Strengths and weaknesses of transforming/transformational leadership
Strengths Weaknesses
Grounded in moral values, it is among the earliest theories to espouse the importance of investing in follower development
Substantial, highquality research supports the validity of the theory and its influence on a wide range of leadership outcomes
Situates transformational behaviors in the context of transactional and non leader behaviors differentiating the influences of each
Fullrange leadership is a misnomer as the metacategories described do not account for all leadership behaviors
Little evidence of how followers, organizations, or systems are “transformed” as a result of behaviors
Leadercentricity offers minimal consideration of follower agency despite articulating a mutual relationship between leaders and followers
Making Connections
Transformation sounds great, but who has the power and authority to determine the type of transformation being pursued and the moral foundations that guide it? How might this run the risk of replicating dominant norms?
What stands out as useful about transforming/transformational leadership? What do you think needs to be addressed in the deconstruction and reconstruction processes?
SERVANT LEADERSHIP The concept of servant leadership initially emerged as a philosophical framework for understanding leadership in a series of papers written by Greenleaf (1970, 1977), a business executive who worked for AT&T. Greenleaf offered a reframing of what he believed leadership should be about. His philosophy suggested that formal leaders should act as servants first and leaders second, reflecting a calling to give back rather than selfserving motives or an overemphasis on production. Greenleaf’s propositions contributed to a wide range of publications and the formation of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership to advance the philosophy and train people in its application to practice. Numerous businesses, universities, and religious organizations have adopted servant leadership as the foundation for their work given its positioning of leadership as a moral imperative. Despite servant leadership’s popularity in practice and existence for over 45 years, it has only been in the last 15 years that scholars have directed considerable attention toward its empirical validation.
Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:20:08.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
Overview Interestingly, Greenleaf’s (1970, 1977) early writings on servant leadership predate Burns’s (1978) work on transforming leadership. Yet, servant leadership did not initially receive the same degree of academic attention that Burns’s work did. Both theories draw on similar foundations, emphasizing a movement beyond management alone, engagement with values and ethics, and development of followers. The unique contribution of servant leadership above and beyond those of transforming and transformational leadership lies in its inclusion of social responsibility as a core premise (Graham, 1991; van Dierendonck, 2011). In transformational leadership there is a stated need to invest in individuals, but those investments are in service of an end goal of organizational advancement whereas in servant leadership they are ends in and of themselves. Fully understanding servant leadership requires a quick sidestep into its origins.
The Muse Greenleaf (1977) credits Hesse’s (2003) novel The Journey to the East, first published in Germany in 1932, as the inspiration for servant leadership. The novel tells of a mystical journey taken by a group of Western European men who belonged to a sacred religious order whose past members included great men and characters from history, including Plato, Mozart, Don Quixote, and Puss in Boots. Yep … the cat. So, the sacred order was composed of all men and a talking cat. We’ll come back to that later.
The purpose of the group’s journey to the East was to seek out the “ultimate truth.” What starts as a successful and jovial spiritual quest falls apart after a humble servant to the group disappears and its members devolve into petty arguments, eventually disbanding and pursuing individual paths. It’s clear to readers, however, that this “servant” was in actuality much more. He provided the glue that held the group together, yet they remained oblivious to his importance.
The main character spends years in despair over the failure and what he believes to be the collapse of the religious order that gave him purpose and direction in life. During this time, he attempts to document the journey, struggling to capture what happened and all the while becoming more disenfranchised. A sharp turn in the novel reveals that the “servant” who left the group was in actuality the head of the order and the journey and subsequent years of disillusionment were tests of faith, which the main character failed. He is given a final test that challenges his understanding of what constitutes “truth.” This test ends with the main character viewing his own story as documented in the archives of the order, revealing that his identity is tied to and merging with that of the servant—an allegory for letting go of personal ego and the emergence of an interdependent consciousness.
Understanding the story that inspired Greenleaf (1977) to write about servant leadership is incredibly important as it helps us understand the dynamics from which he drew as he built his philosophy. His interpretation rests on the assertion that “this story clearly says that the great leader is seen as servant first, and that simple fact is the key to his greatness … he was servant first because that was who he was, deep down inside” (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 21, emphasis in original). Greenleaf saw in Hesse’s (2003) work the ways in which “servants” are
Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:20:08.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
often obscured by groups that instead focus on those in formal positions using authority to advance organizational or individual goals rather than collective ones. Drawing on the major themes of the story, his intent was to reshape leadership as derived first from deep service that in turn elevates one into formal authority roles.
However, as a function of both its content and the historical context in which it was written, The Journey to the East also reflects a number of problematic elements that are either ignored by Greenleaf (1977) or show up in his philosophy and its contemporary application in problematic ways. This includes the patriarchal positioning of “great men,” paternalistic approaches to development and learning, and orientalist overtones (i.e., an ideology presuming marked distinctions between “Western” and “Eastern” cultures in which Western values are normative and Eastern cultures misrepresented, exaggerated, and exoticized). These ideas are particularly apparent in how servant leadership remains leadercentric, positions the role of the leader as a nurturing parental figure, and reproduces gendered norms. Furthermore, Greenleaf’s interpretation leaves out some of the most important existential questions of the novel that draw on multiple spiritual traditions, defaulting instead to JudeoChristian examples. It should not be surprising, then, that servant leadership is sometimes narrowly interpreted through the lens of religiosity and appropriated as solely a story of Judeo Christian leadership. For example, Sendjaya and Sarros (2002) argued that “Greenleaf is not the individual who first introduced the notion of servant leadership to everyday human endeavor. It was Christianity’s founder, Jesus Christ, who first taught the concept of servant leadership” (p. 58). Parris and Peachey (2013) caution that the roots of servant leadership date back not to a single faith tradition or individual, but to teachings from most of the world’s great religions and a wide range of historical figures.
Philosophical Starting Point If you think back to the first chapter, we differentiated between theories, models, taxonomies, and philosophical frameworks. Servant leadership provides an example of how that differentiation becomes important. Servant leadership, as originally conceived by Greenleaf (1977), offers a philosophical framework or abstract representation of untested ideas and principles. He did not offer a formal theory, provide an explicit definition, or include a model for how it should be operationalized in practice. This means that over time both the application of servant leadership and scholarly research on it have been interpretations of Greenleaf’s philosophy, reflecting varying degrees of congruence with the original work.
Scholars and practitioners alike have attempted to provide definitional clarity about what servant leadership means as a starting point for research and applications to practice. Most draw on the following quote in building their definition:
Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:20:08.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
The servantleader 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 one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions. For such, it will be a later choice to serve—after leadership is established … The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servantfirst to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer is this: 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 not be further deprived? (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 27)
Additionally, scholars and practitioners attempt to identify core tenets that set servant leadership apart from other theories. These typically include (1) that the motivation to lead is derived from a deeply personal desire to serve others, (2) that the desire to serve others operates not just in a particular organizational or group context but in all aspects of the leader’s life, (3) that power and authority should be given to leaders by followers and only to the degree that they operate from a servant perspective, and (4) that leaders have a moral obligation to demonstrate concern for the development of followers and stakeholders to their full potential.
Applying the Concept Numerous scholars offer insights into how best to operationalize servant leadership, moving it from a broad philosophy to a functional theory, model, or taxonomy more accessible for application to practice (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Brown & Bryant, 2015; Liden, Panaccio, Meuser, Hu, & Wayne, 2014; Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008; Russell & Stone, 2002; Spears, 1995, 2010; van Dierendonck, 2011; van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011; van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2015). Initially these efforts focused almost entirely on the identification of traits and behaviors associated with enacting the role of a servant leader. This was later extended to a broader range of considerations. However, there exists no single agreedupon approach to servant leadership. As such, Figure 7.2 provides an adaptation of servant leadership that draws on several of the most recognized conceptualizations (Liden et al., 2008, 2014; van Dierendonck, 2011).
Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:20:08.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
FIGURE 7.2 Adapted model of servant leadership
At the center of Figure 7.2 is the heart of servant leadership—the behaviors that leaders exhibit to bring to life Greenleaf’s (1977) original philosophy. These include the following:
Conceptual Skills: Developing knowledge of the environment in which leadership unfolds as well as the leadership tasks/processes occurring to be able to support followers effectively
Emotional Healing: Demonstrating sensitivity to the personal concerns of followers
Putting Followers First: Communicating and demonstrating through action that the work needs of followers are a priority
Helping Followers Grow and Succeed: Prioritizing the personal and professional development of followers by providing necessary support and resources
Behaving Ethically: Engaging with followers in an open, fair, and honest manner
Empowerment: Positioning followers as capable of identifying and resolving problems as well as directing their own work flow through encouragement
Creating Value for the Community: Communicating a genuine concern for the community
Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:20:08.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
Each of the behaviors should be individualized to best meet the unique needs of each follower. For example, how a leader enacts emotional healing may look different for one person than it does for another.
The relative effectiveness of servant leader behaviors is a function of three key factors. First, the context in which servant leader behaviors are manifest shapes the degree to which they will be accepted. Second, not all groups and organizations may find servant leadership desirable or effective and thus may not be receptive to it (Anderson, 2009; Liden et al., 2014). Third, culture influences the ways in which servant leader behaviors are enacted, valued, and interpreted (van Dierendonck, 2011).
Additionally, the characteristics of both leaders and followers play a powerful role in determining the effectiveness of servant leader behaviors. Leader characteristics include the following traits and attributes: (1) a desire to serve others grounded in altruistic, intrinsic motivation, (2) emotional intelligence, (3) a level of moral maturity characterized by the ability to make sound moral judgments, employ metacognitive reasoning, situate oneself as morally responsible, and consistently act in moral ways, (4) a prosocial identity in which one’s selfconcept is defined in part by a belief in the importance of helping others, (5) a core sense of self characterized by healthy selfesteem and selfefficacy, an internal locus of control, and low degrees of neuroticism, and (6) low levels of narcissism so that egodriven behaviors, selfimportance, and entitlement are limited and the needs of followers put first.
Leader characteristics interact dynamically with follower traits and attributes, influencing how servant leader behaviors should be enacted. First, followers with a proactive personality thrive on and benefit from the agency and interdependence afforded by empowerment behaviors. Those whose personalities are less proactive benefit from behaviors associated with conceptual skills, putting followers first, and helping followers to grow and succeed. Second, when followers possess a healthy core sense of self, behaviors associated with empowerment and helping followers grow and succeed are well received. If a follower’s core sense of self is underdeveloped, then behaviors associated with helping followers grow and succeed and emotional healing become important. Finally, harkening back to ILT, followers develop ideal leader prototypes that shape how they perceive those in leader roles. Followers’ servant leader prototypes influence their conscious and subconscious expectations regarding what servant leadership should “look like” and whether it is a desirable approach. This shapes followers’ receptivity to and expectations for servant leader behaviors, in turn requiring leaders to rely heavily on the relational aspects of emotional healing to customize behaviors to meet their needs.
When there is a dynamic alignment between context, leader characteristics, and follower characteristics, servant leader behaviors cultivate intermediate outcomes that contribute to leadership outcomes (e.g., performance, satisfaction, goal attainment). These intermediate outcomes are important in and of themselves as they foster a climate of reciprocity. This includes increased mutual trust between leaders and followers; gains in followers’ core sense of self, prosocial identity, and moral development; greater sense of empowerment; increased commitment to the leader; and better alignment between leader and follower prototypes for
Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:20:08.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
servant leadership. Collectively, these intermediate outcomes shape the degree to which leadership outcomes are achieved.
How Research Evolves the Concept As previously stated, servant leadership originated as a broad philosophical framework without a clear theoretical base from which to ground empirical research. This may explain in part why it took so long for scholars to direct significant attention toward evolving the concept despite its widespread use in practice. Let’s examine several considerations from research.
Validation and Theoretical Distinctiveness The seven servant leader behaviors presented in this chapter are the direct result of rigorous model building and psychometric testing (Liden et al., 2008, 2014, 2015). While other sets of behaviors exist, none have undergone such extensive empirical examination to affirm accuracy of measurement. Furthermore, scholars have demonstrated that servant leadership is distinct from other theories, including ethical leadership, LMX, and transformational leadership (Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et al., 2008; Parolini, Patterson, & Winston, 2009; Peterson, Galvin, & Lange, 2012; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011; van Dierendonck, Stam, Boersma, De Windt, & Alkema, 2014).
Influences on Leadership Outcomes A growing body of empirical research demonstrates a clear impact associated with enacting servant leadership behaviors on leadership outcomes. Several literature reviews synthesize these results, highlighting its positive influence on outcomes ranging from individual and team performance to organizational commitment and citizenship behaviors (Liden et al., 2014; Parris & Peachey, 2013; van Dierendonck, 2011). Figure 7.2 captures the full range of leadership outcomes found in the literature. It is important to note that research on servant leadership has included varying aspects of the environmental context often absent from studies as well as demonstrated the additive value of enacting servant leadership beyond that accrued through other theories alone.
Considerations Based on Social Location As is the case with many leadership theories, most of the research on servant leadership addressing social location reflects a convenient side step around domestic cultural differences in the United States, emphasizing instead international crosscultural applications. Empirical measures of servant leadership have been employed in a variety of international contexts and demonstrated transferability (Hu & Liden, 2011; Schaubroeck et al., 2011; Walumbwa, Hartnell, & Oke, 2010).
Some attention has been directed to gender differences in the enactment of servant leadership behaviors, although most of this research comes from unpublished dissertations or studies with limited generalizability. EicherCatt (2005), however, offered an insightful deconstruction of servant leadership, drawing on feminist perspectives that add significantly to understanding the
Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:20:08.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
concept. She troubled the use of contradictory terms such as “servant” and “leader,” which elicit paradoxical stocks of knowledge to disrupt commonly accepted understandings of leadership. However, these terms are not values neutral and as such also simultaneously draw on gendered stocks of knowledge that associate “leader” with masculinity and dominance and “servant” with femininity and subjugation. EicherCatt further argued that the grounding of servant leadership in a JudeoChristian ideology has implications for how power is manifest, given its rootedness in patriarchy and how the tradition has historically “marked women and other marginalized groups as others, as transgressors against society’s norms” (p. 21). She goes on to caution that because the initial disruption of what leadership is thought to be is so attractive and the core tenets of inclusivity and development align with contemporary values, servant leadership “can be easily appropriated to serve political ends” (EicherCatt, 2005, p. 23).
WrapUp Some might argue that understanding the value of servant leadership requires the use of dialectical thinking (i.e., engaging in the process of holding two seemingly contradictory concepts in unison) given the terminology that defines it and the ways in which it both disrupts and reinforces dominant norms. Servant leadership is unique within the body of leadership theories, having evolved from a philosophical framework created to challenge commonly held conceptions of power and production. However, servant leadership also runs the risk of reinforcing leadercentricity and a number of problematic ideologies depending on how it is translated to practice. Greenleaf (1977) acknowledged some of these criticisms. He also encouraged people to avoid dismissing the potential that servant leadership presents simply because it isn’t perfect. Table 7.2 synthesizes key strengths and weaknesses associated with servant leadership.
TABLE 7.2 Strengths and weaknesses of servant leadership
Strengths Weaknesses
Emergent research that is psychometrically rigorous validates the concept
Demonstrated positive influences on leadership outcomes above and beyond those associated with other leadership theories
Acknowledges how dynamic interactions with context, culture, and followers shape relative success when translating to practice
Because it originated as a philosophy, multiple competing versions exist, each with varying congruence with the original concept and quality of empirical support
May not be desirable in all organizational contexts given its core tenets
Leadercentric nature, limited examination of social location, and potential to perpetuate patriarchal and JudeoChristian norms necessitate caution in its enactment
Dugan, J. P. (2017). <i>Leadership theory</i>. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com Created from apus on 2017-06-23 08:20:08.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
7. J
oh n
W ile
y &
S on
s, In
co rp
or at
ed . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.