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
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.
