User:Jwills725/10pagepaper

The deliberate choice to put other's needs, interest, and goals before their own is "servant leadership" according to Robert K. Greenleaf. This style of thinking is credited to Greenleaf but is not new to the world. Findings of servant leadership can be found in the Holy Bible. In the Holy Bible, Jesus Christ used the term "servant" as a synonym for greatness. Jesus saw the two as one and here is why. Jesus states

"You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant" (NIV Bible, Mark 10:43).

This was an unusual twist on the perspective of leadership by Jesus because authoritative leadership was the chosen style of leadership in that day. Jesus set another example of servanthood through foot-washing. Foot-washing was important task during those times because of the dusty, muddy, and manure-filled streets specifically because the footwear of this era were sandals. It was customary that a servant be provided by the host or the lowest ranking guest wash the feet of others. Jesus and his disciples entered a house to have a meal together but with no servant available none of the disciples were going to place themselves as the lowest ranking guest. Jesus and his disciples ate their meal with dirty feet. Jesus abruptly got up and washed the feet of his disciples, and after finishing, he states,

"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. (NIV Bible, Gospel of John 13:13-15). This action came as a shock for his disciples because of the custom that the lowest ranking guest wash the other guest feet. This is an unambiguous example of servant leadership. Other findings of servant leadership can be found in the 6th century BC by the man named Lao Tzu, the founder of Taoism.  Tzu believed the work is done when the leader does not exist.  Another finding is found in Buddhism.  Buddhism is the devotion of one's life to serving all beings and through this enlightenment is achieved.  Lastly Hinduism, where serving others impacts karma, and that has universal consequences that ultimately determine one's reincarnation. Greenleaf conceptualized the theory of servant leadership while reading a story about a spiritual pilgrimage, Journey to the East by Herman Hesse. This story tells of a mythical journey taken by a band of men. These men are joined by Leo, a main figure of the story. Leo accompanies the band of men as a servant that does menial chores, but also gives the men sustenance through spirit and song. One day Leo unexpectedly disappears, and without the inspiration and guidance given by Leo the band of men fall into disarray and discontinue their journey. Leo is later found, and it is discovered to be the great and noble leader of the Order. Greenleaf introduces his conceptualization of servant leadership in 1970 with his essay "The Servant as a Leader". Greenleaf states

"The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice to brings one to aspire to lead.  That person is sharply different from one who is leader first…".

Greenleaf believed this to be the true intention of a servant leader. "I serve" in opposition of the traditional "I lead" mentality. The "I serve" mentality is evident in politicians who define their role through public service. From the "I serve" come two premises I serve because I am the leader and I am the leader because I serve. The first premise signifies the act of altruism. Altruism is defined as the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others. Jesus declares himself among them who serve. Greenleaf declares that servant leadership begins with the natural feeling of wanting to serve first. Only through the act of serving does the leader lead other people to be what they are capable of. The second premise of servant leadership is I am the leader because I serve. In other words, this beings with a rooted ambition to be leader or personal ambitions of a leader. Greenleaf's definition left much room for speculation because it lacked specifics. Servant leadership is handled throughout the literature by many different dimensions. Servant leadership represents a model of leadership that is both inspirational and contains moral safeguards. Most of the literature on servant leadership have standalone quality. Several scholars have tackled the construct presented by Greenleaf. Academic research efforts often focus on altruism, self-sacrifice, charismatic, transforming, authentic, spiritual, and transformational and leader-member exchange. Despite several conceptual papers on the topic of servant leadership, there is no consensus on empirical research for the servant leadership construct.

There is however, a semi-consensus among scholars that Spear embodies the definition of servant leadership most accurately. Spears specified servant leadership with ten characteristics. Those are: empathy, listening, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community. According to Kuzgun, the emphatic ability occurs during the communication process. The emphatic ability does not only allow for a person to feel what someone else is feeling but to also understand. According to Gander and Gardiner empathy is an important condition for servant leadership. Gander and Gardiner believed this to be true because empathy provokes one to share, help, and portray other altruistic behaviors. Empathy is the gateway to such a behavior. Empathy and listening play a pivotal role only together. Greenleaf believed that listening begins with genuine interest that only manifest itself from close attention. Greenleaf speaks of a genuine thirst in general for serving but he is specific in that only through close attention can genuine interest be formed. Greenleaf hinted that once an interest is formed then everything else would fall into place, like being genuine. The third characteristic of servant leadership according to Spears is healing. Healing makes up for one of the spiritual characteristics of servant leadership. Spears believed healing to be one of the greatest strengths of servant-leadership because of the potential it holds. Spears advocated that not only can a servant leader heal others but also can heal their selves by healing others. From conceptualization, servant leadership elicits to a premise that individuals are not whole but only by serving is a completion of ourselves made. Awareness is the fourth characteristic of servant leadership according to Spears. Greenleaf believed that the servant leader must be aware of their limitations therefore, seek the opportunities to serve others. A true servant leader must recognize their capabilities and rely on those they serve. With this in mind, Spears's notion toward the idea that one does not find one's self inside their own existence but finds one's self in others was clear cut. The servant leader must be aware of this. Conceptualization and persuasion are the next two characteristics of servant leadership according to Spears. Conceptualization and persuasion are two goals that allow a leader to see beyond immediate gains and toward future goals. Only through communication can a leader of any style convince others of the direction needed to make the goals a reality. This is where the distinction of servant leadership falls. Servant leadership does not include coercion, rather consensus. To serve is to be empathetic, a listener, a healer, and being aware. According to Greenleaf a servant leader must cultivate the conditions that favor intuition. In other words, it is only the prudent person who thinks of the 'now' as the moving concept in which past, present, and future are one organic entity. Another distinction for servant leadership is that it does not force those to conform to a preordained path set by them. According to Spears, foresight is a characteristic of the servant leader that enables them to understand past lessons, realities of the present, and likely consequences to come in the future due to decisions made in the present. The eighth and ninth characteristic of servant leadership according to Spears is stewardship and commitment to the growth of people. The servant leader must be committed to the growth of every individual they serve. Spears uses the term "nurture" in regard to stewardship. Spears does because the servant leader must do what they can, in order to foster growth. This is why a servant leader cannot embrace stewardship without having a deep commitment to others. Commitment transitions into care for the wellbeing of others above one's own. This makes a servant leader according to Spears. In other words, a person who is deeply committed to the wellbeing and growth of those they serve will be able to see their selves in others. Last characteristic of servant leadership according to Spears is community building. Greenleaf believed trust, ethical behavior, and respect to be difficult for the young to learn and the old to maintain so it is falls upon the servant leader to build the community with that mannerism in mind. Only when a servant leader embraces their role can the community be restored through love. Greenleaf found love to be undefinable but also infinite.

Although a semi-consensus among scholars exist on Spear's definition of servant leadership, empirical research has no consensus. Here are some of the most pivotal attempts in research to captivate servant leadership in its entirety. Some research mention points toward some of benefits of servant leadership and shortcomings of the articles:

Researcher Akuchie explored the religious and spiritual articulations of the servant leadership construct. Akuchie examined a single Bible passages related to servant leadership. A passage just like the one mentioned in the opening of the essay. Akuchie suggested that the application of this lesson is for daily life. However, Akuchie did not in any way clarify servant leadership as distinct from other forms of leadership or articulate a framework for understanding servant leadership.

Researchers Sendjaya and Sarros used the same Bible account as Akuchie and made the claim that Jesus Christ, not Greenleaf, introduced the notion of servant leadership to everyday human endeavor. They argued that this leadership principle was so important to Christianity that it was captured by all four gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). The researchers argued that servant leaders have a particular view of themselves as stewards who are entrusted to develop and empower followers to reach their fullest potential. However, Sendjaya and Sarros research work did not propose a testable framework nor did this work distinguish between this and other leadership styles.

Researcher Graham discussion on servant leadership distinguished transformational leadership and servant leadership. The transformational leadership model was conceived in part by James MacGregor Burns in 1978 and Bernard Bass in 1985. A major distinction between transformational leadership and servant leadership is the focus of the leader. The servant leader focuses on the service to followers, customers, and the organization whereas the transformational leader focused on the goal of the organization. The servant leader influences by serving the needs of others whereas the transformation leader influences by modeling. The servant leader promotes team problem solving individualized development whereas the transformational leader uses persuasion to promote individualized influence. The servant leader motivates by providing autonomy and resources whereas the transformational leader motivates with charisma to attain a common goal. Graham's servant leadership viewpoint focused on moral development, service, and enhancement of common good. Graham identified servant leadership as the most moral of charismatic effects. Graham identified its salient characteristics as humility, relational power, autonomy, emulation of leaders' service orientation, and moral development of followers.

Researchers Farling, Stone, and Winston noted the lack of empirical evidence for servant leadership. The researchers presented servant leadership as a hierarchical model in a cyclical process. This consisted of behavioral (vision, service) and relational (influence, credibility, trust) components. However, this conceptualization made by these researchers did not differ from leadership theories such as transformational leadership. Researcher Polleys distinguished servant leadership from three predominant leadership paradigms the trait, the behavioral, and the contingency approaches to leadership. Polleys's views aligned with transforming leadership but once again made no distinctions among charismatic, transformational, and servant leadership.

Researchers Barbuto and Wheeler created a dimension called "the natural desire to serve others," by combining the 10 characteristics of Spears. These researchers developed operational definitions and scales to measure 11 potential characteristics of servant leadership. Factor analyses reduced this scale to five unique dimensions: altruistic calling (four items), emotional healing (four items), wisdom (five items), persuasive mapping (five items), and organizational stewardship (five items). This framework specified the fundamentals to servant leadership and consisted with Greenleaf's original message. Among these five dimensions, altruistic calling is most aligned with ethics.

Researchers Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson developed a seven-dimension scale to measure servant leadership. These seven dimensions are conceptual skills, empowering, helping subordinates grow and succeed, putting subordinates first, behaving ethically, emotional healing, and creating value for the community. Improving an individual in an organizational setting. Each dimension is assessed by four items, totaling 28 items for this scale. The researchers reported that servant leadership behavior explained variance in citizenship behavior and in role performance beyond that predicted by leader-member exchange and transformational leadership.

Researchers Russell and Stone reviewed the literature and proposed nine 'functional' attributes of servant leadership (vision, honesty, integrity, trust, service, modeling, pioneering, appreciation of others, and empowerment) and eleven 'accompanying' attributes (communication, credibility, competence, stewardship, visibility, influence, persuasion, listening, encouragement, teaching, and delegation). They also argued that the servant leader must be a teacher in order to develop their followers, and that values and core personal beliefs were the antecedents to servant leadership.

Lastly, researcher Patterson developed a more spiritual conceptualization of servant leadership around leader values including: agapé love, humility, altruism, creating 21 visions for followers, being trusting, serving, and empowering their followers. This work was exploratory in nature. No confirmatory analysis was performed, no criterion was posited to establish validity, and convergent/divergent validity was not established.

Servant leadership is found throughout history and is articulated by Greenleaf. Greenleaf's definition is broad, but his work is continued and specified by Spears. No consensus currently exists on empirical evidence capturing servant leadership in its entirety. Research has its shortcomings but points to positive aspects of servant leadership. Positive aspects like increase in citizenship behavior, role performance, job performance, and servant leadership aligning with altruism. Servant leadership is to lead by serving.

REFERENCES

1. Ekinci, A. aekinci74@yahoo. co. (2015). Development of the School Principals' Servant Leadership Behaviors Scale and Evaluation of Servant Leadership Behaviors According to Teachers' Views. Education & Science / Egitim ve Bilim, 40(179), 241-260. https://doi-org.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.15390/EB.2015.2152 Fitzgerald, R. J. (2015). Becoming Leo: Servant Leadership as a Pedagogical Philosophy. Critical Questions in Education, 6(2), 75-85. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1065827&site=ehost-live

2. Gersh MR. (2006). Servant-leadership: a philosophical foundation for professionalism in physical therapy. Journal of Physical Therapy Education (American Physical Therapy Association, Education Section), 20(2), 12-16. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=106241218&site=ehost-live

3. Hamilton, F. (2005). Practicing servant-leadership: Succeeding through trust, bravery, and forgiveness. The Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 875-877. https://doi-org.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.2307/20159176 Heyler, S. G., & Martin, J. A. (2018). Servant Leadership Theory: Opportunities for Additional Theoretical Integration. Journal of Managerial Issues, 30(2), 230-243. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=130373169&site=ehost-live

4. Jit, R., Sharma, C. S., & Kawatra, M. (2017). Healing a Broken Spirit: Role of Servant Leadership. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 42(2), 80-94. https://doi-org.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.1177/0256090917703754 Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1220-1233. https://doi-org.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.1037/a0012695

5. Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377-393. https://doi-org.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6 Rai, R., & Prakash, A. (2012). A relational perspective to knowledge creation: Role of servant leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(2), 61-85. https://doi-org.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.1002/jls.21238

6. Reed, L. L. rr. comReedLL@eckerd. ed., Vidaver-Cohen, D. vidaver@fiu. ed., & Colwell, S. scolwell@uoguelph. c. (2011). A New Scale to Measure Executive Servant Leadership: Development, Analysis, and Implications for Research. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(3), 415-434. https://doi-org.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.1007/s10551-010-0729-1 van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3), 249-267. https://doi-org.york.ezproxy.cuny.edu/10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1