commitments to dignity, service, and justice

Nicotera, A. (2018). Teaching note— Circle of Insight: A paradigm and pedagogy for liberation social justice social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 54(2), 384-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/1043 7797.2017.1350232

Nicotera, A. (2019). Social justice and social work, a fierce urgency: Recommendations for social work social justice pedagogy. Journal of Social Work Education, 55(3), 460-475. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797. 2019.1600443

Nicotera, A. (2022). Our illusion of separateness: Teaching social justice to social work students. In M. Jarrette-Kenny & M. Jaffe (Eds.), Social work in age of disconnection: Narrative case studies (pp. 179-209). Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781003270225-9

O’Neill, W. (2021). Catholic social teaching: A user’s guide. Orbis Books.

Pryce, J., Kelly, M., & Lawinger, M. (2016). Social work for social justice: Strengthening practice with the poor through catholic social teaching. In T. L. Scales & M. Kelly (Eds.), Christianity and social work (5th ed.), (pp. 85-100). North American Association of Christians in Social Work.

Pyles, L. (2018). Healing justice: Holistic self-care of change makers. Oxford University Press.

Shank, B. W. (2007). The call to justice: Social work in catholic higher education. Social Work & Christianity, 34(1), 2-17. https://ir.stthomas.edu/ssw_pub/12/

Teresa, M. (1985). Mother Teresa: Contemplative in the heart of the world. Servant Publications.

Teresa, M. (1988). Constitutions of the missionaries of charity. Calcutta.

Teresa, M. (1997). No greater love (B. Benenate & J. Durepos, Eds.). New World Library.

Teresa, M. (2001). Mother Teresa essential writings (J. Maalouf, Ed.). Orbis Books.

Teresa, M. (2007). Come be my light: The private writings of the “Saint of Calcutta” (B. Kolodiejchuk, Ed.). Doubleday.

Teresa, M. (2013). In my own words (J. L. Gonzales-Balado, Ed.). Liguori Publications.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Anthony Nicotera is an Assistant Professor of social work at Seton Hall University. Dr. Nicotera is a clinical social worker. He has published and presented nationally and internationally on the intersection of spirituality, social work, and social justice.

Dawn Apgar is an Associate Professor and Director of the undergraduate social work program at Seton Hall University. Dr. Apgar has more than three decades of social work practice experience, including examining client problems from the biopsychosocial-spiritual-cultural perspective.

Dr. Ines Angeli Murzaku is Professor of Religion at Seton Hall University in New Jersey, Director of Catholic Studies Program and the Founding Chair of the Department of Catholic Studies at Seton Hall University.

Centering those on the periphery: Mother Teresa as exemplar of Catholic Social Thought (CST) and social work core commitments to dignity, service, and justice

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Volume 7 Issue 1

May 2023

Servant Leadership in the Workplace Servant in Workplace

Joseph D'Mello

joedmello@yahoo.com

Article 8

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Business Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Law Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

D'Mello, Joseph (2023) "Servant Leadership in the Workplace," JournalofVincentianSocialAction: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 8.

Available at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa/vol7/iss1/8

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Vincentian Social Action by an authorized editor of St. John's Scholar. For more information, please contact JoVSA@stjohns.edu

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE

Joseph D’Mello

ABSTRACT

Starting from the definition of leadership in general, this work traces servant leadership in particular from its ancient roots to today’s business organizations and argues that the lacuna in organizational servant leadership is likely to be addressed by the growing existential and competitive imperative for organizations to undertake agile transformations.

WORKPLACE AND LEADERSHIP

Merriam-Webster (2023) defines the verb

“lead” as “to guide on a way especially by going in advance”; “to direct on a course or in a direction”; and “to serve as a channel for.” All three of these variations suggest that a leader envisions a result or destination and then builds motivation and inspiration for getting there. For example, in Martin Luther King’s I Have a Dream speech (https://www. npr.org/2010/01/18/122701268/i-have-a-dreamspeech-in-its-entirety), the final destination was a society of fairness, justice, and equality. In the Our Father (Mt. 6:9-13), Jesus articulated the desired result as the kingdom of God coming to earth. Both of these leaders did not resort to coercion or glib persuasion in order to inspire others to yearn for the envisioned destination or result. They were able to create a legitimate and compelling aura of authenticity which lit a spark of fervor and conviction that invigorated others to seek the same destination/result, regardless of the obstacles, sacrifices, and tribulations along the way.

History has also had its fair share of motivational and inspirational leaders who envisioned a destination detrimental or destructive to others: Adolf Hitler being one of them. Equating leadership purely with charisma, motivation, or inspiration would result in conferring that distinction upon some individuals who civilized society would consider unworthy of that appellation. The dictionary definition of leadership falls short in this regard because it does not

adequately capture the characteristics of leaders who are worthy of our respect and admiration. What then should be the definition of an estimable leader?

The distinguishing element is that a venerable leader’s destination or result is one that elevates the overall human condition or the human spirit rather than diminishes it. Martin Luther King’s destination elevated the condition of a segment of society that was shackled by the restraints of injustice and discrimination, while not diminishing or harming the condition of those who did not belong to that segment. Likewise, Jesus sought to elevate the human condition with his mission to pave a salvific path to the kingdom of God – a path that was not off limits to anyone.

In this paper, we will define a leader in terms of the dictionary definition, adding the requirement that the destination or result is one that uplifts followers and does not debase non-followers. This implies that a leader is committed to the truth, because falseness and lies eventually hurt or debase someone. Except for minor but relevant excursions, the focus of this paper is on servant leadership in the workplace.

NEED FOR SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE

Servant leadership adds the extra element of selflessness to the traits of leadership: a servant leader in an organizational or corporate setting sublimates personal gain or priorities for the development and greater good of the team or

Servant Leadership in the Workplace

organization. A servant leader is driven by a morally rooted zeal to serve employees and not the other way around.

While servant leadership gained attention in industry and the workplace in the 1970’s (Parris & Peachy, 2013), it is essential to note that it goes back thousands of years. There are allusions to the essence of servant leadership in various cultures and religions. For example, as early as the 5th or 6th century BC, the Chinese philosopher Laozi wrote: “The highest type of ruler is one of whose existence the people are barely aware…The Sage is self-effacing and scanty of words” (Chan, 1963). Various other religions like Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism, to name a few, have implicit references to servant leadership.

It appears that the most direct and explicit early reference to servant leadership is expressed in Matthew 20:25-28:

You know that the rulers in this world lord it over their people, and officials flaunt their authority over those under them. But among you it will be different. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must become your slave. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:45)

Servant leadership is touted as a nobler form of leadership that puts team and company before personal gain or ambition. Studies have shown that servant leadership not only makes for greater team performance and employee wellbeing and satisfaction but also adds more meaning and fulfillment to the role and life of a servant leader (Parris & Peachy, 2013). An article in Forbes magazine (Percy, 2020, July 15) links servant leadership to higher company profits and employee morale and identifies seven behavioral dimensions of servant leaders:

…caring for each individual employee when he or she incurs setbacks in their professional or even personal life; displaying conceptual skills; empowering people, providing the employee with latitude to find their own best way to work; behaving ethically and willingly helping the employee to make difficult, values-loaded decisions; putting their employees first; helping employees grow and succeed; and inviting individual followers to create value for the community, even beyond the boundaries of the organization. (Percy, 2020, July 15)

“Servant leadership is touted as a nobler form of leadership that puts team and company before personal gain or ambition.”

In this passage, Jesus clearly contrasts the style of leadership he is propounding with the style that is prevalent in the zeitgeist of his epoch, in which the notion of a servant leader was non-existent and would even have been considered an utterly outlandish, preposterous, and risible concept. This genre of leadership most likely fell outside the Overton window of his own apostles, disciples, and countrymen, let alone the Roman occupiers.

Various other studies can be found which associate servant leadership with positive outcomes in organizations, such as greater employee confidence, motivation, innovation, empowerment, and overall wellbeing. Ken Blanchard and Renee Broadwell identify ten characteristics of servant leaders (2008).

The ilk of leaders upon whom history has bestowed the recognition of servant leadership have been typified by several characteristics: selflessness, envisioning an uplifting destination/ result and guiding others to it, self-effacement, empathy, caring, emotional intelligence, and several other noble instincts and behaviors.

EXTENT OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN THE WORKPLACE

Given the above characteristics of servant leadership, how well do leaders in the workplace measure up against them? There are definitely many leaders in industry who would come very close. Steve Jobs certainly inspired and energized his Apple team to attain a technology destination that would uplift Apple and society as well. While one can debate the pros and cons of smart phone usage (especially among children), it would be hard to refute the fact that the smart phone has uplifted society by providing a communication experience that ranks in the highest echelons of convenience and quality.

It is likely that several other leaders, executives, and managers in industry exhibit traits and behaviors that resemble servant leadership. Ken Blanchard and Renee Broadwell’s book also identifies several servant leaders in industry (2008). However, there are a troublingly high number of indicators that suggest that servant leadership in the workplace is far more the exception than the rule. For example, a recent report on C-suite roles found that “70% of executives say their employees are happy, while just 44% of employees agree” (Doyle, 2022, August). There are a plethora of similar gauges in industry that paint a picture of work environments that are stifling and often downright toxic to employees. For example, a very recent article in Forbes magazine cites a toxic work environment as the #1 factor driving people to resign (Perna, 2022, June 1). Another recent article in the MIT Sloan Review claims that toxic culture is driving the Great Resignation (Sull et al., 2022, January 11). An August 2022 CNBC article claims that job unhappiness is at a staggering all-time high: “In the U.S. specifically, 50% of workers reported feeling stressed at their jobs on a daily basis, 41% as being worried, 22% as sad, and 18% angry” (Collins, 2022, August 12). Various reports peg the percentage of US workers who are unhappy enough to want to change jobs in the 40% to 55% range, and this range applies not only in the US but across the globe (De Smet et al., 2022, July 13).

In a 2018 book Dying for a Paycheck, Jeffrey Pfeffer from the Stanford Graduate School of Business claims that modern management harms employee health and company performance. In another book, Leadership BS: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time, Pfeffer (2015) argues that “much of the oft-repeated wisdom about leadership is based more on hope than reality, on wishes rather than data, on beliefs instead of science” (p. 47). In view of all these findings, it is almost impossible to imagine that our workplaces abound with servant leaders. In fact, there are articles that suggest that most leaders in industry have characteristics that tilt heavily to the antithesis of servant leadership. For example, a September 2020 article by Allas & Schaninger cites research that suggests that “… the most productive individuals typically have high levels of technical skills and personal drive, but only 30 percent of them are likely to become the kind of leaders that prioritize and support employee satisfaction.” The same Allas & Schaninger article (2022, September 22) cites research by organizational psychologist Tomas ChamorroPremuzic which suggests that “many leaders achieve their positions by being self-centered, overconfident, narcissistic, arrogant, manipulative, and risk-prone” (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2013, August 22). Finally, executive compensation has risen to heights so dizzying and stratospheric that one is hard pressed to make even an iota of a case that today’s corporate leaders prioritize others over self; and there have been some corporate top brass who do not deserve to be called leaders, let alone servant leaders, because they grew rich at the expense of destroying the value of their firms and the livelihoods of their employees. While some examples of such companies are from Wall Street, there are also plenty from “Main Street.”

It would be unfair to portray industry as the only sphere that is severely wanting in servant leadership. To a lesser or greater degree, just about every institution and sphere of human activity has lacunae when it comes to servant leadership, including, regrettably, institutions that avidly propound and preach it. The child abuse scandal in the Catholic church and, even more so, the insensitive manner

in which church leaders managed the scandal, illustrates that faith, morality, spirituality, ritualistic prayer, and good intentions do not alchemize into servant leadership. Courage, transparency, love, caring, stewardship, and trust-building are equally important. Similarly, Universities are wont to teach and extoll servant leadership but few of them truly prioritize student success over their financial gain, research pursuits, and intellectual hubris.

Faced with these findings, one may be tempted to abandon the hope that servant leadership will ever become a common phenomenon in industry. However, if history is any indication, time seems to wage an unrelenting counteroffensive, slowly but surely supplanting wrong with right, evil with good, and injustice with justice. If we abandon hope, then our resolve will be vitiated and we will be abetting, by our failure to act, the very wrongs and injustices that we decry. It was the faith-based hope that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” that energized Martin Luther King, enlivened his spirit, and kept the flame of his resolve constantly alive (Ellis, 2011, October 21) (The term faith-based is used here not necessarily in a religious or spiritual sense but in the sense that the hope is based on a sense of deep moral conviction and determination that may or may not be rooted in religion or spirituality). Similarly, it was the faith-based hope that every human soul could seek and attain salvation that impelled Jesus to strive to “serve rather than being served, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45; and 1 Timothy 2:6).

Faith-based hope is the force that gradually tilts the arc of the moral universe towards justice and good, but it must be abetted by patience. The blight of racism in our great nation took two centuries to change course, the harassment of women in the workplace persisted unabated for ages until the Me Too movement exposed it, and it still persists, but, hopefully, to a lesser extent; and many glass ceilings in industry have been shattered in the past two decades. Jesus also enjoined his disciples to have patience. He often rebuked his disciples for being impatient about the coming of God’s kingdom. For

example, in Matthew 24:3, his disciples asked him, “Tell us, when is this going to happen, and what will be the sign of your coming.” Jesus responds with a long discourse detailing the many things that must happen before his coming, and ending his discourse with the words, “As for that day and hour, nobody knows it, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father alone.” These words should serve as a reminder that patience must be exercised in the pursuit of goals. We must not get hung up on the when but seek to take small steps in the direction of our goals, not calculating or obsessing over when we will reach them but rejoicing in knowing that we are getting just a little closer with each passing day.

A FUTURE OF HOPE

This author remains sanguine that servant leadership will eventually become the norm in industry, although that destination might be the end of a long and arduous journey beset with many headwinds. There are glimmers of hope on many fronts to suggest that servant leadership is gradually making the transition from talk to walk in industry. Here are some of those glimmers:

A growing number of organizations are at least starting to use the term servant leadership and trying to practice it. Even if many are now practicing it only weakly (if at all), language has a way of gradually influencing awareness which in turn, influences perceptions and actions.

There have been a growing number of writings and discourses (Stavros, 2019, March 4), as well as increasing discussion in professional circles, arguing that the word servant in servant leadership is redundant, meaning that leadership is servant leadership. This is a very encouraging trend that has major implications for the future because once business schools and corporate trainers make this switch equating leadership with servant leadership, then future generations of leaders will latch on to that mindset and tailor their leadership styles accordingly.

The risks and existential threats that organizations face as a result of disruption, competition, technology advances (including AI and machine

learning), worker shortages, remote work and changing work patterns, etc. may leave organizations no option but to adopt servant leadership. An indication of this is the growing numbers of organizations realizing the need to embark on agile transformations – nimbly transforming their organizations into becoming more efficient and productive in order to outdo their competition or sometimes to merely ensure their future relevance and existence. A very encouraging development is that these agile transformations adopt (in spirit, at least) agile methodologies like Scrum which have been built on the principles of servant leadership. For example, the Scrum Master is defined as a servant leader, so organizations that use Scrum are forced to adopt servant leadership – even if it grates against their culture (ScrumAlliance, 2023)! Scrum strongly promotes trust and transparency and is founded on the values of commitment, courage, focus, openness, and respect. More than 50% of organizations use Scrum (or some variation of it), although the use of Scrum may be restricted to only some parts of those organizations. Of course, there are organizations that do not use Scrum but strive to practice servant leadership. There is an interesting and heartwarming story about how Netflix CEO Reed Hastings first learned about servant leadership (Radford, 2015, June 17).

REFERENCES

Allas, T., & Schaninger, B. (2022, September 22). The boss factor: Making the world a better place through workplace relationships. McKinsey Quarterly. https:// www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-andorganizational-performance/our-insights/theboss-factor-making-the-world-a-better-placethrough-workplace-relationships

Blanchard, K., & Broadwell, R. (2008). Servant leadership in action: How you can achieve great relationships and results.

Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

This discussion about servant leadership would be incomplete without touching on the notion of followership. Obviously, without followers there can be no leaders. As essential and desirable as it is for industry to have servant leaders, there must be a code of behavior for followers. Even the most selfless leader can be thwarted or even sabotaged by scheming or crafty followers who might want to further their agendas. Judas is a classic example.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, servant leadership is sparse in our industries and workplaces today, but the tide is shifting, even if very slowly. The fact that the success and, in some cases, the very survival of a growing number of organizations depends on their undertaking agile transformations that necessitate servant leadership, might just be the moral universe’s way of slowly bending its leadership arc towards the genuine but powerful style of history’s great and humble servant leaders. Or could it be mother nature’s tactic of gently diverting her immature children away from their arrogant and self-serving instincts towards the inner simplicity and humility that enriches and nurtures their souls? Or might it be yet another small stride in the inexorable march of the kingdom of God towards our planet?

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2013, August 22).

Why do so many incompetent men become leaders? Harvard Business Review.

https://hbr.org/2013/08/why-do-so-manyincompetent-men

Chan, W. (1963).

The way of Lao Tzu. Bobbs-Merrill.

Collins, L. (2022, August 12).

Job unhappiness is at a staggering all-time high, according to Gallup. CNBC Workforce Wire. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/12/jobunhappiness-is-at-a-staggering-all-time-highaccording-to-gallup.html

De Smet, A., Dowling, B., Hancock, B., & Schaninger, B. (2022, July 13). The great attrition is making hiring harder: Are you searching the right talent pools? McKinsey Quarterly. https://www.mckinsey.com/ capabilities/people-and-organizationalperformance/our-insights/the-great-attritionis-making-hiring-harder-are-you-searchingthe-right-talent-pools

Doyle, J. (2022, August).

How the c-suite is championing the employee experience. Slayton Search Partners.

https://www.slaytonsearch.com/2022/08/howthe-c-suite-is-championing-the-employeeexperience/

Ellis, D. (2011, October 21).

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”. The White House of President Barack Obama.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ blog/2011/10/21/arc-moral-universe-long-itbends-toward-justice

Merriam-Webster. (2023). Lead.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/lead

Parris, D. L., & Peachy, J. W. (2013).

A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 3(3), 377–393.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6

Percy, S. (2020, July 15).

How servant leaders boost profits and employee morale. Forbes. https://www. forbes.com/sites/sallypercy/2020/07/15/howservant-leaders-boost-profits-and-employeemorale/?sh=59d4e5844b05

Perna, M. C. (2022, June 1).

Toxic work culture is the #1 factor driving people to resign. Forbes. https://www.forbes. com/sites/markcperna/2022/06/01/toxicwork-culture-is-the-1-factor-driving-peopleto-resign/?sh=25a9331968f1

Pfeffer, J. (2018). Dying for a paycheck: How modern management harms employee health and company performance—and what we can do about it. Harper Business.

Pfeffer, J. (2015). Leadership bs: Fixing workplaces and careers one truth at a time. Harper Business.

Radford, S. (2015, June 17). How Netflix CEO Reed Hastings learnt about servant leadership. Medium. https:// medium.com/sam-radford/how-netflix-ceoreed-hastings-learnt-about-servant-leadership75034340e971

ScrumAlliance. (2023). Scrum roles. ScrumAlliance. https://www.scrumalliance. org/learn-about-scrum/scrum-elearning-series/ scrum-roles

Stavros, A. (2019, March 4). Servant leadership is redundant. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/servantleadership-redundant-alex-stavros

Sull, D., Sull, C., & Zweig, B. (2022, January 11). Toxic culture is driving the great resignation. MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/ toxic-culture-is-driving-the-great-resignation/

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joe D’Mello, PhD, MBA, is a professor at The University of Chicago and president of management consulting and training firm Exequity Inc. He has over twenty-five years of experience in management and consulting capacities for Fortune 500 companies, small businesses, nonprofits, defense, and US and foreign government bodies. He is passionate about transforming how organizations work and how people learn.

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Volume 7 Issue 1

May 2023

Article 9

Servant Leadership in Catholic Institutions of Higher Education Servant in Catholic Institutions Higher Education

Margaret M. Fitzpatrick

mfitzpat@stac.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Business Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Law Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Fitzpatrick, Margaret M. (2023) "Servant Leadership in Catholic Institutions of Higher Education," Journal ofVincentianSocialAction: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 9.

Available at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa/vol7/iss1/9

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Vincentian Social Action by an authorized editor of St. John's Scholar. For more information, please contact JoVSA@stjohns.edu

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN CATHOLIC INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Dr. Margaret Mary Fitzpatrick, S.C.

ABSTRACT

Catholic institutions of higher learning are charged with the formation of a significant number of privileged students, who received an advanced degree worldwide. All colleges and universities of Catholic identity, especially its presidents and leadership, would gain to reflect on servant leadership from a Vincentian perspective, What must be done? How must it be done? A Catholic college creates a faith-filled climate where the presence of the Spirit deepens the communion with the entire community, city, state, and beyond. A growing leadership philosophy is based on Greenleaf’s Servant Leadership, where the behaviors and practices emphasize the well-being of those being served. Suggestions and practical examples are offered as an encouragement towards praxis from the reader.

WHAT MUST BE DONE? HOW MUST IT BE DONE?

There are 260 Catholic colleges and universities in the United States serving 870,000 students. Globally, there are approximately 1,500 institutions of Catholic higher learning. Many of these universities were founded by religious orders, dioceses, or are pontifical. They are led by presidents who must be astute, agile, learned, visionary, and administratively adept. The role of a president is complex. The president is the chief executive officer, policy maker, ensures the mission, fosters academic excellence, sets the climate of the culture, is fiscally responsible, develops policy, champions the university externally while raising funds, sets standards, recruits top level personnel, is a collaborator with administrators, faculty and students, and is the role model for the values of the institution.

As a Sister of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul I ask, “What must be done?” This Vincentian mandate shaped my vision and drove my presidency for twenty-five years as a Catholic college president. It is not enough to foster academic excellence and the holistic development of the students. It must be done within a context of shared leadership, enlightening minds through truth, and with a purposeful intention to lead from a stance of social justice and compassion.

Presidents of Catholic higher educational institutions must follow up on the fundamental Vincentian question with How must it be done? Louise Sullivan, D.C., found in the writings of St. Vincent de Paul and Louise de Marillac the central values foundational to Catholic Vincentian higher education: holistic, integrated, creative, flexible, excellent, person oriented, collaborative, and focused (Sullivan, 1995). Louise gives us an insight into how we must be as leaders and how we must act.

I like the image of an interactive theatre performance supported by a musical ensemble that adds dramatic and melodious tones to the performance. While the president may play the role of the orchestra leader or play director, the president is only successful if all the performers play their role in harmony with the others all the while engaging the audience. At times, the president may be the drummer setting the tempo, or be a supporting actor adding the one line that changes the course of the action. The president needs to understand all the roles and may play most of the roles as is necessary. The students are invited into this college community, this performance, as active learners. They add new insights and their yearning to participate gives an energy that propels the learning process forward. Who knows what the ending may be?

The key role, however, is not a particular part that one plays but how one calls forth the gifts of all the actors and students who interactively learn together within a framework of respect, dignity and individual and social responsibility.

A Catholic college creates a faith-filled climate where the presence of the Spirit deepens the communion with the entire community, city, state, and beyond. A Catholic institution of higher learning must open its doors to first-generation students, embrace the diversity in society, invite those who are economically disadvantaged and aspire for a quality value-centered higher education, with the open invitation to come and to learn.

How must it be done?

The actual leadership model must fit the particular institution of higher learning and its culture. Whether it is a department and committee model led by an executive team, a distributive leadership model, or a centrally governed model, how the mission and work is done is core to actualizing the mission, goals and objectives of the institution. Integral to the model is the style of leadershiphow the mission is achieved.

A growing leadership philosophy is based on servant leadership where the behaviors and practices emphasize the well-being of those being served. The term, servant leadership, was introduced by Robert K. Greenleaf who explains the idea. “The servant-leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead” (Greenleaf, 1973). For a college or university president, the philosophy of servant leadership translates into focusing on the well-being of the students and colleagues in the community. The president puts the needs of others first and promotes the development of each person within the mission and goals of the institution of higher learning.

What are the implications of servant leadership?

The president promotes innovation and the empowerment of students, faculty, staff and administrators. The president achieves servant

leadership through a style that is empathetic, listening, and committed to the growth of others all the while developing each one’s leadership qualities. Greenleaf centers servant leadership on ten principles: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community. The focus needs to be on the holistic development of the students first. All stakeholders, especially the leaders, must hold themselves accountable for their actions and how they have affected the culture at the college or university.

When you evaluate your leadership style; when you incorporate the principles of servant leadership; take time for reflection then GO DEEPER. When you think you have applied Greenleaf’s principles of servant leadership, go deeper. Do you treat everyone with respect? Are you just in all your dealings? Is the dignity of each person enhanced because of your style of leadership? When you fall short or become impatient with others’ shortcomings, go deeper. The complex nature of university governance, the multiple constituency groups, the societal pressures to do more with less, the fiscal challenges of balancing and supporting multiple areas of the institution, the rich diversity of personnel and needs will all require one to go deeper. Yet, the power of the Spirit is alive, embracing our own vulnerability while we participate in ongoing learning, conversion and discern actions.

As we engage with the college community, we are ultimately called to be present. Presence is first and foremost - being there. The quality of presence can permeate a community, give hope to the hopeless, strengthen the discouraged, and give space for the innovators. Presence invites closeness; presence engenders an attitude of companionship; and presence creates the opportunity for engagement, dialogue, and learning.

While servant leadership is a disposition of character and behaviors, it is authentically revealed in action. The attaining of a college degree is a privilege afforded to a small number of people

globally. A true Catholic university understands that loving God is intrinsically interwoven with loving the neighbor. The servant leader must go deeper and in this place of reflection meets the face of God. God is revealed in the faces of those on campus and those whose lives encounter the hardships of poverty, the cruelty of violence and war, and the deprivation of families lost through climate degradation, systemic racial injustice or the poverty of resources.

HOW MUST IT BE DONE? SIGNS OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP

Every president will have a style that suits them and is effective within the college/university community. The following are ways that may be effective and model servant leadership.

• The president’s office door is open except when conducting meetings, on the phone, or for the need for uninterrupted time. The symbol of an open door is welcoming. I want your opinion; how can I work with you on an issue?

• The president is seen on campus, and meets you where you are.

• Showing up. If there is an academic program, attend it. If there is an athletic event, show up and cheer.

• Ask the executive team, what events do you want me to attend? What can I do to support this event?

• Bring Campus Ministry and the Office of Human Resources together to promote the mission of the institution.

• Teach a class or guest lecture in a class.

• Go on service learning trips.

• Embrace diversity in all its forms.

• Model Catholic in its particular and universal meaning.

• Begin the day. Review meetings and their implications. How can you be a servant leader? Go deeper.

• Review your day or week. What must be done? How must it be done? Was I a servant leader?

• Build consensus being faithful to the mission.

• What must be done? Go deeper.

• Disposition of a servant leader: reflective, courageous, student and teacher, listener, empathetic, compassionate, and bold in righteousness.

Dan Rockwell (2018, September 6) states what to look for when hiring a servant leader:

1. Servant-leaders turn conversations towards others.

2. Servant leaders use people’s strengths, aspirations, and capabilities as guides f or evaluation.

3. Servant-leaders concern themselves with how others feel about themselves, not what others think about them.

4. Stand behind others.

5. Take responsible risks.

6. Servant-leaders revel in the success of others. Ed Stetzer (2020, March 24) offers seven signs to look for in a servant-leader: devotion, humility, gratitude, composure, encouragement, stewardship, and empathy. Stetzer uses the model of Jesus who came to serve not to be served (Matt 23:11, Mark 10:45). Similarly, Ken Blanchard in an interview with Kevin Kruse (2018, April 9) thinks that we focus first on tasks and then on people but this is in reverse order. Blanchard urges leading from the ground up and serving your team. If you do, you end up with a group of high-performing individuals. Leadership is about vision, direction, and goals. Once this is set, then you work with and for your colleagues who will serve the students. Blanchard understands that there are goals to be achieved and tasks to be done. Blanchard brings to this external goal achievement a reflective spirit and the attitude to serve. Then there is the Fitzpatrick mantra, Go Deeper.

What must be done?

Social responsibility is one of the missions of higher education. As each member of the college community lives the mission to be servant leaders, the other becomes central and the needs of the world become the responsibility of each person. Inspired

by the charisms such as the Sisters of Charity, servant leaders strive to develop a sensitivity toward those whom the world oppresses, to right in great ways or small the injustices seen around us, to heal the wounds of the embittered, to speak peace to the troubled, to urge the mighty to right wrongs, and to bring the compassion of the Spirit to all whose lives are encountered. Then, go deeper: What must be done? How must it be done?

Elizabeth Ann Seton was instrumental in the birth of the Catholic school system in the United States. With academics at its foundation, these new schools developed character, based on Catholic values within the context of faith formation. Elizabeth Seton’s deep desire was to teach children who were poor in order to give them a path out of poverty. Her respect for others and her inclusive nature was a testimony to her servant leadership. She was a pioneer, dared to go where others would not, and courageously lived “the sweet dream of imagination” (McNeil, 2006).

There are many roles for a Catholic institution of higher learning. This article suggests a style of servant-leadership all the while knowing that this style must foster the institution’s mission, goals and objectives. At a Catholic University, it must also be the home for the Catholic intellectual tradition. Monika Hellwig was a leader in the Catholic intellectual tradition in Catholic universities. She states:

REFERENCES

Greenleaf, R. K. (1973).

The Servant as Leader. Center for Applied Studies.

Hellwig, M. (2000). The Catholic intellectual tradition in the Catholic university.

In A. J. Cernera & O. J. Morgan (Eds.), Examining the Catholic intellectual tradition (Vol. 1, pp. 1-18). Sacred Heart University Press.

We are the heirs and trustees of a great intellectual and cultural tradition founded on Catholic faith and enhanced by grace and by many centuries of testing for fidelity and authenticity. It is a trust not only for the benefit of the Church but also for the benefit of the world. The Catholic universities play a key role in bearing this trust with its treasury of classic deposits and its long-developed approach to life and learning. The conditions for fidelity to our trust have changed a good deal. (Hellwig, 2000)

I believe that Hellwig would recognize the role of a servant-leader in supporting these essential cornerstones of Catholic institutions of higher learning in deepening in new ways the Catholic intellectual tradition through a style of leadership that embodies the greatest commandment to love God and to love the neighbor. We are the cast of the interactive theatre performance. We practice and go deeper. We listen and reflect knowing that these are “essential to the growth of the servant-leader” (Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, n.d.). We are Vincent de Paul, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Robert Greenleaf, the servant leaders in the classrooms, in the offices, on the playing fields, in the minds and hearts of those we serve. We are one of six billion people, we are the bird in the ecosystem, we are the one dying without living, we are the face of God. Go deeperaction follows being.

Kruse, K. (2018, April 9). Servant leadership is not what you think: Ken Blanchard explains. Forbes. https://www.forbes. com/sites/kevinkruse/2018/04/09/servantleadership-is-not-what-you-think-kenblanchard-explains/?sh=47e3ba6e6a5f

McNeil, B. A. (2006). Historical perspectives on Elizabeth Seton and education: School is my chief business. Journal of Catholic Education, 9(3). 284-306. http://dx.doi. org/10.15365/joce.0903042013

Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. (n.d.). What is servant leadership? https:// www.greenleaf.org/what-is-servantleadership/

Rockwell, D. (2018, September 6). The top signs you’re a servant-leader. Leadership Freak. https://leadershipfreak. blog/2018/09/06/the-top-signs-you’re-aservant-leader/

Stetzer, E. (2020, March 24). The 7 signs to look for in a servant leader. Global Leadership Network. https:// globalleadership.org/articles/leading-others/ the-7-signs-to-look-for-in-a-servant-leader/

Sullivan, L. (1995). The core values of Vincentian education. Vincentian Heritage Journal, 16(2). 149-180. https://via.library.depaul.edu/ vhj/vol16/iss2/3

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Margaret Mary Fitzpatrick, S.C., Ed.D, President Emerita of St. Thomas Aquinas College, currently serves as Congregational Leader for the Sisters of Charity- Halifax.

Sister Margaret has served in a number of capacities in higher education from ministry and mission to faculty and senior leadership. She holds a doctorate in higher education from Columbia University and master’s degrees from Columbia and Fordham University, along with a bachelor’s degree from Boston State College. Sister Margaret serves on numerous boards including Catholic University of America, DePaul and St. John’s University.

Servant Leadership in Catholic Institutions of Higher Education

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Volume 7 Issue 1

May 2023

Servant Leadership and Student-Worker Satisfaction Servant and Student-Worker Satisfaction

Shweta Sinha

shweta.sinha20@stjohns.edu

Article 11

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Business Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Law Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Sinha, Shweta (2023) "Servant Leadership and Student-Worker Satisfaction," JournalofVincentianSocial Action: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 11.

Available at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa/vol7/iss1/11

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Vincentian Social Action by an authorized editor of St. John's Scholar. For more information, please contact JoVSA@stjohns.edu

SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND STUDENT-WORKER SATISFACTION

Shweta Sinha

ABSTRACT

There are several studies that show that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to immense physical and mental health distress. Not only did it impact people’s health but it posed a threat to their financial and professional security. The pandemic, in addition to the several socio-economic challenges, resulted in the restructuring of the corporate work environment. It gave rise to work-from-home culture which eventually became the preferred mode of work for many people. However, companies eventually started calling people back into work reducing the flexibility in schedule that was previously available to employees working from home. As a result, the post-pandemic corporate world has seen a rise in the phenomena such as the Great Resignation and Quiet Quitting across various sectors. However, one section of the working class that has yet to be studied extensively comprises of students who are also working full-time or part-time, alongside completing their educational degrees. The toll that the pandemic took on their ability to manage both education and professional work (in many cases, both taking place remotely) needs to be examined in greater detail.

This study looks at the need for flexibility and hands-off management style in the post-pandemic world for student workers who are managing their academic pursuits alongside their professional work requirements, and how this need may be best met through the servant leadership style of management.

INTRODUCTION

Leadership in an organizational setting has long been a major area of business research. One of the leadership philosophies that has been gaining prominence since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic is that of servant leadership (Piorun et al., 2021). The paradoxical notion of servant leadership was first developed and proposed by Robert K. Greenleaf (1970) in which he combined two seemingly contradictory terms to arrive at a theoretical framework for leadership that requires the leader to place the needs and interests of the employees above all else. As per Greenleaf, “A great leader is seen as a servant first…” (p. 19).

Greenleaf’s servant leadership model has been extensively studied and refined by several scholars in the last two decades, including Sendjaya & Sarros (2002), Spears (2004), Laub (2010), Melcher & Bosco (2010), Mehta & Pillay (2011), and Kantharia (2012). The servant leadership model has also been applied in a wide variety of sectors: hospitality (Ozturk et al., 2021), education (Guillaume et al., 2013), libraries (Piorun et al., 2021), banking (Mujeeb et al., 2021), family-owned

businesses (McNeff & Irving, 2017), and rural community hospitals (McCann et al., 2014), to name a few.

In 2004, Spears further refined Greenleaf’s philosophy of servant leadership and arrived at the following 10 characteristics of servant leaders:

1. Listening: The servant-leader is a receptive listener who actively seeks to identify the will of a group.

2. Empathy: The servant-leader assumes the good intentions of co-workers and strives to understand and empathize with them.

3. Healing: A servant-leader has the potential for healing one’s self and others.

4. Awareness: A servant leader demonstrates a high level of general awareness, and especially self-awareness.

5. Persuasion: Servant-leaders primary rely on persuasion over positional authority when making professional decisions and are therefore effective at building group consensus.

Servant Leadership and Student-Worker Satisfaction

6. Conceptualization: Servant-leaders are able to think beyond the day-to-day and are able to conceptualize problems from a broader perspective.

7. Foresight: Servant leaders are intuitive and can use lessons from the past, the realities of the present, to envision the consequences of a decision for the future.

8. Stewardship: Servant leadership emphasizes the use of openness and persuasion in developing stewardship or a commitment to serving the needs of others.

9. Commitment to the growth of people: Servant-leaders recognize the intrinsic value in people beyond their tangible contributions as workers and are deeply committed to the growth of every individual within the institution.

10. Building community: Servant-leaders seek to build a community among workers within an institution.

Employee-oriented leadership characteristics seem particularly pertinent in the post-COVID-19 world that has survived a traumatic global catastrophe (Hu, 2020, December 16). In the United States alone, COVID-19 affected over 33 million people, and over 600,000 people succumbed to the infection (Elflein, 2022, August 29). People have had to manage their professional lives and their employer’s expectations while grappling with the collective trauma of the pandemic. A study had found that for over 75% of Americans, their immediate boss was the most stressful aspect of their job (Abbajay, 2018, September 7). The pandemic did not only claim lives and create job insecurity, but also resulted in a sharp increase in substance abuse and mental health issues (Panchal et al., 2021, February 10), with a four-fold increase in rates of anxiety and depression, as per reports from the National Center for Health Statistics (2022, August 17).

A study conducted at a large Asian IT services firm found a rise of 18% in the time spent working

outside normal business hours, with a fall in productivity by 8-19% (Gibbs et al., 2021).

A recent survey conducted by FlexJobs and Mental Health America revealed that 75% of people experienced burnout at work, with 40% specifically mentioning the time period being the pandemic (Reynolds, 2021, September 15). Since the pandemic, about 1 in 4 workers is considering quitting their jobs for one which offers more flexibility. Half of the people currently working remotely claim to prefer remote-work options and are willing to look for a new job if their current company doesn’t continue to offer remote-work options long-term (Liu, 2021, April 20).

Termed as the “Big Quit,” or the “Great Resignation,” this post-pandemic phenomenon refers to a large number of people in the workforce quitting their jobs en masse. A recorded 4 million people quit their jobs in April of 2021, many of whom were in low-paid, inflexible industries like retail. However, the trend started to catch up in industries with higher paid jobs as well. A study shows that nearly 40% of white-collar employees would prefer to quit their jobs than give up remote work forcing even some of the big names in the tech world to reconsider calling people back to office fulltime (Melin & Egkolfopoulou, 2021, June 1). Given the importance that workplace flexibility has played in today’s post-vaccine economy, remote work enabled many white-collar workers to feel like they no longer had to choose between their work, family, and well-being (Curtis, 2021, July 1).

Another term that has become a part of mainstream discourse in the corporate world is that of “quiet quitting.” Quiet quitters are those employees who continue to perform all their regular work, but refuse to go above and beyond the call of duty and do not engage in what researchers refer to as ‘citizenship behaviors’ at work. They do the bare minimum required of them and refuse to put in any additional effort into their work. Quiet quitting hurts both the employer and employee. It keeps a company from getting the best out of an employee and also gets in the way of the

employee’s professional growth (Klotz & Bolino, 2022, September 15).

Between the Great Resignation and Quiet Quitting, one thing seems apparent – the growing dissatisfaction amongst the working class regarding their professional lives. While this has been studied for employees across several industries, a group of workers that has gone largely unexamined is that of student workers who, post-pandemic, have had to manage both school and professional work from home.

As per a study by Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, about 70% of all college students work while enrolled (Kerr, 2020, December 30).The pandemic exerted a two-pronged pressure on the working student class who now had to navigate the strain of professional work and academic requirements simultaneously. In this study, I attempt to examine the expectations that the working-student-class has from their post-pandemic work environment and propose the effectiveness of servant leadership management style in addressing those expectations in order to improve the jobsatisfaction for employees who are simultaneously attempting to complete their academic degrees.

Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic and the enforced restrictions harshly affected students and the educational sectors in 161 countries. It resulted in more than 1.6 billion students being away from regular school life and traditional academic inperson instruction and had a significant impact on the emotional health of students. A study was conducted that assessed the feelings of over 13,000 students at high school, undergraduate, and postgraduate levels across 36 campuses over 8 subsequent weeks from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results demonstrated the negative mental-health impact of the pandemic on students, where students indicated a general low energy level and dominance of negative feelings regardless of their academic level. The most frequently recorded responses of the reported feelings during

the lockdown were being anxious, stressed, overwhelmed, tired, and depressed. Overall, 14% of these students admitted to needing professional help in managing their feelings throughout the quarantine period (Camacho-Zuñiga et al., 2021).

Another study involving 110 working and nonworking students demonstrated that while no significant difference was observed in depression between working and non-working students, working students displayed more anxiety than nonworking counterparts and reported more stress and fewer buffers (Mounsey et al., 2013).

METHODOLOGY

In this study, I research the relevance of servant leadership in the context of students who had to simultaneously balance school work and professional expectations during the pandemic. In order to examine the need for servant leadership in today’s post-pandemic professional world, especially in regard to student workers, I used qualitative analysis to survey 28 graduate students from St. John’s University, who have been studying as well as working (full time or part-time) during the pandemic.

The survey was conducted using Google forms., and for the purpose of maintaining complete confidentiality, the identities of the respondents were kept anonymous. The survey posed a total of 14 questions and utilised a nominal scale for answering in order to uncover the experience of managing school work and professional work while working from home during the pandemic, as well as the expectations that the students now have from their managers at work and their overall pattern of working.

RESULTS

The results revealed that more than half of the respondents (about 53.6%) claimed that they were able to balance their job and studies better when they were working from home, as compared to when they had to work from the office. However,

about 39.3% of the respondents admitted to being unable to balance their job and studies well when working from home. The pandemic has also had an impact on people’s mental health (Reynolds, 2021, September 15); however, about 53.6% of respondents agreed that working from home helped them manage their mental health better as compared to working from office. About 21.4% disagreed, and 25% neither agreed nor disagreed.

Based on the survey, the expectations of the students who are also working part-time or full-time alongside their degree courses are quite evident, as seen in the charts below. The demand for workingfrom-home was high as it allows for greater flexibility, which has become an important factor for worker satisfaction and retention since the pandemic (Liu, 2021, April).

Figure 1

An interesting contrast was also highlighted by the fact that while 71.4% admitted that their boss allowed them some flexibility in planning their work when working from home, about 57.1% neither agreed nor disagreed with the option that there had been a difference in their boss’s leadership style after the pandemic. So while the working from home perhaps led to some work flexibility during the pandemic, the managers did not really change their leadership style to meet the needs and expectations of the hour.

One of most revelatory aspects of the survey was the fact that about 78.6% of participants admitted that

one of the key aspects of job satisfaction was their relationship with their manager. This, when seen in the context of the fact that 89.3% of respondents claimed that they needed to have laissez-faire leaders who are flexible and hands-off makes a case for the need of servant leadership for mangers who have employees who are also students. It is important to note that none of the respondents selected the option of leaders who are indifferent and completely uninvolved. It indicates that students who are also working alongside their studies require managers who are involved but are also flexible and non-authoritarian.

Figure 2

CONCLUSION

Given the dual pressures experienced by students who had to balance work and academic expectations during the pandemic, there appears to have been a fundamental shift in the way working students now view their work environment. It is evident that the pandemic resulted in a shift to remote working and remote-studying. This shift, however, led to more flexibility in scheduling homerelated, study-related, and work-related tasks for the students and resulted in a demand for a more hands-off, non-authoritarian management approach from employers. What is pertinent to note is that a majority of students (71.4%) preferred the hybrid mode of work, which implies that students do not wish to completely abandon the work-from-office paradigm, but prefer to work within the greater flexibility offered by the hybrid model of working a few days from home and a few days on site.

This corroborates with the fact that 92.9% of students claimed to prefer a more flexible working schedule since the pandemic. About 78.6% of the students agreed that their relationship with their manager greatly impacted their level of job satisfaction and about 89.3% agreed that the need of the hour was for there to be more handsoff, flexible, laissez-faire leaders. This ties-in to the proposed idea of the effectiveness of servant leadership as a management style in the postpandemic world in order to increase the job satisfaction of student workers.

DISCUSSION

In 1996, Larry Spears, Executive Director of the Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, defined servant leadership as:

…A new kind of leadership model – a model which puts serving others as the number one priority. Servant-leadership emphasizes increased service to others; a holistic approach to work; promoting a sense of community; and the sharing of power in decision-making.

(Spears, 1996, p. 33)

The idea of a servant leader implies that the manager will put the interests of her employees before profit-making and create a sense of community amongst her employees and herself. As per Spears (2004), a servant leader is a receptive and empathetic listener who strives to heal others and self. A servant leader is also intuitive and takes into account past lessons and present-realities while making plans for the future that involve a commitment to the growth of the employees. Considering the expectations of working students from their bosses and work environment, a manager who adopts the servant leadership management style is more likely to retain student employees and grant greater flexibility to schedule work, leading to a better relationship with employees and higher employee satisfaction.

It is also important to explore the relationship between servant leadership style and laissez-faire leadership style, since a majority of the respondents expressed their preference for a laissez-faire leadership style. Laissez-faire is a French phrase that means “let it be.” When applied to leadership, it describes managers who allow people to work on their own and make their own decisions. This points to the flexibility that can be offered by laissez-faire leaders to employees in managing their own work schedule while working from home. Laissez-faire leaders therefore usually give their subordinates the power to make decisions about their work and while they are there to provide their teams with resources and advice, if required, they otherwise do not get involved (Amanchukwu et al., 2015). If used in the context of servant leadership, a laisses-faire style can be sign of an empathetic manager who listens to the requirements of his/her/their employee and provides the autonomy for the employee to design their own work schedule.

Another leadership style whose principles can be incorporated within the servant leadership model is the democratic/participative leadership style. While democratic leaders make the final decisions, they are good listeners who listen to the employees and include team members in the decision-making process. Allowing employees to have a greater say in shaping their work and work environment is in line with the servant leadership model. Incorporating a democratic leadership style has been known to have benefits. Employees tend to have higher levels of job satisfaction and are more productive because of being more involved (Amanchukwu et al., 2015). It may be viewed as the opposite of quiet quitting where employees feel more invested because they feel like they are a part of something larger and meaningful and so are motivated by more than just a financial reward.

The survey highlighted the need for more democratic, laissez-faire leadership that allowed student workers greater flexibility in scheduling their work and other activities. Based on the 10 characteristics of servant leaders, upon

incorporating the tenets of Laissez-Faire and Democratic/Participative leadership styles, the servant leadership model could greatly enhance the job satisfaction of student workers in the following ways:

1. Listening: The servant-leader would actively listen to the needs of the student workers which includes the need for a hybrid model of work where the employees are allowed to work from home a few days of the week.

2. Empathy: The servant-leader would empathize with the dual pressures faced by working students in the form of academic and professional expectations.

3. Healing: A servant-leader would recognize and acknowledge the physical and emotional impact of the pandemic and allow studentworkers the time and environment to heal from the collective trauma of COVID-19.

4. Awareness: A servant leader would have the awareness to recognize that different student workers have personally and professionally experienced the pandemic differently and are thus likely to have different need and requirements. The servant leader would be more laissez-faire in their leadership and allow for more flexibility in personalizing their approach and expectations with respect to different student workers.

5. Persuasion: Incorporating characteristics of democratic/participative leadership, servantleaders will primary rely on persuasion over positional authority and allow for studentworkers to participate in decision-making regarding their own work environment (allowing them to work from home on certain days of the week and having a flexible work schedule).

6. Conceptualization: Servant-leaders will have a broader perspective on the current post-pandemic scenario and design their management strategies taking into consideration the current realities in a way that is most favorable for the student workers in the longer run.

7. Foresight: Servant leaders are meant to be intuitive and would be able to respond appropriately to the needs of the hour. In the long run, their democratic and laissezfaire style is likely to contribute to greater employee satisfaction and retention.

8. Stewardship. A servant-leader will be open and persuasive in developing a stewardship that is committed to serving the needs of the student-workers.

9. Commitment to the growth of people: By being empathetic and giving the student workers freedom and flexibility with their work, the servant-leaders will not only recognize their intrinsic value but will also help the student workers manage their academic requirements better.

10. Building community: By encouraging participative decision-making, the servantleaders will thus help build a community among their workers where the student workers feel safe to share their expectations and do not fear having their needs and grievances ignored.

REFERENCES

Abbajay, M. (2018, September 7). What to do when you have a bad boss. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr. org/2018/09/what-to-do-when-you-have-abad-boss

Amanchukwu, R. N., Stanley, G. J., & Ololube, N. P. (2015). A review of leadership theories, principles and styles and their relevance to educational management. Management, 5(1), 6–14. http://article.sapub. org/10.5923.j.mm.20150501.02.html

Camacho-Zuñiga, C., Pego, L., Escamilla, J., & Hosseini, S. (2021). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on students’ feelings at high school, undergraduate, and postgraduate levels. Heliyon, 7(3). https://doi. org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06465

While this study makes a case for the need of servant leadership as the suitable management style for greater student-worker satisfaction, it looks at just one side of the student worker’s challenges, i.e., their challenges and expectations from their employer/ manager. It does not look at the expectations that the student worker may have from their educational institute or their professors in order to help them manage their work and study better. It would be interesting to study a composite picture that involves both, the workplace environment as well as the place of the academic institution in a student worker’s life. Since a student worker is faced with two potential bosses (academic professors and work manager), the interplay between the leadership styles of the two, and the collective impact on a student worker’s overall life satisfaction would be a noteworthy study to carry forward from here.

Curtis, L. (2021, July 1).

Why the big quit is happening and why every boss should embrace it. Forbes. https://www. forbes.com/sites/lisacurtis/2021/06/30/whythe-big-quit-is-happening-and-why-everyboss-should-embrace-it/?sh=bfce95d601c3

Elflein, J. (2022, August 29).

Number of covid cases and deaths in the U.S. 2022. Statista. https://www.statista.com/ statistics/1101932/coronavirus-covid19-casesand-deaths-number-us-americans/

Gibbs, M., Mengel, F., & Siemroth, C. (2021). Work from home & productivity: Evidence from personnel & analytics data on IT professionals. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3846680

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Robert K. Greenleaf Center.

Guillaume, O., Honeycutt, A., & Savage-Austin, A. R. (2013). The impact of servant leadership on job satisfaction. Journal of Business and Economics, 4(5), 444–448.

Hu, J. (2020, December 16). Servant leadership can dampen emotional covid impact. Lead Read Today | Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University. https://fisher.osu.edu/blogs/ leadreadtoday/servant-leadership-candampen-emotional-covid-impact

Kantharia, B. N. (2012). Servant leadership: An imperative leadership style for leader managers. SSRN Electronic Journal. https:// doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1980625

Kerr, E. (2020, December 30). The pros and cons of working while in college. US News. https://www.usnews.com/ education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/ articles/weighing-the-pros-and-cons-ofworking-while-in-college

Klotz, A. C., & Bolino, M. C. (2022, September 15). When quiet quitting is worse than the real thing. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/09/when-quietquitting-is-worse-than-the-real-thing

Laub, J. (2010). The servant organization. In D. van Dierendonck & K. Patterson (Eds.), Servant Leadership (pp. 105–117). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1057/9780230299184_9

Liu, J. (2021, April 20). 1 in 4 workers is considering quitting their job after the pandemic-here’s why. CNBC. https://www. cnbc.com/2021/04/19/1-in-4-workers-isconsidering-quitting-their-job-after-thepandemic.html

McCann, J. T., Graves, D., & Cox, L. (2014). Servant leadership, employee satisfaction, and organizational performance in rural community hospitals. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(10), 28-38. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm. v9n10p28

McNeff, M. E., & Irving, J. A. (2017). Job satisfaction and the priority of valuing people: A Case study of servant leadership practice in a network of familyowned companies. SAGE Open, 7(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016686813

Mehta, S., & Pillay, R. (2011). Revisiting servant leadership: An empirical study in Indian context. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 5(2), 24–41.

Melchar, D. E., & Bosco, S. M. (2010). Achieving high organization performance through servant leadership. The Journal of Business Inquiry, 9(1), 74–88.

Melin, A., & Egkolfopoulou, M. (2021, June 1). Return to office: Employees are quitting instead of giving up work from home. Bloomberg.com. https://www. bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-01/ return-to-office-employees-are-quittinginstead-of-giving-up-work-from-home?sref=C 3P1bRLC&leadSource=uverify+wall

Mounsey, R., Vandehey, M., & Diekhoff, G. (2013). Working and non-working university students: Anxiety, depression, and grade point average. College Student Journal, 47(2), 379–389.

Mujeeb, T., Khan, N. U., Obaid, A., Yue, G., Bazkiaei, H. A., & Samsudin, N. A. (2021). Do servant leadership self-efficacy and benevolence values predict employee performance within the banking industry in the post-covid-19 era: Using a serial mediation approach. Administrative Sciences, 11(4), 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci11040114

National Center for Health Statistics.

(2022, August 17). Anxiety and Depression - household pulse survey - covid-19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https:// www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/pulse/mentalhealth.htm

Ozturk, A., Karatepe, O. M., & Okumus, F. (2021). The effect of servant leadership on hotel employees’ behavioral consequences: Work engagement versus job satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 97 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijhm.2021.102994

Panchal, N., Kamal, R., Cox, C., & Garfield, R. (2021, February 10). The implications of covid-19 for mental health and substance use. KFF.

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/ issue-brief/the-implications-of-covid-19-formental-health-and-substance-use/

Piorun, M., Raboin, R. F., Kilham, J., Meacham, M., & Okyere, V. (2021). Leading through a crisis: The application of servant leadership during covid-19. In B. Holland (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Library Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic (pp. 1–17). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-79986449-3.ch001

Reynolds, B. W. (2021, September 15). FlexJobs, mental health America survey: Mental health in the workplace. FlexJobs. https://www.flexjobs.com/blog/post/flexjobsmha-mental-health-workplace-pandemic

Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organization Studies, 9(2), 57–64. https://doi. org/10.1177/107179190200900205

Spears, L. (1996). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17(7), 33–35. https://doi. org/10.1108/01437739610148367

Spears, L. C. (2004). Practicing servant-leadership. Leader to Leader, 34(Fall 2004), 7–11.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Shweta Sinha is an Indian academic currently pursuing a Ph.D., in Multi-sector Communication at St. John’s University. She has a Master’s Degree in Genetic Medicine from the University of Sheffield, UK and an MBA degree from India. She began her journey at St. John’s University through a Master’s program in Clinical Mental Health Counselling. Professionally, Shweta has been working as a Branding, Business, and Advertising consultant for over a decade.

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Volume 7 Issue 1

May 2023

Article 12

To Protect and To Community Policing and Leadership Through the Lens of a Lieutenant of 25 Years in a NJ Leadership Through the Lens of Lieutenant of 25 in NJ

To Protect and To Serve: Community Policing and Servant

Police Precinct Police Precinct

Tara DeWorsop tara.deworsop21@stjohns.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Business Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Law Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

DeWorsop, Tara (2023) "To Protect and To Serve: Community Policing and Servant Leadership Through the Lens of a Lieutenant of 25 Years in a NJ Police Precinct," JournalofVincentianSocialAction: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 12.

Available at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa/vol7/iss1/12

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Vincentian Social Action by an authorized editor of St. John's Scholar. For more information, please contact JoVSA@stjohns.edu

TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE: COMMUNITY POLICING AND SERVANT LEADERSHIP

THROUGHTHELENSOFALIEUTENANTOF25YEARSINANJ POLICEPRECINCT

Tara DeWorsop

ABSTRACT

Police play a vital role in protecting communities and holding accountable those who have committed violent and property offenses. At the heart of this are the acts of protecting and serving the individuals that make up those communities.

This paper looks at how police officers interact, protect and serve the communities within which they work today. The history of policing and the way police officers are prepared to interact with the public are important. Servant leadership combined with community policing has the potential to create a positive impact that will have a ripple effect.

Using the example of a police precinct in central New Jersey where the Servant Leadership Model has succeeded, the author argues that combining this model with the most effective parts of community policing is the best way for police to not only improve community and media relations, but perhaps more importantly, engage in sustainable reform, peacebuilding, and reconciliation with the communities that have most negatively been impacted in the past.

**Note: A lieutenant of 25 years from the aforementioned central New Jersey precinct was interviewed during the writing of this paper but declined to have his name published because he does not have media clearance.

CASE STUDY: A LIEUTENANT REFUSES CHIEFDOM

InCentral NJ, a soon-to-be retiring Lieutenant (L.T.H.) of 25 years who was in charge of overseeing internal affairs and professional standards of his precinct reflected on his time serving and protecting his community over a twohour phone interview.

L.T.H. served as a self-described liaison between the officers and the Chief, and also between the community and the precinct. He had grown up in this community where he served as Lieutenant, and both his brother and father had served before him at the same precinct with his father retiring as a Detective. As a child growing up in a family of

officers and professionally over the 25 years at his precinct, L.T.H. witnessed many dramatic changes. He grew up remembering when the town was openly and unapologetically racially segregated with black and white communities rarely mingling. He witnessed the influx of South Asian immigrants in the surrounding areas that turned traditionally Irish and Polish restaurants into Indian grocery stores and places to grab a dosa to-go.

Within the precinct he saw a sea change in who was attracted to the police force; noting that it went from having most recruits coming directly from the armed forces to policing to, in the past decade, the majority coming in with an undergraduate college

To Protect and To Serve: Community Policing and Servant Leadership Through the Lens of a Lieutenant of 25 Years in a NJ Police Precinct

degree – typically in Sociology or Criminology. L.T.H. also saw the advent of body cameras being outfitted on the front of all patrol unit uniforms, leading his precinct’s adoption of them in 2016, just one year after funding became available by the U.S. Department of Justice. L.T.H. praised this new technology, saying that it made his work in internal affairs and professional standards investigations easier – especially when it came to grievances submitted by individuals in the community. “The ability to go to the video to see what actually happened removed the variability of perspectives from the conversation. There was no more ‘he-saidthis’ and ‘he-said-that’. Having video footage also helped me remove the cops that shouldn’t have ever been in the force much more quickly.”

During our conversation, L.T.H. discussed a time when he decided to look at the data for ticketing and stops as a preemptive measure to see if there were signs of prejudice among his officers. This was at the start of the Black Lives Matter movement when protests were first bringing a lot of attention to police brutality. L.T.H. wanted to see if there were signs of misconduct or racial bias within their precinct and went first to the ‘traffic stop’ data. He was looking for prejudice against the black community and was surprised to see that there was a much higher incidence of ‘traffic stops and ticketing’ (as opposed to ‘traffic stops with a warning and no ticket’) among the Sikh population as compared to all other racial groups. Upon reflecting, he realized that the gradual increase in the South Asian population in the township next door might have led to an unconscious bias with his officers. He confirmed this through informal interviewing of his officers, asking why they made these stops and what prompted them to give them a ticket instead of a warning. The interviews revealed a confusion around the turbans the Sikh men wore and a general lack of awareness around the religion, culture, and customs of the Sikh population. And, as is the case with any community that receives a dramatic

increase in presence of a population with a visibly different appearance, identity, religion, and culture, there were both conscious and subconscious tensions.

L.T.H. took these qualitative findings and traffic stop data and went to a local community leader at the Sikh temple. He asked if he would come to his police precinct and speak to the officers and, more importantly, offer an opportunity for the officers to ask questions and learn. The Sikh religious leader gladly accepted and the dialogue, and dialogues that ensued, led to a decrease in the amount of stops and ticketing among Sikh individuals so that they were not higher than the rest of the population.

Over his 25 years, L.T.H. led many initiatives like this seeking to increase dialogue in both formal and informal settings. L.T.H. organized primarily in-person gatherings (swearing that ‘diversity training videos’ had little to no effect as opposed to in-person conversations) with community leaders from a variety of different cultural groups including Rabbis and Pandits (Jewish and Hindu ‘priests’). He also led food drives and encouraged his officers to answer calls requesting help for things that were as mundane as needing help turning off the water in a house or helping to find a missing pet. Systemically, he implemented a review that allowed for community members to leave positive remarks on interactions with officers. This allowed for more open, positive avenues of communication with the public and an opportunity for L.T.H. to commend officers on good conduct instead of only reprimanding the bad.

At the end of our interview, I asked L.T.F. if he had ever wanted to rise to the Chief of Police position so that he could make even greater positive change. He replied, frankly, that he had been offered the position and turned it down, stating that he had no desire to be “walking around with a target on his back”.

Thought Questions:

What does this story tell us about L.T.H. and his leadership practices? What methods did he employ in resolving a bias he identified through quantitative data and qualitative survey methods? Why would he turn down a promotion from Lieutenant to Chief of Police?

A BRIEF HISTORY OF POLICING

In 1963, “To Protect and To Serve” became the official motto of the “Los Angeles Police Department. Since then, this slogan has become almost synonymous with policing and has since been adopted as the motto of police departments across the country. Recent events have focused attention on police reform and led to public demands to rethink how police services are provided and how police leadership and recruitment might evolve. “To protect and to serve” is an ideal of precincts that is difficult to live up to 100% of the time, but it does not have to be unattainable the majority of the time.

Police forces have morphed over the years from a locally funded and managed entity to protect public safety, to also serving as a federally funded jobs initiative, an engine for surveillance, and a militaristic special forces agency engaged in a war on drugs, gangs, and youth. This has led to large police forces that are “disconnected from communities and operate in a punitive rather than preventative way, resulting in more arrests, more prisons, and more costs to taxpayers, among other negative effects on communities. It is not just the sheer number of police that leads to more arrests and more prisons, but also the style of policing, which treats entire communities as though they should be contained, surveilled, and punished” (Ashton et al., 2012).

This image of the police as an unthinking force of brutality, of course, is not and should not be taken as an uncontested blanket statement. Almost every police agency includes a majority of uniformed officers and plainclothes detectives who place polite, effective service above brute force. However, the rogue cops, although a minority, too often exercise

undue influence, infecting everybody with their negative attitudes toward minority populations and other citizens.

The servant leadership model is consistent with the image that most police departments desire to reflect.

In 1996, Larry Spears, Executive Director of the Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership, refined Greenleaf’s philosophy of servant leadership and defined servant-leadership as:

…A new kind of leadership model – a model which puts serving others as the number one priority. Servant-leadership emphasizes increased service to others; a holistic approach to work; promoting a sense of community; and the sharing of power in decision-making.

In 2004, Spears took this definition one step further and arrived at the following 10 characteristics of servant leaders: Listening, Empathy, Healing, Awareness, Persuasion, Conceptualization, Foresight, Stewardship, Commitment to the growth of people, and Building community. Unlike other leadership models, servant leadership emphasizes moral, ethical leadership and personal integrity; it also focuses on the growth and development of subordinates through strong long-term relationships (Joseph & Winston, 2005; Liden et al., 2008).

Police Chiefs who deliberately model this leadership style can instill servant leadership behaviors in their officers who already have an inclination to serve (Jackson & Lee, 2019), potentially creating a positive ripple effect in the overall culture and perception of police.

Additionally, the servant leadership model complements the already effective, if not wellimplemented, community policing model that emerged in the 1960’s out of the civil rights movement and became more widely adopted in the 1980’s. At its heart, community policing is an approach to law enforcement that promised to improve police-community relations by working with, rather than targeting, racial and ethnic minorities. It held great appeal for local politicians concerned with pleasing their constituents (Willis,

2010). The easy-to-remember motto “To Serve and To Protect” also emerged during this time which helped with an overall re-branding of policing. Media has placed an enormous amount of negative attention on policing, and with good reason. In the wake of the egregious murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Rayshard Brooks, thousands of Americans from across the country have been standing up for racial justice and demanding fundamental reform to the way this country conducts policing, and to put new pressure on states and cities to scale back the force that officers can use on civilians. Requiring body cameras for police officers, modifying what restraint techniques can be used on civilians, investigating and (in some cases revoking) qualified immunity, implementing deescalation training, impartial policing, and social justice methods are some of the reforms demanded and implemented since the beginning of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2013 (Rummler, 2020, September 30; Preddy & Andrews, 2021, January 20).

HOW DOES LEADERSHIP FACTOR IN?

The media, the public, and government officials were and are looking to leadership within law enforcement to reverse the negative trends. Reform, however, is a more complex and interlocking reality for law enforcement administrators than what the media portrays, and the recent rallying cry to “defund the police” seems overly simplistic, at best, and completely ineffectual, at worst. In fact, in the past year alone, federal funding to police precincts across the country has actually increased through The Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) COPS Hiring Program (CHP).

The process of enacting police reform is as important as the reform itself. And, the history of the institution of policing must be taken into account in order to understand the context in which it exists today and how we might explore methods to create a better system and culture moving forward.

THE HISTORY & EVOLUTION OF POLICING

Policing as we know it today in the U.S. was born in Europe as a result of the monarch’s need to control power, people, and resources. In War Making and State Making as Organized Crime by Charles Tilly in Peter Kivisto’s book Social theory: roots and branches, we learn that:

By the later eighteenth century, through most of Europe, monarchs controlled permanent, professional military forces that rivaled those of their neighbors and far exceeded any other organized armed force within their own territories. […] The elimination of local rivals, however, posed a serious problem. Beyond the scale of a small city-state, no monarch could govern a population with his armed force alone, nor could any monarch afford to create a professional staff large and strong enough to reach from him to the ordinary citizen.

Eventually, European governments reduced their reliance on indirect rule by means of two expensive but effective strategies: a) extending their officialdom to the local community and b) encouraging the creation of police forces that were subordinate to the government rather than to individual patrons, distinct from war-making forces, and therefore less useful as tools of dissident magnates (Kivisto, 2021)

In the mid-1800’s, the policing functions which had previously been performed by private police started to be performed by publicly supported police. These police had broad responsibilities: to maintain public order, to regulate economic activity, and to provide emergency services. A variety of developments between 1870 and 1970 resulted in a narrowing of the police role to that of professional crime fighter, with a focus on violent crime and serious property crime. This professionalization process freed police from the unmitigated control of federal government, but also meant that police now answered primarily to themselves, which enabled them to become selfinterested. This process transformed the police into a new type of authoritative political actor (Schrader, 2019).

Professionalization has reduced corruption, improved due process, and produced improvements in police training. This shift in focus and increased use of technology, however, has resulted in weakening police ties with communities. Police officers might have been able to respond more quickly and efficiently but it did not lead to an improvement in the ability to reduce or solve crimes (Moore & Kelling, 1983).

Community policing emerged slowly from the civil rights movement in the 1960s and a crisis in policecommunity relations which exposed the weaknesses of the traditional policing model. Community policing reflected a more general underlying trend in the decentralization of structure, management, and marketing practices of large organizations in this time period. In contrast to rigid bureaucracies and their dependence on standard rules and policies, decentralization created smaller, more flexible units to facilitate a speedier and more specialized response to the unique conditions of different organizational environments. Rather than emphasizing control through a strict organizational hierarchy, management layers were reduced, organizational resources were made more accessible, and both supervisors and their subordinates were encouraged to exercise autonomy and independence in the decision-making process (Willis et al., 2010).

Much like the servant leadership paradigm, community policing challenges police to look outward to build partnerships with the community and work together as co-producers of police services. Community policing also emphasizes preventative measures - proactive problem solving in a systematic and routine fashion. Rather than responding to crime only after it occurs, community policing encourages agencies to proactively develop solutions to the immediate underlying conditions contributing to public safety problems. Problem solving is infused into all police operations and guides decision-making efforts. According to the Department of Justice, agencies are encouraged to think innovatively about their responses and view making arrests as only one of a wide array of potential responses.

Police professional responsibility as an organizational practice and component of community policing also emerged during this time, challenging law enforcement leaders to look inward to understand the mind, body, and spirit of the organization and apply that knowledge to create transformative change that truly represents “reform” or “innovation.” Like the servantleadership theory, professional responsibility requires that leaders internalize leadership as a calling to serve others before self. While servantleadership has deep roots in philosophical and spiritual literature, the concept has been embraced by chief executive officers in the American business sector for years. Such leaders behave as ethical stewards of the power given to them. They use their position’s power to increase levels of trust and loyalty throughout the workplace and with the public.

Preddy (2021, January 20) offers five recommendations to help law enforcement leaders understand the mind, body, and spirit of their organizations and help move their agencies toward a professional responsibility focus:

1. Examine the culture of the organization

2. Teach and practice the SM2aRTUR policing concept

3. Supererogation of duty and obligation

4. Assess the emotional intelligence of the organization

5. Develop robust policies, standardization, and evaluation practices

While 1, 4 and 5 in the recommendations above are relatively straight forward in their description, teaching and practicing the SM2aRTUR policing concept and the supererogation of duty and obligation require further elaboration for the layman.

The SM2aRTUR acronym stands for selfmanagement and skills mastery that is applied with reliable tactics and unconditional respect. In terms of performance, whether the officer is performing a traffic stop, immersed in a critical encounter, or standing on the front line of a protest, police

leaders and the public expect officers to manage their emotions and demonstrate proficiency in the skills and tactics employed. They expect officers to use appropriate tactics that do not exceed their legal authority. Most important, they expect officers to treat everyone with unconditional respect.

Setting implicit and explicit biases aside, the expectation of leaders and the public is that officers treat others with empathy, restraint, and fairness regardless of any identified affiliation—to simply meet others where they are in the moments of their need or crisis. If officers are not performing their duties in alignment with these basic expectations, then the police leader must ask why and work to redirect officers toward meeting these expectations.

DUTY AND OBLIGATION

Duty and obligation must be distinguished and understood for there to be supererogation of police professional responsibility. While “duty” defines the tasks a police officer and/or police agency are required to perform, “obligation” encompasses a moral commitment to exercising those tasks. Obligation, is defined by the way these fundamental duties are performed. Supererogation seeks an action beyond that which is minimally accepted.

THE EVOLUTION FROM WARRIOR TO GUARDIAN

From the perspectives of social-identity theory and self-categorization theory, police officers form an attachment to the social construct of being a police officer, which has demonstrated effects to one’s self-esteem, perceptions, behavior, and cognitive processes. For decades, officers have been indoctrinated in a warrior mindset and taught various techniques to ensure their safety and survival. They have been symbolized by themselves and the public as the “thin blue line,” which connotes their role in maintaining separation between criminal elements and society. However, there has been a shift in recent years to transform this ethos into a less authoritarian one in the hope of redirecting the culture of policing (Preddy & Andrews, 2021, January 20).

In 2015, criminologists Sue Rahr and Stephen Rice wrote an article that questioned the appropriateness

of the “warrior” ethos and offered the “guardian” mindset as an alternative. They referred to the warrior mindset as a mental attitude characterized in terms of power and control, driven by a deep commitment to survival. Conversely, they described the guardian mindset as a service-first commitment to policing that emphasizes relationship building, information sharing, the effective use of soft skills, and procedural justice as essential practices for 21st century policing (Rahr & Rice, 2015, April). While noble in the distinction, the philosophies come into conflict when peaceful interactions become violent and officer safety and survival become a serious concern (Preddy & Andrews, 2021, January 20).

Across America, police officers have already become de facto social workers after deinstitutionalization policies closed many psychiatric hospitals, leaving some patients with nowhere to go — and the right to refuse treatment. Recently, the NYC mayor called mental illness the primary reason that crime in the subway has increased by almost 40 percent from last year. However, the Police Department has been slow to develop the skills to handle it.

In October, the NYC mayor and Gov. Kathy Hochul announced a broad plan calling for 1,200 additional overtime officer shifts each day on the subway, two new “transition to home” units for those with severe mental illness living on the street or in the subway, and two new dedicated 25-bed units at psychiatric centers. How will they be prepared for this behemoth task, you might ask? Through a multiday training workshop, which includes mental health clinicians and personal testimonials from civilians who suffer from various forms of illness, officers are taught how to calm crisis situations by developing a rapport and remaining courteous and empathetic.

WHAT IS REALISTIC?

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to answer the Goliath call for police reform or an easy process to transition the centuries long militaristic mindset of policing to one of peacebuilding. And multi-day workshop training for police officers is certainly not an adequate response.

Greenleaf believes that if the leader cares for his or her employees, only then will the team recognize him or her as a leader by giving not only obedience to the authority but, more importantly, the moral authority for which the team has faith in the leader. Today, much of the public, and especially minority populations, do not feel a sense that the police are there to care for the public. Likewise, many police officers or would-be police officers are feeling that the greater public does not see them in a positive light. Additionally, the challenge for the law enforcement leader is knowing how officers embody and demonstrate the mission and core values of the organization as they perform their daily tasks.

An assessment of this begins with knowing how officers and the community define duty and obligation within the context of policing and how they each define what is minimally acceptable performance to “service beyond the call of duty.” This is an important step because an agency cannot move toward supererogation of police professional responsibility without first knowing what is minimally accepted in terms of duty and obligation from both the officer and the greater community. Therefore, community involvement and officer engagement are critically important to the conversation and to the sustained movement by an organization to police professional responsibility as a practice (Preddy & Andrews, 2021, January 20).

Police leaders should also consider using EQ (Emotional Quotient or emotional intelligence) assessments as a function of monitoring staff for significant changes in their emotional health and well-being. As leaders continue to explore ways to address the health and wellness of their officers, they must become more proactive in identifying when a potential problem exists. If police agencies are to have a robust early warning system, they must have quality data with multiple points of reference to properly evaluate what is being triggered and why it is being triggered and to diagnose next steps for a “red flag” notification (Preddy & Andrews, 2021, January 20). Additionally, implementing a system where “green flags” are also brough to the

attention of leaders, as L.T.H. did, may also help us to identify where to focus our energy, funding, and attention.

A meta-analysis on link between EI and servant leadership found that (a) EI has a significant positive relationship with servant leadership (ρ̅ = .57); (b) the relationship between EI and servant leadership is stronger in studies having a lower percentage of well-educated subjects, in low power distance cultures, and in high institutional collectivism cultures (Miao, et al., 2021). Institutional collectivism is the degree to which organizational and societal institutions encourage individuals to be integrated into groups and organizations. For example, police officers identifying as part of the “Blue Lives” group demonstrates how group loyalty is encouraged, even if it undermines the pursuit of individual goals. How do we increase our perceptions of a group so that we can see that we are unified as a human race?

Outsourcing community services to only social workers is an equally untenable solution because then you really are distilling the role of the officer down to a militaristic one that allows them to only protect and no opportunity to serve. At the same time, putting police officers in the position where they are not only required but expected to lead social services, as we are seeing now in NY with the mental health crisis, is equally unfair without adequate training and support systems. A blended model and partnership between police officers and social workers and social service providers has the best bet at being successful. To make long term change, require emotional intelligence assessments in recruiting practices, prioritize regular social and emotional learning professional development for all officers, and integrate tenants of servant leadership within existing management structures that include positive reinforcement for officers that model effective servant leadership.

Recruitment is another area of opportunity. At a 2018 PERF gathering of police chiefs and commanders from across the country, many attributed declining numbers to a few factors: (1)

diminished perception of police following the 2014 shooting and unrest in Ferguson, Missouri; and (2) an increase in public and media scrutiny of police due to the proliferation of social media (Jackman, 2018). Changing recruiting patterns to emphasize the shift in applicants with a military background to that of one with degrees in sociology, community relations, and other humanities topics might also lead to long-term, positive change.

As L.T.H. noted, a sociology degree can be very useful and relevant degree for any career in the criminal justice field. For example, a sociology degree is especially helpful to a police officer in that it allows one to examine situations with knowledge of the structural issues that surround a society. An understanding on how socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and age intersect is incredibly important for understanding specific conflict situations. It is always important to understand the effects that stereotypes have in how people perceive a community problem. By understanding this and being trained to ask certain types of questions, a police officer may be able to get a more holistic and accurate depiction of a crime without as much bias or stereotyped influences.

CONCLUSION

Police officers face no easy task today with internal and external challenges that include a lack of standardization across precincts, inadequate or ineffective implementation of trainings, attrition,

and negative media coverage. A blended model and partnership between police officers and social workers and social service providers has the best bet at being successful. Emotional intelligence is required to make long term sustainable changes. Implementing EQ assessments in recruiting practices, prioritizing regular social and emotional learning professional development for all officers, and integrating tenants of servant leadership within existing management structures that includes positive reinforcement for officers that model effective servant leadership are possible ways forward. This combination of authentic leadership strategies, with an emphasis on servant leadership and community policing, could provide leaders with the realistic chance to create enduring transformational change.

QUESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH

Why doesn’t community policing work across all communities?

What are the challenges to implementing the servant leadership model in areas with high levels of violent crime and trauma impacted citizens?

What role can formerly incarcerated individuals play in fostering a servant leadership model in their communities?

What role does the negative portrayal of policing in the media play in servant leadership and community policing?

REFERENCES

Ashton, P., Petteruti, A., & Walsh, N. (2012). Rethinking the blues: How we police in the U.S. and at what cost. Justice Policy Institute. https://justicepolicy.org/wp-content/ uploads/2022/02/rethinkingtheblues_final.pdf

Jackman, T. (2018, December 4). Who wants to be a police officer? Job applications plummet at most US departments. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/crimelaw/2018/12/04/who-wants-be-policeofficer-job-applications-plummet-most-usdepartments/

Jackson, S. O., & Lee, P. C. (2019). Servant leadership in times of crisis: Southeastern Virginia police chiefs respond. SAM Advanced Management Journal. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/ Servant+Leadership+in+Times+of+ Crisis%3A+Southeastern+Virginia+ Police...-a0614078807

Joseph, E. & Winston, B. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 6-22. https://doi. org/10.1108/01437730510575552

Kivisto, P. (2021). Social theory: roots and branches (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161-177. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006

Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2021). Emotional intelligence and servant leadership: a meta-analytic review. Business Ethics, 30(2), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12332

Moore, M., & Kelling, G. L. (1983). To serve & protect: Learning from police history. In N. Glazer (Ed.), The public interest. ABT Books. https://tinyurl.com/ y7zs54sc

Preddy, E., & Andrews, P. (2021, January 20). Police professional responsibility as an organizational practice. Police Chief Magazine. https://www.policechiefmagazine. org/police-professional-responsibility-as-anorganizational-practice/

Rahr, S., & Rice, S. K. (2015, April). From warriors to guardians: Recommitting American police culture to democratic ideals. New Perspectives in Policing. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ nij/248654.pdf

Rummler, O. (2020, September 30). The major police reforms enacted since George Floyd's death. Axios. https://www. axios.com/2020/06/10/police-reform-georgefloyd-protest

Schrader, S. (2019).

To protect and serve themselves: Police in US politics since the 1960s. Public Culture, 31(3), 601–623. https://doi.org/10.1215/089923637532667

Willis, J. J., Mastrofski, S. D., & Kochel, T. R. (2010). The co-implementation of compstat and community policing. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 969– 980. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.06.014

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Tara DeWorsop is a Ph.D. student in the MultiSector Communications program at St. John’s University. During the day, she is also the Managing Director of External Relations at Youth Communication, an organization that has spent the past 42 years amplifying youth voice through a yearround, teen writing and publishing program and in their social and emotional learning curricula and culturally responsive professional development for

youth-serving adults. She has 14 years of experience working in development and communications with international and local organizations. Her work has taken her across the U.S. and around the globe to countries like Japan, Thailand, China, Australia, India, and South Africa. She received her MBA from NYU Stern with a specialization in Social Impact,

Entrepreneurship, and Innovation and holds a BA in Cultural Anthropology. She serves as a member of the board of directors for two international nonprofits: Warm Heart Worldwide and St. Andrew’s Charities. She is a passionate advocate for continuous learning and finds joy in connecting people to meaningful experiences and causes.

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Volume 7 Issue 1

May 2023

Article 13

Servant Leadership: A Powerful Paradigm for Effective Leadership

Servant Leadership: A Powerful Paradigm Effective Leadership in Africa in Africa

Franklin Ezeorah ezeorahfrank@yahoo.com

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Business Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Law Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Ezeorah, Franklin (2023) "Servant Leadership: A Powerful Paradigm for Effective Leadership in Africa,"

JournalofVincentianSocialAction: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 13.

Available at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa/vol7/iss1/13

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Vincentian Social Action by an authorized editor of St. John's Scholar. For more information, please contact JoVSA@stjohns.edu

SERVANT LEADERSHIP: A POWERFUL PARADIGM FOR EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP IN AFRICA

Franklin Ezeorah

ABSTRACT

Lack of good leadership is the greatest undoing of African progress. Unfortunately, good leadership for Africans is not just mirroring the western leadership system but adapting to a style of leadership that is attractive to African people’s way of life and effective for African people’s development and wellbeing. Because leadership is a crucial determining factor for the success of all economic, political, and organizational structures, determining an essential leadership style for a nation-state largely depends on how suitable the style can fit into the complex challenges facing such a nation-state. Considering the viability and profitability of the servant leadership style in Africa due to its suitability to the African worldview, this paper examines why the leadership style is preferred in the African context. Toulmin Argumentation Model (TAM) is employed to explain how the servant leadership style is adjudged the best to generate credible leaders that will move Africa forward in terms of catching up with other great economically and politically viable powers.

INTRODUCTION

Africa has embattled many problems, but the lack of good leadership is the greatest undoing of African progress. A dominant figure in modern African literature and a renowned Nigerian poet, novelist, and political critic, Chinua Achebe, unequivocally asserts that “…the trouble with Nigeria (and arguably Africa) is simply and squarely a failure of leadership” (Achebe, 1984). Leadership is a crucial determining factor for the success of all economic, political, and organizational structures (Qi et al., 2013). Determining an essential leadership style for a corporate system or a nation-state largely depends on how suitable the style can fit into the complex challenges facing such an organization or nation-state. In the case of Africa, such challenges include linguistic, religious, cultural, and socioeconomic complexities and diversities. This paper assesses the viability and profitability of the servant leadership style in Africa. An effort is made to lean into the predominant African worldview to examine to what extent African culture and context lend themselves to the servant leadership archetype.

CLARIFICATION OF THE KEY CONCEPT

The phrase “servant leadership” was coined by Robert K. Greenleaf in his 1970 essay entitled “The Servant Leadership” (Polansky, 2017). Most attempts at the definition of servant leadership from multiple scholars always boil down to the descriptions of what, why, and how servant leaders behave toward their followers. This emphasis on servant leaders' behavior has resulted in many authors weighing in on the topic of servant leadership, with each formulating their perspectives. Mackenzie (2003) highlights the danger of formulating a meaningful theoretical framework on a shaky philosophical framework. That notwithstanding, many critical scholars have tried to sharpen the understanding of the concept of servant leadership. Although there is no comprehensive definition of servant leadership, even from Greenleaf, the phrase has been used to depict leaders who are "servant first" and try to focus on the needs of the people they serve (O’Brien, 2010). This "servant first" attribute of the servant leader is a meaningful aspect of the conceptualization of servant leadership that has motivated scholars

Servant Leadership: A Powerful Paradigm for Effective Leadership in Africa

to research the topic. Eva et al. (2019) paint a comprehensive picture of "servant leadership" in their systematic review as "an other-oriented approach to leadership manifested through oneon-one prioritizing of follower individual needs and interests, and outward reorienting of their concern for self toward concern for others within the organization and the larger community." The notion of "servant first" is in contradistinction with "leader first," which designates leaders motivated by the need to assuage their power ambition or to facilitate their selfish greed. Unlike a "leader first" pattern of leadership, a servant leader functions as a team player in his/her leadership circle—listening and acknowledging the perspectives of his/her team and working to accomplish the collective goals/ aspirations of the team members (O’Brien, 2010; Polansky, 2017). In other words, servant leadership highlights the importance of community, acknowledging team members as collaborators and/or stakeholders rather than seeing them as people subject to a chain of command. One massive advantage of servant leadership is its potential to increase innovation. People with a servant leadership mentality are more amenable to facilitating rather than leading, empowering, or delegating instead of lording over others and collaborating rather than denying others the opportunity to make contributions (O’Brien, 2010).

In hierarchical, autocratic cultures and societies that follow the traditional pyramid leadership style—a top-down approach to leadership—servant leaders may find it challenging to earn respect. In such hierarchical, autocratic cultures, people are already used to leaders that generally accumulate and exercise power from the "top of the pyramid" and may find it challenging to adapt to the style of servant leaders who engage people from the "bottom of the pyramid" (Gupta, 2013; Marshall, 2022).

From the foregoing, the goal of servant leaders is to serve their communities, and this commitment to service is demonstrated in the areas of access, communication, and support. Servant leaders should reflect the needs of the communities/ organizations they serve by making themselves accessible to those communities/organizations. Servant leadership carries a great attribute exemplified in the interactions between the leaders and the led, geared toward forging a better life and security for all. Providing leadership should not be restricted to dishing-out information through technology or social media; however, it should be concretized in human moments and interactions between leaders and followers (Li, 2010). At any rate, followers deserve access to their leaders who recognize their collective needs and help realize their communal purpose (Minelgaite et al., 2018). Similarly, another attribute that makes servant leaders effective is recognizing the importance of communication. It has been suggested that communication has the potential to reinforce a sense of "cooperative helpfulness and mutual support" (Manning & Curtis, 2004). Again, followers need to be sufficiently supported by their leaders to perform their utmost best. Servant leaders realize they have more chances of success by "fostering the achievement of their followers' goals, needs, and aspirations" and supporting them with concrete gestures. Servant leadership follows the biblical recommendation of Jesus to his apostles during the Last Supper when he washed their feet and asked them to serve others as their leaders (cf. Matthew 26:14-39).

SERVANT LEADERSHIP AS A PHILOSOPHY OF LIVING

The impression of the proponents of servant leadership is an emphasis on the servant leader’s way of life as opposed to a traditional leadership philosophy. In other words, servant leadership is more of “a way of being, a philosophy of living and

“…servant leadership highlights the importance of community, acknowledging team members as collaborators and/or stakeholders rather than seeing them as people subject to a chain of command.”

influencing” and does not follow a set of techniques or activities (Wheeler, 2012). Because it is a nontraditional leadership philosophy, servant leadership finds expression in a group of behaviors and practices that primarily emphasize the well-being of those being served. Besides, servant leadership is described as a philosophy of life specifically because servant leaders are driven by the teleological impetus to assist or help others (Pressentin, 2022).

Against this backdrop, servant leadership is an integral part of traditional African leadership. Scholars increasingly believe that servant leadership conforms to the principles of African ubuntu philosophy—the belief in the universal bond of sharing and connectedness among humanity (Alan et al., 2020). It is important to note that the ubuntu way of life, practiced in some parts of Africa, like among the Zulu kingdom in South Africa, is not the only African culture that shares the principles that align with servant leadership. For example, the Igbo tribe of Nigeria shares a leadership structure called "oha ana eze," literally denoting the dynamic relationship between "the community, the people, and the king." The terminology oha na eze captures the essence of governance in Igboland since the leader (eze) is simply a delegated messenger, chosen by the people (oha) to do their bidding, employing the leader's talents and skills (Olayode, 2010). In Igbo traditional and political settings, the dynamics of oha ana eze is an interesting concept, which, just like ubuntu, encapsulates the significant characteristics of servant leadership. Within this framework, the actual power resides with the people, especially when they gather as a community. To this extent, oha na eze is suggestive of "leadership directed by the people" (Olayode, 2010).

The servant leadership character of the Igbo political system is located majorly at the administrative level of government, where the decision-making authority resides in the general assembly with everyone participating—a system that is characterized as ohacracy (oha ana eze), suggesting a democratic brand of government, known as "government by the people" (Achebe, 1994). President Abraham Lincoln’s definition of democracy as “government

of the people, for the people, and by the people” has largely shaped the societal understanding of democracy, which in many ways conforms to its original derivation from the Greek words demos meaning “people” and kratia meaning “rule or government (Malloy & Boulter, 2019). That notwithstanding, the same principles that guide the oha na eze are technically the principles guiding ubuntu philosophy, including "the principles of freedom, equality, justice, free enterprise, and struggle to preserve the Igbo corporate existence" (Aliye, 2020; Olayode, 2010). However, while oha na eze retains the permanent features of ubuntu, it does not go by the designation ubuntu.

Accounting for the historical development of Igbo society, famous historians and anthropologists, including Meek (1937), Green (1947), Uchendu (1965), and Isichei (1976), have described Igbo society as “acephalous,” “stateless,” or “segmentary” (Ibenekwu, 2010). These characterizations are predicated on the egalitarian lifestyle of the pre-colonial Igbo society. Suffice it to say that the pre-colonial political administration in Igboland had a different picture than what is seen in the area today. Although there are residues of the structural setup all over Igboland, they no longer carry the weight or command the kind of respect they wielded before the coming of the colonial masters. Consequently, it could be argued that precolonial flourishing African societies were built on a traditional African leadership pattern resembling the servant leadership style. Unfortunately, this traditional African leadership style has been significantly degraded, if not eliminated, in favor of the western style of government as suggested by the Igbo concept of leadership traditionally underscored above as oha na eze

Experts on implicit leadership theories suggest that human knowledge is contextually driven, and cultures have expectations of the kind of behaviors they want in their leaders to judge them as influential leaders (Altman et al., 2005; Cheng, 2005). The people's beliefs in the expected behaviors of leaders are consistent with "super-ordinate leadership prototypes, which are highly influenced by societal-level culture" (Roccas et al., 2017).

These beliefs appear to conform with the cognitive categorization theory that people's inundation of information and experience leads to the slow development of cognitive structures that help people process data efficiently (Fitzpatrick, 2019). These mental structures (or schema) are significantly impacted by culture such that the general notions of good and evil in governmental contexts may be persuasively different across cultures (Fitzpatrick, 2019; Thomas & Peterson, 2016). By extension, cultural perceptions of appropriate leaders' behaviors are probably determined by their effective leadership in that culture.

Considering that servant leadership is primarily democratic, the centrality of leadership in some societies offers unprecedented popularity to the concept of democracy. However, answering the name "democracy" does not qualify a government as democratic; instead, what gives democracy its proper status is how the values and norms govern the society it lives by. While not professing ignorance that democracy may not be an ideal system of government, it seems better than its alternatives in some cultural contexts. This view may have motivated a political scientist, Ibenekwu (2010), to argue that the societal structure inherently carries unique challenges that require unique solutions. The problem with modern liberal democracy is its tendency to adopt a "one size fits all" approach in seeking solutions to problems facing every society, forgetting that some nationalities or states are uniquely positioned in structure for different methods. To this extent, before the colonial era, what is now called Nigeria was made up of fragmented ethnic nationalities, each with its own peculiar systems of government or institutions of governance to suit the peculiarities of the ethnic groups involved (Ibenekwu, 2010). However, the western system of governance adopted by the post-colonial Nigerian state could not totally and uniquely address the challenges faced by some aspects of the region, given their geographical and cultural positions as well as their conflict with Igbo traditional leadership and socio-economic realities (Ibenekwu, 2010).

Religiously speaking, most African countries can be partitioned into three significant religious practices: traditional/indigenous, Christian, and Islamic. The Christian and Islamic religions were the results of foreign influences. However, it is safe to assume that most African countries embraced both religions because of their servant leadership features. Even after the intrusion of foreign influence with the superimposition of western civilizations on Africa, the continent still retained the substructure suited for servant leadership. It is essential to note that superimposing foreign cultures and religions on Africa resulted in a less-functional mismatch in terms of development and progress.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This study employed Toulmin Argumentation Model (TAM), developed by philosopher Stephen E. Toulmin, as an argumentative style that breaks argument down into six parts: claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal, and backing (Aziz & Ahmad, 2017). In line with the Toulmin model, the servant leadership style is adjudged the best to generate credible leaders that will move Africa forward in terms of catching up with other great economically viable powers. Many exploratory and experimental studies have ascertained how suitable servant leadership would be in Africa. Amah (2018) insists that the justification for the servant leadership paradigm is because of the glaring inefficiency of command-and-control styles—prevalent in most African nations as the legacy of foreign influence—and the remarkable national progress registered when servant leaders were in governance. For instance, within the culture that gave birth to ubuntu philosophy emerged an influential leader, Nelson Mandela, who became globally hailed as a quintessential servant leader due to his transformational leadership after the apartheid (Alan et al., 2020). According to Özerdem et al. (2021), Mandela’s exemplary leadership brought about stability and healing of the wounds of apartheid. His leadership style was largely successful due to his adoption of a coalition government that upheld political participation and inclusion—a hallmark of servant leadership—to achieve national

unity. Similarly, President Kagame adopted a servant leadership style in the rebuilding process of post-genocidal Rwanda, insisting on a servant-first that uplifted his people from the hopelessness of the devastation of war to a vibrant futuristic economy in Rwanda (Biedermann, 2016).

Considering the successes registered in the few African countries that have tried the servant leadership style, it is safe to conclude that servant leadership is a blueprint for African nations and constitutes hope for progress. Biedermann (2016), while commenting on the progress made in Rwanda, remarked that the country possessed many attributes that made “transformative leadership with a developmental vision” the ideal leadership structure for improvement. When leadership aligns with a people’s cultural practices, it makes it conducive to mobilizing people to become part of the leadership, thereby forging their progress.

In other words, transformational leadership appears to be more effective than transactional leadership in Africa. Without fully understanding the ramifications of servant leadership's success in Africa, additional research needs to be conducted to study why Mandela and Kagame succeeded in their respective African countries, considering that many leaders before them—applying commandand-control leadership style—could not make any positive mark in leadership. Some may argue that more than just a few cases of success is needed to guarantee the overall success of servant leadership in Africa in the long run. Moreover, some scholars fear that all team members might not fully accept the servant leader's commitment to building community among them (Mutia & Muthamia, 2016). This refusal to accept a servant leader may arise because of some team members' different perceptions of leadership and specific expectations from the leader(s) at the helm of affairs (Mutia & Muthamia, 2016). However, because servant leadership is specifically for serving the people, the African continent has nothing to lose for trying it out.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATION

The foregoing discussion on servant leadership implies that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to

leadership, especially considering the diversity in culture and worldview. Most Western civilizations tend to present their leadership as a paradigm for other nations. In the Middle East, the attempt to present one culture as the standard for all other cultures is a phenomenon characterized by some scholars as "westoxification"—the impression that western culture pollutes essential ideas of the Middle East/their religion (Beck, 2018; Deylami, 2011). Alternatively, some have characterized the same phenomenon as globalization—the idea that the world's cultures, economies, and populations are interdependent but are pushed primarily by western nations and project western cultures as the ideal (Beck, 2018; Deylami, 2011). However, the fact remains that no evidence supports traditional leadership styles as suited for all cultures. What is, in fact, evident from experiences from various cultures is the failure of the traditional leadership model in most non-Western cultures. The most decisive proof of its failure could be seen in African countries, which were getting by in the largely peaceful communal and family-oriented form of leadership before Western colonialism, as underscored above.

Unlike the traditional leadership model that is inherently power-conscious and patriarchal (mostly favoring men and the powerful and subjugating women and the poor), servant leadership is more service-oriented and deemphasized authority. The authority of the servant leader derives precisely from the leader's exemplary life and the ability to persuade the followers to tag along with set goals and objectives. The failure of traditional leadership in an egalitarian culture like Africa is the tendency of leaders to make unilateral decisions without consideration of the superior knowledge of some of their subordinates. This attempt to make decisions devoid of contributions from followers makes traditional leaders amenable to insensitivity to others' plight as well as unavailability for dialogue and consultations and leaves them with a feeling of entitlement to unique treatments. The servant leadership model finds its efficacy in considering the people's culture as the base of leadership.

This consideration helps servant leaders be more accountable team players, empower others, and

Servant Leadership: A Powerful Paradigm for Effective Leadership in Africa

adopt an open-minded approach to leadership.

From the preceding, it could be argued that African culture, like the Igbo culture of Nigeria, is best suited for servant leadership to yield effective results in development and progress. Africans need to rediscover servant leadership and rebrand it as an authentically African style of government. That way, they will leave a lasting impression on the community they serve and become more impactful on the global stage. Because most African countries share certain structural foundations that lend themselves to servant leadership—including traditional religion, cultures, ethics, and morality—a leadership style neglectful of or culturally insensitive to or ethically/morally inadequate for its sociocultural and religious values may not yield the best results in Africa. According to Mligo (2013), most traditional African religions have similar attributes that characterize God as a supreme being but go by different names like Nguluvi, Kazoba, and Mulungu, arising from experiences of God's providence in various tribes. For instance, while the Ashanti people of Ghana believe that God created all things in an orderly fashion, the Zulu people of South Africa believe in the ongoing creation of God (Mligo, 2013).

Similarly, Agbiji & Agbiji (2020) believe that despite myriads of cultures, sub-Saharan Africa constitutes a specific cultural context, pointing to such commonalities as morality and other cultural signifiers as the common denominators defining African shared identity. This belief also finds expression in John Mbiti’s perception of religion as permeating every aspect of life, including African political and socio-economic life, to the extent that it cannot be glossed over in any meaningful conversation about leadership (Udok, 2020). Apart from sharing these good sides of culture, African countries share a “high level of poverty, unaccountable leadership, and corruption in the private and public life of persons and in public institutions” (Agbiji & Agbiji, 2020). Building concrete leadership in an African context depends on how the leadership style aligns with African cosmology or worldview in a way that answers their

current concerns. Interestingly, servant leadership appears to be the right fit for such a religious worldview, given its ethical emphasis on essential virtues that Africans hold dear.

Finally, servant leadership has a powerful implication for communication because effective communication develops when leaders understand the people they are in conversation with. Servant leaders do this well by understanding their team members based on their motivations, cultures, ideologies, and interests. As a result, servant leaders work with people to get them to function and be creative based on their cultural dispositions, which is why servant leadership is an outstanding leadership style for the African culture. The effectiveness of servant leadership in Africa derives from the ability of servant leaders to create personal connections with team members and followers, facilitating empathy, which is a hallmark of trust building. It is the trust that exists between servant leaders and their followers that enables effective communication.

CONCLUSION

Servant leadership is a powerful paradigm for effective leadership in Africa. In light of evidence from scanty literature on servant leadership in Africa, it is essential to project servant leadership as an experimental panacea for the African sociopolitical quagmire and its financial and developmental paralysis. With the backwardness of most African societies today, effective leadership becomes a prerequisite for any meaningful headway politically, economically, socially, and developmentally. According to Kyei-Poakwa (2021), the African continent primarily suffers from leadership that ranges from simply unproductive to completely dishonest and damaging to African development. Given the African cultural and religious climate, any leadership style that does not respect people’s freedom nor care for people’s interests and well-being is less likely to succeed in Africa. Having seen the tremendous successes recorded by a few African leaders who adopted the servant leadership style, it is essential to suggest that Africa must assess the entire leadership culture. This paper is not about the gradation of leadership styles

but about which is best suited for African cultural and geographic contexts. From the African cultures examined in this piece, it is evident that African culture does not support transactional leadership

REFERENCES

Achebe, C. (1984). The trouble with Nigeria. Heinemann.

Achebe, C. (1994). Things fall apart. 1958. Anchor.

Agbiji, O., & Agbiji, E. O. (2020). The role of religious practitioners in sustaining social morality. In The Palgrave Handbook of African social ethics (pp. 501–523). Springer.

Alan, Y., Arrais, J., Çelik, G., Chan, K. W., Crippen, C., Hean, L. L., Horsethief, C., Koshal, J. O., Leider, R., & Lim, P. (2020). Global servant-leadership: Wisdom, love, and legitimate power in the age of chaos. Lexington Books.

Aliye, A. A. (2020). African indigenous leadership philosophy and democratic governance system: Gada’s intersectionality with Ubuntu. Journal of Black Studies, 51(7), 727–759. https://doi. org/10.1177/0021934720938053

Altman, Y., Simpson, R., Baruch, Y., & Burke, R. J. (2005). Reframing the ‘glass ceiling’debate. In Supporting Women’s Career Advancement: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 58–81). https://www.elgaronline.com/ display/9781843766339.00010.xml

Amah, O. E. (2018). Globalisation and leadership in Africa: Developments and challenges for the future. Springer.

Aziz, F. I. A., & Ahmad, U. K. (2017). Persuasive writing: How students argue. Sains Humanika, 9(4–2). https://doi.org/10.11113/ sh.v9n4-2.1356

but leadership by example. Servant leadership, therefore, becomes a model of leadership that should be adopted across the African continent for the hope of progress and collective well-being.

Beck, U. (2018). What is globalization? John Wiley & Sons.

Biedermann, Z. (2016). The case of Rwanda as a developmental state. In Entrepreneurship and SME management across Africa (pp. 139–157). Springer.

Cheng, Y. C. (2005). New paradigm for re-engineering education: Globalization, localization and individualization (Vol. 6). Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3620-5

Deylami, S. S. (2011). In the face of the machine: Westoxification, cultural globalization, and the making of an alternative global modernity. Polity, 43(2), 242-263. DOI:10.1057/pol.2010.27

Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., Van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The leadership quarterly, 30(1), 111-132. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004

Fitzpatrick, F. (2019). Understanding intercultural interaction: An analysis of key concepts. Emerald Group Publishing.

Green, M. M. (1947). Ibo village affairs: Chiefly with reference to the village of Umueke Agbaja. Sidgwick & Jackson Ltd.

Gupta, S. (2013). Serving the “Bottom of Pyramid”–A servant leadership perspective. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 10(3), 98–106.

Servant Leadership: A Powerful Paradigm for Effective Leadership in Africa

Ibenekwu, I. E. (2010).

Igbo traditional political system and the crisis of governance in Nigeria. Ikoro: Journal of the Institute of African Studies, 9(1-2).

Isichei, E. (1976). A history of the lgbo people. Macmillan Press Ltd.

Kyei-Poakwa, D. (2021).

Restoring the traditional quality of African leadership: Perspectives from the diaspora (Doctoral dissertation, Antioch University). https://aura.antioch.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1725&context=etds

Li, C. (2010). Open leadership: How social technology can transform the way you lead. John Wiley & Sons.

Mackenzie, S. B. (2003). The danger of poor construct conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31, 323–326.

Malloy, T. H., & Boulter, C. (2019). Minority Issues in Europe: New Ideas and Approaches: Volume 2 (Vol. 2). Frank & Timme GmbH.

Manning, G., & Curtis, K. (2004). The art of leadership. The TQM Magazine, 16(3), 225–226.

Marshall, R. C. (2022). Leadership models, processes, and practices. In Clinical Informatics Study Guide: Text and Review (pp. 263–283). Springer.

Meek, C. K. (1937). Law and authority in a Nigerian tribe: A study of indirect rule. Oxford University Press.

Minelgaite, I., Guðmundsdóttir, S., Guðmundsdóttir, Á. E., & Stangej, O. (2018). Demystifying leadership in Iceland: An inquiry into cultural, societal, and entrepreneurial uniqueness. Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96044-9

Mligo, E. S. (2013). Elements of African traditional religion: A textbook for students of comparative religion. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

Mutia, P. M., & Muthamia, S. (2016). The dichotomy of servant leadership and its practicality on the African continent. International Journal for Innovation, Education and Research, 4(5), 130-145. https://doi.org/10.31686/ijier.vol4.iss5.545

O’Brien, M. E. (2010). Servant leadership in nursing: Spirituality and practice in contemporary health care. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Olayode, K. (2010). Self-determination, ethno-nationalism and conflicts in Nigeria. Department of International Relations, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife. https://www.academia. edu/24024212/Kehinde_OLAYODE_Self_ Determination_Ethno_Nationalism_and_ Conflicts_in_Nigeria

Özerdem, A., Açıkmeşe, S. A., & Liebenberg, I. (2021). Routledge handbook of conflict response and leadership in Africa. Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780429318603

Polansky, B. (2017). The complete dentist: Positive leadership and communication skills for success. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781119250838

Pressentin, M. (2022).

Genuine Servant Leadership (GSL) impacting employee motivation and work intentions: A special focus on Asian high power distance and vertical collectivist organizations. In Key factors and use cases of servant leadership driving organizational performance (pp. 54–88). IGI Global.

Qi, E., Shen, J., & Dou, R. (2013). The 19th international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-642-38433-2

Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., & Navon, M. (2017). Values and behavior. In Taking a Cross-Cultural Perspective. Springer.

Thomas, D. C., & Peterson, M. F. (2016). Cross-cultural management: Essential concepts. Sage Publications.

Uchendu, V.C. (1965). The lgbo of southeast Nigeria. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Udok, M. B. (2020). Culture: evaluation of concepts and definitions in relation to conflict and peacebuilding. In Handbook of research on the impact of culture in conflict prevention and peacebuilding (pp. 45–63). IGI Global.

Wheeler, D. W. (2012). Servant leadership for higher education: Principles and practices. John Wiley & Sons.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Franklin Ezeorah is a doctoral student of MultiSector Communications at St. John’s University. He has a considerable background in philosophy, religion, clinical psychology, and communication and studied in Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. As an activist and a psychologist who advocates for better governance, freedom, mental health, and well-being in Africa and around the world, Franklin has contributed numerous articles in this regard. He lives in BedfordStuyvesant, Brooklyn, New York, and enjoys reading and writing.

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Journal of Vincentian Social Action

Volume 7 Issue 1

May 2023

College Professors as Servant Leaders: Promoting Student College Professors as Servant Promoting Dignity in the Classroom Dignity in the

Garfield R. Benjamin benjamig@stjohns.edu

Article 14

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa

Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, Business Commons, Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Curriculum and Social Inquiry Commons, Disability and Equity in Education Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Law Commons, Life Sciences Commons, Medicine and Health Sciences Commons, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Commons, and the Urban Studies and Planning Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Benjamin, Garfield R. (2023) "College Professors as Servant Leaders: Promoting Student Dignity in the Classroom," JournalofVincentianSocialAction: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 14. Available at: https://scholar.stjohns.edu/jovsa/vol7/iss1/14

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Vincentian Social Action by an authorized editor of St. John's Scholar. For more information, please contact JoVSA@stjohns.edu

COLLEGE PROFESSORS AS SERVANT LEADERS: PROMOTING STUDENT DIGNITY IN THE CLASSROOM

Garfield R. Benjamin

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic brought great disparities to society as a whole. In the education sector, teachers were forced to deliver content while exploring new ways to do so through new or unfamiliar technologies, working in various modalities, while keeping students engaged. This change called for instructors to be flexible, be aware, have empathy, have foresight, build community, communicate, and care for students in this new, mostly virtual, environment. This research explores the idea of college educators as servant leaders by examining definitions of servant leadership, exploring how a servant leader empowers those they lead in times of crisis, examining implications for the classroom, and finally proposing a framework for the concept of the Professor as a servant leader, while considering what that might mean for students.

INTRODUCTION

The role of teachers in the U.S. educational system is one that is often discussed and critiqued, especially considering the everchanging landscape of the system and the content being taught in U.S. classrooms. Currently, we are at the onset of another critical shift in the landscape of this system as we reevaluate and rebuild our idea of ‘normal’, moving out of the COVID-19 pandemic. Responding to the societal changes brought on by COVID-19, teachers explored new ways to deliver the content to students, learned to use technology in a myriad of new ways, and worked in various modalities, all while keeping students engaged. Educators did this while balancing the personal issues they, themselves, faced.

The change in the classroom environment called for teachers to communicate, be flexible, be aware, have empathy, have foresight, build community, and care for students in this new and mostly virtual environment. These are all characteristics that are commonly associated with servant-leaders. In redefining normal as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic and considering what we have learned from the time of crisis, it is important that we examine specific traits that proved most effective. The traits that emerged with the shift in learning during the pandemic indicate that as the concept

of the classroom is redefined, there is a need for teachers to act as servant-leaders.

This paper explores the idea of college professors as servant-leaders. Through examining definitions of servant-leadership and exploring how servantleaders empower those they lead in times of crisis, this paper offers implications for servant leadership in the classroom, and proposes a framework that considers what professors as servant-leaders might mean to their students.

DEFINING SERVANT LEADERSHIP

The term servant-leadership was introduced in the 1970s by Robert Greenleaf in his essay The Servant as Leader (Greenleaf, 1970). The servantleader is “servant first.” They are motivated by serving others, and after deciding to serve, they then consciously and intentionally lead. The servant-leader and leader first models are the two extremes on a spectrum of leadership styles. What differentiates the servant-leader from the leader first is “the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served” (Greenleaf, 1970).

Servant leadership is, according to Page and Wong (2000), “…multi-dimensional, rich in hues and wide-ranging in its meanings” (p. 2). This is because the inspiration behind Greenleaf’s theory

College Professors as Servant Leaders: Promoting Student Dignity in the Classroom

hails across genres and disciplines. This is visible in today’s literature on servant-first leading, which borrows from religious terminology including God, soul, and spirit and psychological terminology including personal growth, self-awareness, and identity. All of these words are “…mixed with management "buzzwords" such as flat organization and shared vision” (Page & Wong, 2000, p. 2).

So, a servant-leader embodies the mix of these ideas and ultimately seeks to do so while maintaining the dignity of the people they lead. Empowerment, team building, self-worth, and shared vision all point to the central idea of people maintaining their sense of dignity. In their leadership style, servant-leaders act in ways where those that they lead feel comfortable in their spaces and feel a sense that their personal growth or wellbeing is considered when decisions are made. These traits are particularly important when servant-leaders are navigating times of crisis.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN CRISIS SITUATIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic was a catalyst for global disruption, exacerbating many people’s daily lives. People lost loved ones, suffered from serious illnesses, struggled with access to basic needs and resources, and many were forced into isolation with little connection to family and friends. The pandemic strained society globally, causing an increase in mental health issues including anxiety and depression. The COVID-19 pandemic brought to the forefront many social inequity issues, forcing important conversations around the dialectics of race, wealth, and access to quality education. The COVID-19 pandemic has expedited moving the world into a time of crisis.

which certainly describes the COVID-19 pandemic. However, crisis is also understood, medically, as “a moment during a serious illness when there is a possibility of suddenly getting either better or worse” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2023). The root of the word is Greek, krisis, meaning “decision,” from the word, krinein, meaning “to decide.” This understanding assigns to the word a connotation that necessitates a leader to make critical decisions. Upon further examination, the Chinese word for crisis is weiji, with wei, translating to “danger,” and ji, translating to “opportunity.” This understanding implies a similar notion, one where opportunity emerges from danger, difficulty, or trouble.

“The COVID-19 pandemic brought to the forefront many social inequity issues, forcing important conversations around the dialectics of race, wealth, and access to quality education.”

An examination of the etymology of the word crisis provides context around an alternative understanding of the word. Crisis is defined as a “great time of disagreement, confusion, or suffering” or “an extremely difficult or dangerous point in a situation” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2023)

Throughout the pandemic, leadership at all levels of society was challenged. Governmental leadership faced the need for decisions that took immediate and critical measures to ensure the safety of citizens. Leaders in business needed to act by shutting down operations for anything nonessential and seeking ways for people to work from their homes. Medical professionals faced the biggest challenge in finding ways to manage an extreme influx of patients and finding ways to save as many lives as possible. Schools were faced with finding ways to continue teaching their students. In each case, the leaders that emerged and proved most effective navigated these urgent shifts as servant-leaders. The leaders that met the demands focused on the people and communities involved and on the opportunities that emerged from the crisis. It was their “… fundamental commitment to serving others with integrity and humility…” (Page & Wong, 2000, p. 3) which enabled them to emerge as strong leaders during one of the most tumultuous periods in global society since the second World War in 1945.

Good leadership during times of crisis is a good indicator of good leadership during normal times. Taking time to respond and make decisions while showing care and consideration for those being led

during some of the most difficult times indicates that the leader is likely to be considerate of the person and their personal growth when making decisions during normal times. It is inevitably the leader’s attitude towards their responsibilities that contributes most to the ways in which they are committed to developing those they lead. Page and Wong suggest that rather than being a model for weak leaders, servant leadership responds to responsibilities as other leadership styles do. They argue that:

Servant-leadership is an attitude toward the responsibility of leadership as much as it is a style of leadership [and it} must not be seen as a model for weak leaders or ‘losers.’ When the going gets tough or when difficult decisions have to be made, as is inevitable in all leadership situations, the servant leader must be just as tough-minded and resilient as other kinds of leaders. (Page & Wong, 2000, p.3).

Pointing back to the ten attributes, a servant-leader communicates, empathizes, is aware, has foresight, builds community, and is committed to growth whether or not they are faced with navigating a difficult period.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR COLLEGE PROFESSORS?

Like leaders in organizations across other sectors, college professors were in many ways the first line leaders for students, navigating the many changes that came about during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thinking back to my experience as an instructor while New York City began the shutdowns in March 2020, I can remember a series of perplexing questions where students were wondering what was happening, how we would be meeting, if the semester would continue, what would happen to their campus housing, and so forth. College professors represent some of the campus’ most important leaders because they not only serve as leaders in their lectures or discussions, but they also help with building future leaders of the world. In many ways, students learn from, take note of, and emulate the ways that college professors model leadership in the classroom.

Traditionally, we see the styles of classroom instructors defined in terms of the learning dynamic they create. We hear of the authoritarian style that strictly lectures on the subject in a lengthy onesided discussion. Students, then, must try keeping up while taking notes and rely on their ability to memorize the information as it is delivered to them. Then, there is the demonstrative style that retains authority in the classroom but instead of relying on a verbal lecture, they combine the lecture with multimedia presentations, demonstrations, and other activities. Then, we hear of the delegatory style that relies heavily on student participation. In this style the instructor necessitates student involvement through group work, peer feedback, and lab-based learning, and they serve more as observers to peerto-peer learning. Lastly, there is the facilitator who encourages student self-learning through increased student-to-teacher interaction. This typically occurs through activities where the instructor asks students to question and explore, rather than accept the text and regurgitate the materials. While it seems that what might be most effective is a combination of the traditional styles, I propose the idea of a servant leadership style which taps into the traditional models but includes the attributes of servant leadership.

This shifts the role of the professor away from overseeing the classroom and flattens classroom dynamics. As Page and Wong mention, “…in servant-leadership there is no such thing as "just a groundskeeper" or "just a secretary." Everyone is part of a team working to the same end in which people play different roles at different times, according to their expertise and assignment rather than their position or title” (2000, p. 7). This style aligns, in many ways, with the role of the facilitator but intentionally involves empathy, communication, community building, foresight and commitment to student growth.

It is important to note that this does not take the professor away from the role of subject matter expert. The servant leadership teaching style, instead, is a concept which seeks to empower students, create a sense of belonging, and maintain

their dignity in an environment where some students assume they will be judged. The instructor “… becomes the soft glue that holds the organization together as a virtual community working together…” (Page & Wong, 2000, p. 7).

PROFESSORS AS A SERVANT-LEADERS

As mentioned previously, the most effective teaching style might be a combination of the four traditional styles. How would the inclusion of the attributes of servant leadership affect student learning? We saw elements of servant leadership emerge to address the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic, but is this level of empowerment, community building, and dignity part of the normal student experience? While these questions may be best pursued in a subsequent project, it is helpful to consider both questions while exploring the possible benefits to the model being put forth in this paper.

Let’s examine the ten attributes of servant leadership and consider how instructors can bring these attributes to the classroom. J. Martin Hays (2008), in his article, “Teacher as Servant Applications of Greenleaf’s Servant Leadership in Higher Education” offers the following applications for the attributes in higher education.

1. Listening. Only through listening with an open mind and open heart can one come to understand people. (Hays, 2008, p. 123)

2. Empathy…the ability to sense and understand others’ sentiments and perspectives and disciplined practice to do so - is crucial to being effective in leadership and other roles. (Hays, 2008, p. 124)

3. Healing. The servant leader cares about how his or her people are doing; he or she cares about their well-being, and wants to improve the condition of their lives and the circumstances surrounding them that promote health and well-being. ( Hays, 2008, p. 124)

4. Persuasion. Servant leaders don’t push; they pull. They don’t try to force people to their views or way of doing things. They don’t

try to convince people that their way is right or the only way. They argue or debate only when such action will directly benefit those involved; that is, when it contributes to a ‘win-win’ for everyone. (Hays, 2008, p. 125)

5. Awareness. Servant leaders are acutely aware of what’s going on within themselves and others, and what’s happening in their immediate and broader environment. (Hays, 2008, p. 125)

6. Foresight. Foresight is the ability to see and make the most of possible outcomes. It involves thinking ahead; planning and preparing for the unknowable; and understanding the long-term consequences of actions today. (Hays, 2008, p. 126)

7. Conceptualizing. Servant leaders see the big picture. They understand it, and can describe the work effectively within it. They see the forest and the trees. (Hays, 2008, p. 127)

8. Commitment to Growth. Servant leaders are committed to personal and community learning and development. (Hays, 2008, p. 127)

9. Stewardship. Stewardship is the acceptance of responsibility for protecting the rights, property, and welfare of others, and acting with best intentions to do so. Stewardship connotes a sense of supervising or managing affairs that serve others. But the concept is more meaningful in long-term, big-picture applications. (Hays, 2008, p. 128)

10. Focus on and Building Community. A community is a diverse group of individuals who share a sense of identity and commitment to a set of ideals or objectives. (Hays, 2008, p. 129)

Applying Hays’s application to teaching, I would call the first attribute “communication.” This distinction is important because the learning process for students requires healthy feedback for growth. The minor change is essential for tying each of the attributes together to create a holistic experience for

students. Communication is essential to highlight the commitment to student growth.

Empathy is applied here as what emerges from the communication. Much like what happens with the traditional style of the facilitator, the instructor develops relationships with their students through their communications and can develop an understanding of the perspectives of their students individually.

Persuasion, also relates heavily to the facilitator model in that it pulls, not pushes. For Hays, this would be about the instructor not pushing their perspectives on students. I would further add that this should also include that instructor assist with self-discovery. Instructors as servant-leaders would facilitate the process of self-learning where students explore and question materials to be able to think critically about the content they learn.

Focusing on building community amongst students in the classroom is key. It creates an environment where students are comfortable sharing their ideas and feel that they belong which are key components of establishing student dignity in the classroom. The combination of the feeling of belonging – a sense that they have an identity in the classroom and feeling agency through self-learning create the feeling of student dignity. This “…can make a profound difference on the impact of learning and in the learning experiences of both students and teachers” (Hays, 2008, p. 113).

For the instructor, one of the main advantages of this concept of the teacher as a servant-leader is

REFERENCES

Cambridge Dictionary. (2023).

Crisis. In Cambridge advances learner’s dictionary and thesaurus. Retrieved March 7, 2023, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/ us/dictionary/english/crisis

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970).

The servant as leader. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

that “…it is flexible. Whether you are a charismatic intuitive leader or a down-to-earth methodological type of leader, you can always benefit from practicing servant leadership. No leader can be effective in a culturally diverse workplace by adopting only one leadership style” (Wong et al., 2007, p. 6).

PERSONAL REFLECTIONS

The idea of the professor as a servant-leader is one that has potential to aid the student experience in a way that helps them grow as leaders and ultimately pass on the attributes to those they lead. Because the commitment to develop people is a key attribute of a servant-leader, it is without question that servant leadership, in itself, is an educational structure, preparing the (servant) leaders to follow.

Another key component of this leadership style is the aim of maintaining student dignity in the classroom. While students are there to ultimately learn from their instructors and build knowledge around subject matter, college, particularly, is a delicate space because for many at the undergraduate level, people are coming together in one place from many different places and backgrounds. Professors have the tough role of unifying students around the content of their class. Doing so while creating a space for the student to develop an identity, gives them the opportunity to share their culture and experiences while appreciating the cultures and experiences of others, thus creating an environment where everyone feels empowered, and dignified.

Hays, J. M. (2008).

Teacher as servant applications of Greenleaf's servant leadership in higher education. Journal of Global Business Issues, 2(1), 113.

Page, D., & Wong, T. P. (2000).

A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership. In S. Adjibolooso (Ed.), The human factor in shaping the course of history and development. American University Press.

Wong, P. T., Davey, D., & Church, F. B. (2007). Best practices in servant leadership. Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship, Regent University, http://www.drpaulwong. com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/wongdavey-2007-best-practices-in-servantleadership.pdf

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Garfield R. Benjamin is a lecturer and academic program advisor with a background in working with international, post-traditional, and first-generation student populations. He is a Ph.D candidate in the Multi-Sector Communication Program and an Adjunct Instructor in the Division of Arts and Humanities at the Collins College of Professional Studies at St. John’s University. His areas of research and interests include semiotics, social constructionism, cultural studies, media studies, images and representations in media, learning and knowledge acquisition; cross-cultural knowledge sharing; culturally responsive pedagogical practices.