Servant Leadership and its Practical Contemporary Application - Term Paper Example

 Servant Leadership and its Practical Contemporary Application Introduction Servant leadership is defined by many concepts that are related to the humanities. It is often applied in a workplace environment to dictate a transformational manager. The servant leadership profile is one where listening is a primary skill and attribute in order to gain follower support for their mission or goals pertaining to the organization. In a practical lifestyle scenario, servant leadership is characterized by more social dimensions in the communications cycle, however with a selflessness associated in order to provide mentorship or coaching to improve common relations or the internal strengths and character of another. Whether involved in the workplace or in general society, servant leadership is defined by the integrity and humanistic characteristics that inspire others to follow a vision or strategy. Elements of Servant Leadership Blanchard (1999) describes servant leadership as a role in which the ego must be removed from the equation. According to the expert, “managers who somehow have themselves as the center of the universe and think everything must rotate around them are really covering up ‘not okay’ feelings about themselves” (Blanchard, 1999, p.2). What this implies is that the leader must be without preconceived notions of his own importance, as priority, in order to gain a followership. Blanchard again insists that servant leadership is made effortless for individuals with increased self-esteem. This is due to the fact that the leader is able to give credit to others and assist them in self-reconstruction. It implies a leadership profile of a selfless individual who does not consistently consider his own self-worth as priority in strategy. The servant leadership under this dimension of definition would be one that is applicable to the workplace. Why? According to Page and Wong (2010) organizations typically function in a pyramid structure where the leader is in a position at the top and information is disseminated downward. After setting vision and goals for the organization, the pyramid becomes inverted while assistance from others in the organization is provided. Throughout this process the leader develops servant leadership characteristics. By providing opportunities for receipt of employee input, thus improving communications, the manager establishes a base where the results of his collaborative efforts begin to trickle back in the leader’s direction in double the measure. This is how this pyramid would appear, visually, if it were inverted. The most virtuous elements of servant leadership include “love, vision, trust, humility, service, and empowerment” (Irving & McIntosh, 2010, p.16). These are philosophical and humanitarian-related concepts that indicate a servant leader should be equipped with more compassionate characteristics related to personality and emotional bonding. These concepts border on moral and ethical principles, also with characteristics of marital relationships or close-knit friendships. In order to engage in these emotional attachments such as humility and love, there must be a foundation. That might indicate that the definition of servant leadership, as characterized earlier by Page & Wong, requires time for a development of rather intimate or philosophical relationship arrangements. Whatever the actual or most fitting definition, servant leadership involves having a comprehensive understanding of the interpersonal and somewhat otherwise confidential knowledge of others in order to gain a response from others. Keith (2009) advises that servant leadership should include listening skills pertaining to colleagues and clients. This starts with asking about their individual dreams, needs and hopes instead. In the typical office environment, Keith suggests using suggestion boxes, interviews or surveys, therefore indicating a less formalized process of gaining support. So, servant leadership does not necessarily, according to Keith, have to involve tight-knit relationships since more confidential knowledge about an individual can be gained through research processes. It was necessary to present alternative definitions of servant leadership since it would be far too one-sided in order to explore only one side of its advantages or perceived disadvantages. However, if wants and personal needs can be delivered in the form of a suggestion box, it does not mean necessarily intimacy rather than simply being a more attentive style toward others. Andersen (2009) describes the love involved with servant leadership as being agapao love, adding more support to the idea that servant leadership might not involve tight and intimate relationships. Though Andersen does offer humanistic characteristics such as altruism and trust, there is no indication that servant leadership must have unyielding closeness. The main goal, through the aforementioned definitions, is to establish a sense of gallant empowerment philosophy when working or communicating with others. Faculty members in the educational environment are compared also to servant leadership. “Faculty leads their students to the less traveled roads; unleash the fires that burn in them, and help their students discover unsheltered territories” (Sussan, Ojie-Ahamiojie & Kassira, 2008, p.399). The role of educator is to instill the basic skills and knowledge strategies necessary for students to engage in future endeavors both social and professional. However, their role as creativity inspiration and motivate imagination would suggest servant leadership is about bringing out internal creativity within whomever they are currently engaged with. Then servant leadership could be compared to both a practical educator and one with the ability to drive mental ingenuity. This would not be an easy task to accomplish without some sense of self-dedication toward the well-being and needs of another and then applying creativity to the curriculum of supporting someone else other than the self. Other Contexts of Servant Leadership Servant leadership is also compared to religion and spirituality as a means to present knowledge about what the role entails. “Jesus of Nazareth urged his followers to be servants first, and became a messenger of a great religion” (Serrat, 2009, p.3). This is a commonly understood folktale or devoted belief related to religion, however the idea is about communal self-understanding where the goal is to develop others and assist them in delivering their personal best. It is about building an organization using a common togetherness to drive followership through self-sacrifice in favor of others. Servant leadership is also seen as having the ability to inspire conviction so that others will be more interested in following or joining a common purpose. However, Vargas & Hanlon (2007) realize that the word servant oftentimes has negative meaning and can sometimes imply a lower status for the individual who has taken on a leadership role. Though this is only a perception, it does act as a form of warning for others that they might find themselves in the midst of a potential social dilemma where they are being judged by others as having less worth for their willingness to serve. Again, however, Vargas & Hanlon remind that trust is the foundation of servitude, which fits the definition as was provided by Andersen. So, under these definitions, servant leadership is about having a togetherness with a very significant dedication and devotion to the needs of others, while remembering that their social status might be considered inferior as they attempt to build the necessity of trust. Trust should be recognized as the key concept that fits multiple definitions, therefore it would be a logical assumption to deduce that servant leadership requires having trust in order to be considered an effective strategy. Zandy (2007) suggests this leader profile should first ask how to help others succeed rather than asking how to get people on-board with their strategies or goals. The author presents that this is done through listening but warns that it is a “casualty of position power” (Zandy, p. 24) that seems to, in a sense, go with the proverbial flow of servant leadership. Listening as a key element of servant leadership was supported by Keith. So, there are risks associated with adopting the servant leadership profile in which there must be ongoing, self-sacrificing, attention placed on others so that what is being discussed is considered appropriately. When facing others, under this definition, there must be consistent focus on what is being presented by the other party while still maintaining a focus of why it is important to remain toward setting a goal. The Servant Leadership Profile Team methodology is definitely described as being part of the servant leadership model. It has role model dimensions related to attachments in relationship and emotional appreciation that is expected as an outcome of taking a less self-serving position when working or socializing with others. However, before any teams can be established, trust in their ability or trust in their knowledge must be displayed by the servant leader so that these behaviors and attention can be observed by those he or she is attempting to coerce toward an agenda or strategy conclusion. Servant leaders need to define themselves outside of the ego, in which self-importance is not a primary consideration. They are putting themselves into a social or workplace environment where the needs of others remain top priority and the leader then looks for opportunities to applaud their ingenuity or create it as appropriate by individual or situation. The servant leader remains dedicated to developing others where mentoring and coaching are blended into a positive communications cycle for improving any perceived or tangible weaknesses discovered in others in the environment. It is one where people seem that they might be expected to become reliant on the servant leader as they are dedicating much of their listening empathy towards others and works to improve through modeled humanistic principles. Servant leadership, in reflection, as the pyramid structure that becomes inverted through the process of establishing trust, mission and goals should be discussed further. Though there was no inherent altruism or significant self-sacrifice described by Page & Wong’s pyramid, it did instruct one who looks toward servant leadership to be prepared to abandon some individualism in favor of creating a collectivist environment. But in order to get to this cross-dependent stage of fellowship, “an organizational structure must become fluid and function like the sand in an egg timer that flows both ways” (Page & Wong, 2010, p.8). So, the servant leadership pyramid, if it could be diagrammed in this fashion, would be a tipping pyramid that makes cyclical rocking motion where initial selflessness leads to a more graceful team environment where everyone benefits and receives equal reward or benefit. What is interesting to note was the recognition that servant leadership did not necessarily involve establishing intimate relationships, though some of the more humanistic concepts of the leadership style are related to this type of familial structure. Being able to gauge individual dreams and needs through research studies still achieves servant leadership, then there can be a reduction of the complete altruism that is suggested by some experts in leadership theory and development. There can be some professional distance maintained that does not necessarily have to border on complete and sinuous activity. However, failure to empower others or find their strengths and then serve to exploit them effectively when it brings them better emotional or cognitive results would seem to be a failure of servant leadership. It should then be considered that servant leadership is a leadership style that is appropriate for both the workplace and the social environment. There is a foundational need for a very self-giving methodology that is supported by the religious connotation and that of creating a sound organizational structure. Trust was certainly determined a common servant leadership attribute needed to gain results or motivation from others, however some of the juice or fluidity that binds organizations or fellowship can be distinctly different depending on the situation that involves working directly with others. It would seem that it is up to the leader to determine what is most appropriate at the interpersonal level so long as the foundational elements of self-giving are present to be presented as a model for others to either adopt or gain respect for. Conclusion Servant leadership ensures that the leader has a focus that is not only based around their own needs, but on the needs of others in greater proportion than the self. This is accomplished through listening and by staying focused on having some form of mentorship contract with the self to improve those around the leader. The definitions provided of servant leadership indicate much more attention paid to a second party than would be expected for the self, in favor of the long-term benefits it provides with more fluid organizational development or better understanding of common principles. It is also used as a method to gain support from others therefore it offers a definition of minor co-dependency in order to maintain a stable foundation that can support growth and mentoring activities. Servant leadership models allow for the leader to be able to function even if social forces consider humility to be a lesser status symbol, something that is easy for a person with a high degree of self-esteem. Through this potential social scenario, they maintain the ability to inspire creativity and burn a fire of general knowledge in the process without necessarily considering the needs of the self as first priority. It is a system in which the main goal is developing others to achieve a common purpose and in the process improving them in whatever way might require mentoring or coaching. It does not seem to, however, require unbridled altruism in every detail but cannot be considered valid and a functional strategy for servitude if there is not more devotion to the needs of others than what is placed on egoism or gain. References Andersen, J. A. (2009). “When a servant-leader comes knocking…”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 30(1), p.4. Blanchard, Ken. (1999). “Servant Leadership – Today’s successful managers are more like cheerleaders than critics”. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.appleseeds.org/Blanchard_Serv-Lead.htm Irving, J. & McIntosh, T. (2010). “Findings from Peruvian Leaders”, Journal of International Business and Cultural Studies, 2(1), pp.1-16. Keith, Kent M. (2009). “Servant Leaders”, Leadership Excellence. 26(5), pp.18-20. Page, D. & Wong, P. (2010). “A conceptual framework for measuring servant-leadership”, Trinity Western University. Retrieved November 30, 2010 from http://hci2010mmp.wiki.hci.edu.sg/file/view/Conceptual+Framework.pdf Serrat, Olivier. (2009). “Exercising servant leadership”, Knowledge Solutions. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.adb.org/documents/information/knowledge-solutions/exercising-servant-leadership.pdf Sussan, A., Ojie-Ahamiojie, G. & Kassira, R. (2008). “The role of faculties as leaders in higher education”, Competition Forum. 6(2), pp.391-398. Vargas, P. & Hanlon, J. (2007). “Celebrating a profession, the servant leadership perspective”, Journal of Research Administration. Vol. 38, pp.45-52. Zandy, Amy. (2007). “If you want to lead…learn to serve”, Debt 3. 22(4), pp.24-26. Read More