I believe the path towards servant leadership lies dark unless first illuminated by one’s competency for empathy, authenticity and self-awareness. Although much more than a path, servant leadership is a lifetime process which for me, has oftentimes been plagued by a myriad of struggle in the process of understanding myself, my strengths, weaknesses and the impact and I have on others (Northouse, 2016, p. 202). It is important to note in the context of this forum that as a consequence of including others in our struggle through the process of understanding this discipline, collectively we are communicating humility and admitting weakness we all share to some degree.
I chose to comment on three servant leadership principles which regularly challenge me in the context of leading others. Challenges which manifest not from the sense of my own commitment to growth, but the result of negative impacts from operating in an environment that works to subvert ideals and values rooted in servant leadership principles. Stewardship is “about taking responsibility” (Northouse, 2016, p. 228) and an example from workplace would take the shape when honorably defending the policies and principles of the organization and its people in the face of the temptation to concur an opposing comment. By extension, conceptualization also aligns with one’s sense of goals and direction as the flag bearer for the future and to “be a visionary for an organization” (Northouse, 2016, p. 228). By example, I try to demonstrate this principle by weaving the master plan/goal through daily verbal and non-verbal instruments during the same time we work through smaller challenges and obstacles.
Finally, the most challenging of my three principles is the process of healing. Northouse (2016), defines this aspect of servant leadership as “helping followers become whole” (p. 228). Although I deeply care about the well-being of those I lead, I am desperately constrained by an organization that frowns upon crossing the line into one’s personal life. Furthermore, as Northouse (2016) states, “healing is a two-way street” (p.228); therefore, the follower may feel pressured to expose or reveal their needs, ultimately resenting the leaders’ practice in supporting them through this principle. I suppose the crux of the discussion lies with how badly both sides are willing to open themselves up to vulnerability. If a follower resents or is uncomfortable with openness, should the servant leader throttle down their zeal and rhetoric for the benefit of both, or remain driven alone leaving the door wide open for the follower to participate in the future?
Matt
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: theory and practice (Seventh ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.