Category: Unit 4

Servant leadership was first coined by Robert K.  Greenleaf in 1970, however, as a newer field of study empirical evidence has only been available for the last decade (Northouse, 2016).  Although it is similar to other theories in that it observes leader behaviours, the behaviours of interest focus on the needs of, and development of others first (Northouse, 2016).

No consensus has been reached on a clear definition or framework (Van Dierendonck, 2011).  The definition most often cited is the one from Greenleaf himself, however, authors appear to agree on the following foundational principles:

1. Leaders have a need to serve, and to serve first (Greenleaf, as cited in Northouse, 2016). The model is unique in that it begins with the leader’s motivation (Smith, Montagno, Kuzmenko, 2004).
2. Others’ needs are the priority of the leader, and the central focus is altruism (Northouse, 2016; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Although different models have cited over 44 leader characteristics, (Van Dierendonck, 2011) these characteristics are the central focus of all models and all point to a focus on others (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson; Liden, Panaccio, Hu, and Meuser as cited in Northouse, 2016; Van Van Dierendonck, 2011).
3. There is a reciprocal relationship between the leader and the follower in that the leader also learns and benefits (Smith et al., 2004).
4. Outcomes are met when self-actualization of the followers has been achieved, leaders create more leaders, and there is positive societal impact (Northouse, 2016; Smith et al., 2004; Maxwell, 2013).

Strengths of the servant leadership model are a focus on altruism, sharing control with followers, the identification that this form of leadership will be not effective in all situations, and the availability of measurement tools (Northouse, 2016).  Another strength is that leader behaviours are easily understood and applied, and these ideas are already used by many successful companies (Northouse, 2016; KnowledgeAtWharton, 2008).  One study suggests that servant leadership in the workforce can be integrated with positive psychology to enable employees to function at optimal levels generate positive individual, team and organizational behaviour, which can enable employees to function at optimal levels (Searle and Barbuto, 2011).  Empirical and anecdotal evidence suggests that employees who are served by their leaders will model this behavior and serve customers (KnowledgeAtWharton, 2008; Hwang, Kang, Youn, 2014).

Limitations of the servant leadership model are the paradoxical nature of terms, no consensus on a definition or framework, the inherent “value-push” and moralistic quality which can discourage study, and the inclusion of conceptualization when that behaviour not specific to servant leadership (Northouse, 2016).  Another weakness is that contextual factors that influence the success of servant leadership are underestimated (Smith et al., 2004).

As with all other aspects of servant leadership the purpose of awareness is to make things better for others, not for oneself.  This differs from awareness in emotional intelligence where the purpose is to recognize how emotions affects one’s own performance (Goleman, 2017).  The purpose of self-awareness in the psychodynamic approach is to assist the leader in improving personal behaviour and interpersonal relations for the purpose of improving as a leader and influencing others; again, the motivation is not serving others as it is in the servant leadership model (Northouse, 2016).

Historical accounts of Mother Teresa suggest that she was a true servant leader, and numerous web authors have supported this claim.  Her motivation was to serve others, her central focus altruism as she served “… the unwanted, the unloved, the uncared for…”  (Mother Teresa of Calcutta, 2018). She demonstrated a willingness to learn from those she served by living among them.  She established the Missionaries of Charity, investing in others so they would develop to their full potential and, in turn, then continue the work and develop other leaders.  As orphanages, hospices, and charity centers continue to function worldwide there can be no doubt that she had a positive impact on society  (Mother Teresa of Calcutta, 2018).

Servant leadership is a relatively new concept that has received attention by researchers and employers.  The primary motivation of the leader in this model is to serve others.  Outcomes are measured by the development and growth of the followers, reciprocal growth in the leader, a cycle of future leader development and positive change.  The model is can be practically utilized in work and other environments.  One example of a servant leader is Mother Teresa, whose motivation began with serving others and spent much of her life serving the least privileged in society.  The servant leadership model has much to offer for the equipping of the leaders of today and the future.

References     

Goleman. (2017, Jan 12). Self-Awareness:  The Foundation of Emotional Intelligence.  [weblog comment].  Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/self-awareness-foundation-emotional-intelligence-daniel-goleman

Hwang, H., Kang, M., & Youn, M. (2014). The influence of a leader’s servant leadership on employees’ perception of customers’ satisfaction with the service and employees’ perception of customers’ trust in the service firm: the moderating role of employees’ trust in the leader. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science,24(1), 65-76.

JohnMaxwellCo.  (2013, Sep 10).  John Maxwell The 5 Levels of Leadership.  [Video file].  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPwXeg8ThWI

KnowledgeAtWharton.  (2008, Jul 9).  Southwest Airlines’ Colleen Barrett on ‘Servant Leadership’. [Video file].  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TgR95vnM0c

Mother Teresa of Calcutta. (n.d.).  Biography.  Retrieved from http://www.motherteresa.org/

Northouse, P.G. (2016).  Leadership: Theory and Practice.  (7^th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications, Inc.

Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N.  (2004).  Transformational and Servant Leadership:  Content and Contextual Comparisons.  Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91.

Van Dierendonck, D.  (2011).  Servant Leadership:  A Review and Synthesis.  Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228-1261.  doi:  10.1177/0149206310380462

The term transformational leadership was first introduced by J.V. Downton in 1973 (Northouse, 2016).  Academic study in this area began in the early 1980’s, and the body of evidence has grown substantially.

As the name implies, transformational leadership transforms people, both the leader and the follower, by raising the level of morality and motivation (Northouse, 2016). There are many similarities between transformational leadership, charismatic leadership, and servant leadership (Northouse, 2016; Smith, Montagno, Kuzmenko, 2004) largely because of the positive relationship that develops between the leader and the follower and the resulting change in performance.  The following statement provides a succinct summary:  “Transformational leadership occurs when a leader inspires follower to share a vision, empowering them to achieve the vision and provides the resources necessary for developing their personal potential.”  (Smith et al., 2004)

Four factors are described by B.M. Bass (as cited in Northouse, 2016; Smith et al., 2004), referred to as the four “I’s”:  idealized influence (others want to follow the vision of the leader), inspirational motivation (inspiring others to higher expectations/standards), intellectual stimulation (stimulating creativity, innovation and risk), and individualized consideration (followers are supported in growth).  Work by other authors support and elaborate further on these factors.  Bennis and Nanus (as cited in Northouse, 2016) added four strategies that transformational leaders will use (vision, social architects, trust, creative deployment of self) and Kouzus and Posner’s work (as cited in Northouse, 2016) added five practices adopted by transformational leaders (model the way, inspire a shared vision, challenge the process, enable others to act, encourage the heart).

J. M. Burns proposed that an essential characteristic of transformational leaders is moral development. Without morals and values a leader would be considered pseudotransformational, using influence for self-centered agendas or goals (as cited in Northouse, 2016). Evidence suggests that transformational leaders are able to encourage the components of moral sensitivity and moral motivation in their followers, and this influence becomes greater over time (Mulla and Krishnan, 2011). Although there are many similarities between the transformational and servant leadership models evidence suggests that context determines which style of leadership will be more effective.  Transformational leadership should be selected in dynamic environments that require employees to be empowered to make decisions and encouraged to be innovative and take risks (Smith et al., 2004).  As a result, the life cycle of the organization also plays a factor in which style of leadership will be more effective, with transformational leadership being more valuable at the birth and decline phases of an organization’s life cycle (Smith et al., 2004).

There are several strengths inherent in the transformational model. It has been widely researched, has intuitive appeal, describes the interaction between leaders and followers and places a strong emphasis on the needs, values and morals of followers.  It also augments other approaches and there is enough evidence to assert that it is an effective style of leadership (Northouse, 2016).  There are weaknesses in that the framework lacks clarity, measurement tools may not be valid, and the concepts suggest a trait perspective so that the focus is on leaders who are elitist.  Other weaknesses are that there is no evidence that there is a causal association with improved outcomes, and it has the potential to be misused (Northouse, 2016).

One historical figure that appears to fit most of the criteria of transformational leadership is Winston Churchill during his first term as prime minister of England in the early 1940’s.  There can be no argument that he was leading in a dynamic external environment.  From the perspective of the Allies he raised the level of morality in others, and modeled authentic socialized leadership that was concerned with the common good (Northouse, 2016).  History tells us that Churchill was charismatic, people identified with him, and committed to his vision.  Churchill influenced men and women to take significant risks for the greater good, and in visits to the front line he was able to encourage followers to continue the fight.  In this way he demonstrated the first 3 “I’s” as described by Burns outlined above.  Individualized consideration, or meeting the needs of followers by supporting them to become fully actualized is the only factor that this writer is unable to provide a specific example for.  However, evidence also suggests that there is a risk of manipulation or narcissism with transformational leadership (Van Dierendonck, 2011) and history may suggest that this was one of Churchill’s shortcomings, therefore individualized consideration may be absent in his leadership.

Researchers have significantly advanced the understanding of transformational leadership since it was initially defined in 1973.  Various authors have proposed models that identify the traits, behaviours, factors, strategies, and practices of transformational leaders as well as the contexts in which this leadership style will be most effective.  There are many individuals who could be considered transformational leaders, and the historical record of Winston Churchill’s action and behaviour in the early 1940’s fits this criteria.  It is anticipated that further research will continue to add to the knowledge and understanding of this leadership model.

References

Mulla, Z.R. and Krishnan, V.R.  (2011). Transformational Leadership:  Do the Leaders Morals Matter, and Do the Follower’s Morals Change?  Journal of Human Values, 17(2), 129-143.  doi:  101177/097168581101700203

Northouse, P.G. (2016).  Leadership: Theory and Practice.  (7^th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:  Sage Publications, Inc.

Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N.  (2004).  Transformational and Servant Leadership:  Content and Contextual Comparisons.  Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91.

Van Dierendonck, D.  (2011).  Servant Leadership:  A Review and Synthesis.  Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228-1261.  doi:  10.1177/0149206310380462