Wednesday, February 27, 2019

Servant Leadership and Invitational Theory and Practice

Servant-leaders are value-led and character-driven.  These qualities are typically exhibited by "increased service to others; a holistic approach to work; promoting a sense of community; and the sharing of power in decision making" (Greenleaf, 1997, p. 4).  Proponents of servant leadership emphasize collaboration and integrity, whereby communication and persuasion skills become extremely important (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004).  These skills are certainly the result of intellectual skills and experiential opportunities.
Since a servant leader invests himself or herself in enabling others, in helping them be and do their best (Hall, 1991), then decision-making processes involving most of the stakeholders will typically result in consensus-building.  As a result, a servant leader's motivation can be directed more at the personal growth of the follower.  The servant leader's success can then be determined by the extent to which the follower moves toward self-actualization (Maslow, 1970).  Therefore, what differentiates servant-leaders is their deep desire to pursue a preferred future from “the basis of humility, empathy, compassion, and commitment to ethical behavior” (Lad & Luechauer, 1998, p. 64).  This would not be possible without the intellectual and experiential components of leadership being evident.
The three basic assumptions of servant leadership are the servant leader is responsible for the followers, is responsible towards society and the disadvantaged, and the person who wants to help others does this best by leading them.  Listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to growth of people, and building community are essential attributes of the servant leader (Spear, 2002). 
Sendjaya and Sarros (2002) found the conceptual relationships and complementary roles between servant-hood and leadership had been studied from the perspectives of scholars and practitioners (Bass, 1999; Bowman, 1997; Buchen, 1998; Chappel, 2000; Choi & Mai-Dalton, 1998; De Pree, 1989; Fading, Stone, & Winston, 1999; Graham, 1991; Pollard, 1997; Russel, 2000; Senge, 1990, 1995; Spears, 1995).  The primary motivation for the servant-leader is to serve first rather than to lead (Greenleaf, 1977).  In most organizations, leadership is ascribed to people who hold management positions and are capable of giving orders to other members of the organization (Senge, 1990).  As a result of the primary desire to serve, the servant-leader wants to help his or her followers "grow healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become servants" (Greenleaf, 1977, pp 13-14).  While the desire to serve is the primary motivation of the servant-leader, the aspiration to lead is based on conscious choice to ensure other people's highest-priority needs are being served (Greenleaf, 1977).
Servant leaders do not find service and leadership to be dichotomous.  Rather, they believe the concepts are so intertwined that they can be used interchangeably because, to them, leadership is about providing a service (Koshal, 2005).  Since leadership does not exist in the absence of service then, according to Koshal, service delivery is only possible through leaders that model it.  Therefore, from the perspective of the servant leader the tenet of service adheres to key principles of servant leadership.  Leaders who lead an organization by focusing on their followers are servants first, whereby his or her followers are the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral.  Servant leaders serve and lead with “(a) altruism, (b) empower followers, (c) act with humility, (d) exhibit love, (e) lead with service, (f) are trusting, and (g) are visionary to their followers” (Patterson, 2003, p. 5).
Based on previous research, conceptual and empirical gaps exist between servant leadership and charismatic leadership theory (Tucker, 1968).  While charismatic leadership has been systematically studied and developed into a rigorously tested theory, at the dawn of the 21st century servant leadership continued to be considered a movement rather than a tested theory.  Therefore, empirical studies on servant leadership and related models continue to be needed Bass (1999).
Spencer (2006) proposed a hybrid model of servant-leadership oriented toward empowerment for achieving the organization's objectives (para. 22).  Spencer believed trust and emotional intelligence must play a major role.  Invitational education, as explicated by Purkey and Siegel (2013), is a model based on, a collection of assumptions seeking to explain phenomena by providing a means.  Invitational Theory and Practice provides the structure to guide today’s leaders through complex times (Burns & Martin, 2010). 
Invitational Theory and Practice, which is grounded in social justice and high emotional intelligence (EI), should be reflected in school leaders that focus upon issues of social inclusion, mutual respect, care, equity, and justice.  Leaders exhibiting such transformative social justice would consider the impact of race, class, gender, and disability.  Thus, invitational leaders promoting social justice would address historically marginalized groups and conditions within schools that impact student learning.

The four areas of inviting: “Inviting Oneself Personally, Inviting Oneself Professionally, Inviting Others Personally, and Inviting Others Professionally” (Schmidt, 2007, p. 16) provide useful structures for explaining Invitational Theory and Practice through understandable language with useable concepts (Purkey & Novak, 2016; Purkey, Schmidt, & Novak, 2010; Purkey & Siegel, 2013; Steyn, 2005).  As noted by research throughout the Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, servant leaders would feel Invitational Theory and Practice naturally aligns with their mindset.  The result would be inviting practices in all areas of school functioning that thereby encourages people, practices, policies, and processes to be intentional, caring, optimistic, respectful, and trusting (I-CORT) in any place where optimal teaching and learning is desired (Anderson, 2017).



To Cite:
Anderson, C.J. (February 27, 2019) Servant leadership and invitational theory and practice
             [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:
Anderson, C. J. (2017). Examining demonstrated emotional intelligence and
            perceptions of inviting schools. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice,
23, 35-61.

Burns, G., & Martin, B. N. (2010). Examination of the effectiveness of male and female
educational leaders who made use of the invitational leadership style of leadership.
Journal of Invitational Theory & Practice, 16, 29-55.

Egley, R. (2003). Invitational leadership: Does it make a difference? Journal of Invitational
Theory & Practice, 9, 57-70.

Egley, R. J., & Jones, B. D. (2005). Can accountability be inviting? an assessment of
administrators' professionally and personally inviting behaviors. Journal of Invitational
Theory & Practice, 11, 71-84.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power 
           and  greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist PressGreenleaf, R. K. 1997. The servant as leader.
Indianapolis, IN: The Greenleaf Center (30).

Koshal, J.O., (2005). Servant leadership theory: Application of the construct of service in the
            context of Kenyan leaders and managers. Regent University: Servant Leadership
            Research Roundtable. Retrieved February 27, 2019 from

Lad, L. J. & Luechauer, D. 1998. "On the path to servant-leadership." In L. Spears Insights on
            leadership: Service, spirit, and servant leadership. New York, NY: John Wiley

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (1996). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach
            to teaching, learning, and democratic practice (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
            Publishing Company. Retrieved from:    http://invitationaleducation.net/featuredbooks.html

Purkey, W. W., &; Novak, J. M. (2016). Fundamentals of invitational education. (2nd Ed)
            International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from:

Purkey, W. W., Schmidt, J. J., & Novak, J. M. (2010). From conflict to conciliation: How
            to defuse difficult situations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. ISBN:
            9787452212104

Purkey, W. W., & Siegel, B. L. (2013). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach           to
professional and personal success. Atlanta, GA: Humanics. Retrieved from:

Schmidt, J. J. (2004). Diversity and invitational theory and practice. Journal of Invitational
        Theory & Practice, 10, 27-46.

Schmidt, J. J. (2007). Elements of diversity in invitational practice and research. Journal of
        Invitational Theory & Practice, 13, 16-23.

Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, and application
            in organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 57-64.

Senge, P. M. (1990, Fall). The leader's new work: building learning organizations, Sloan
            Management Review, 32(1), 7-24.

Spears, L. C., & Lawrence , M. (Eds.). (2002). Focus on leadership: Servant leadership for the
            21st century. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Spencer, J. L. (2007). The new frontier of servant leadership. Paper presented at the Servant
Leadership Research Roundtable, Regent University, School of Leadership Studies.
Retrieved May 5, 2012 from
http://regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2007/spencer.pdf

Stanley, P. H., Juhnke, G. A., & Purkey, W. W. (2004). Using an invitational theory of practice
to create safe and successful schools. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82(3), 302-309.

Steyn, G. M. (2005). Exploring factors that influence the effective implementation of
        professional development programmes on invitational education. Journal of Invitational
        Theory & Practice, 11, 7-34.

No comments:

Post a Comment