The year 2020
will certainly be remembered for the havoc that a coronavirus, COVID 19, wrought upon the systemic threads designed to allow our
society to functionally mesh. The
pandemic has especially revealed how precarious is the mission to form a more perfect union. Whenever times emphasize the need to address
fairness in equity and systemic racism, ineffective leadership deferring to
partisanship will block consensus building that could address social injustices
and institutional failures.
Sadly, since April
2020, three giants of civil rights have passed. Yes,
let’s greave Joseph Lowery, C. T. Vivian, and John Lewis but also accept that
the loss resulting from their passing presents an opportunity. In their memory we
are called upon to reflect, respect, and renew our goal of making better
possible.
Despite death,
John Robert Lewis urged each of us to answer the highest calling of our hearts
and stand up for what we truly believe. His posthumous Op-Ed simply added to his legacy. Congressman John R. Lewis dedicated his life to protecting
human rights and securing civil liberties. He was praised as "the conscience of the U.S. Congress.” The actions exemplified throughout his life modeled servant leadership, intentional
invitations to optimize human potential, and the willingness to challenge the
status quo through “Good Trouble.” Finding a way to get in the way through non-violent demonstration
was a core belief and a foundational assumption.
The
three basic assumptions of servant leadership are the 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). 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 prove capable of giving orders to other members of the organization
(Senge, 1990). By contrast, 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,
such as John R. Lewis are value-led and character-driven. 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). Servant leaders do
not find service and leadership to be dichotomous choices. 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).
Proponents of servant leadership
emphasize collaboration and integrity, whereby communication and persuasion
skills become extremely important (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004). Since a servant leader empowers others,
helping them be and do their best (Hall, 1991), then decision-making processes
involving stakeholders will typically result in consensus-building. Since the servant leader's motivation is
directed more at the personal growth of the follower, the servant leader's
success gets measured by the extent to which the follower moves toward self-actualization (Maslow, 1970).
From
the perspective of this type of 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
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).
Considering
John Lewis’s example of servant leadership for systemic change, it becomes
easier to recognize the conceptual and empirical gaps between servant
leadership and charismatic
leadership theory (Tucker, 1968). Too
often, a leader’s charisma guides political movements. In such cases, this results
in further polarization rather than consensus building because the leader’s desires,
aspirations, and biases; rather than needs of followers, become the focus for decision-making.
According to Spencer (2006), trust and emotional intelligence
must play a major role in servant-leadership.
Invitational Education
(IE), as explicated by Purkey and Siegel
(2013), provides similar expectations to guide today’s leaders through complex
times (Burns & Martin, 2010). Given IE Theory and
Practice
is grounded in social justice and high emotional intelligence, a servant leader
would comfortably focus upon issues of social inclusion, mutual respect, care,
equity, and justice. The result would be
inviting practices in all areas of systemic functioning that encourages people,
policies, programs, and processes to be intentional, caring, optimistic, respectful,
and trusting (I-CORT) in any place where optimal human potential and the
attainment of the learning for all mission is desired (Anderson, 2017).
For a servant leader, implementing Invitational
Education theory (Purkey & Novak, 2015) contributes to a climate respectful
of human dignity and promoting collaboration in the school’s decision-making
processes (Asbill & Gonzalez, 2000; Burns & Martin, 2010; Schmidt,
2007). An institution’s Five Ps: people, places, policies, programs, and processes,
provides a framework for assessing inviting practices (Purkey & Novak, 2015;
Purkey & Schmidt, 1996; Purkey & Siegel, 2003; Smith, 2005). Evaluating
institutional climate based on IE theory provides a comprehensive design with
the potential for optimizing success within today’s organizations (Burns &
Martin, 2010).
Through his final
words,
Congressman Lewis expected humble followers to accept the mantle of servant
leadership. Fortunately, John Lewis provided a model for servant leadership and
left us a full toolbox of effective strategies and non-violent approaches. His legacy provides proof that when leading
with love, we invite others to reach their human potential. Through servant leadership and leading with
love we communicate the antithesis to hate-based systemic racism, thereby
making better possible Thank you John Lewis, for proving that
peace and humility exposes Grace and true leadership!
To Cite:
Anderson,
C.J. (July 31, 2020). John R. Lewis: A role model for servant leadership and
intentional
invitations. [Web log post] Retrieved from
References
Anderson, C. J. (2017). Examining demonstrated emotional intelligence
and
perceptions of
inviting schools. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice,
23, 35-61.
Anderson, C.J. (May 31, 2020) Leading
with love: Being culturally responsive
requires addressing
systemic racism. [Web log post] Retrieved from
Asbill, K. (1994). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of
inviting principal
practices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of
Educational
Management, New Mexico State University.
Asbill, K., & Gonzalez, M. L.
(2000). Invitational leadership: Teacher perceptions of
inviting
Principal practices. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 7(1),
16-27.
Retrieved from:
http://www.invitationaleducation.net/pdfs/journalarchives/jitpv7n1.pdf
Brackett, M. A., & Katulak, N. A.
(2007). Emotional intelligence in the classroom: Skill-
based
training for teachers and students. In J. Ciarrochi & J. D. Mayer (Eds.),
Applying
emotional intelligence: A practitioner's guide, 1-27. New York, NY:
Psychology
Press.
Bradberry, T. R, & Greaves, J., (2009) Emotional intelligence 2.0. San
Diego, CA.
TalentSmart.
ISBN: 1441842233
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007).
Trust in leadership: A
multi-level review and
integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6),
606–632. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.09.006
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 Press
Greenleaf, R. K. (1997). The servant as leader. Indianapolis,
IN: The Greenleaf
Center (30).
Hobday-North, S., & Smith, K. (2014). Improving School Climate: The
Essential Role
of “Place” in
Invitational Theory and Practice. Learn Teach, 7(2), 23–32.
doi:10.7459/lt/7.2.03
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. and 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
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School
leadership that works:
From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and
Curriculum
Development. Retrieved from:
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.
Zullig, K.J., Koopman, T., Patton, J., & Ubbes, V. (2010). School
climate: Historical
review, instrument
development, & school assessment. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(2), 139-152.
