Article Reviews- part 2
Max Weber, who described the leader as “a charismatic person who exercised power through followers’ identification with and belief in the leader’s personality” (as cited in Smith, Montagno, and Kuzmenko, 2004, p.81). The similarities between servant and transformational leadership in the charismatic component are inspirational motivation and moral. They believe in people and their needs; therefore, TL and SL they have a healthy interpersonal relationship that influences their followers through appropriate behavior and serves followers in an open and accountable manner to maintain integrity and trust.
There is not much overlap between servant and transformation leadership related to intellectual stimulation. Encouragement and affirmation (Smith et al., 2004) in servant leadership refer to “developing people’s potential and facilitating their personal growth” (p.84). Regarding transformational leadership (Smith et al., 2004), encouragement relates to “innovation and creativity” (p.84). Since TL approach consider risk-taking is necessary for long-term success; Therefore, they would tolerate possible mistakes of the followers for the advantage of the benefits from their innovative venture. A servant leader, on the other hand, would encourage followers to learn and would support them by providing opportunities to obtain the knowledge and apply them within the company; therefore, a new level of response achieved.
Initiative taking in servant leadership (Smith et al., 2004) refers to a “leader’s activity related to taking additional responsibility for the future of the company and its success” (p.84). The provision of such leadership interpreted in this context as such “strategic planning processes” or “implementing new programs” for efficiency. However, the servant-leader model (Smith et al., 2004) “does not stress risk-taking behavior as an essential attribute of organizational success” (p.84). In transformational leadership (Smith et al., 2004), on the other hand, “the leader’s initiative is strongly associated with risk-taking as the necessary element of future success” (p.84). The viewpoint of transformational leaders is they are willing to switch to the more effective practices and systems. Therefore, Intellectual stimulation appears to support followers’ emotional well-being through receptive, non-judgemental listening. Whereas, these behaviors are not accounted for by any practices in the transformational model.
- The overlap in SL and TL approach when builds community applies idealized influence, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration. They resulted from strong interpersonal relationships and collaboration with others and value other’s differences. For example, a healthcare system that can employ both approaches when serving the community. However, values people in SL approach overlap with idealized influence and inspirational motivation of TL approach resulted from serving other’s needs before their own and believes in people. For example; trustee education and experiential leadership education which they focus on individuals who joined these institutions over the institutional needs.
- According to the model presented by the author, servant leaders will lead to a “spiritual generative culture” which become more effective in not-for-profit and religious organization contexts. SL operate in a more static environment where motivation directed at personal growth and healing of the followers. On the other hand, TL will lead to an “empowered dynamic culture” (Smith et al., 2004
Reference:
Smith, B.N., Montagno, R.V. and Kuzmenko, T.N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 10(4), 80-92. Retrieved from: https://ezproxy.student.twu.ca/login?url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/107179190401000406.