Servant LeadershipEssay Preview: Servant LeadershipReport this essayNumerous researches have highlighted the important link between leadership behavior and trust within organizations. While the relationship between servant leadership and trust has attracted scholarly interests for many years, the underlying process of how trust in the leader-follower relationships is developed remains unknown. The current study addresses this gap in the literature by empirically testing the linkages between servant leadership behavior and followers trust in their leaders. (Amold et al.,2001;Brower et al.,2000;Butler,1991;Butler et al.,1999;Dirks and Ferrin, 2002; Gillespie and Mann, 2004; Gomez and Rosen, 2001; Jones and George, 1998; Joseph and Winston,2005; Jung and Avolio, 2000; Mayer and Davis, 1999; Mayer et al., 1995; Podsakoff et al.,1990, 1996; Whitener et al., 1998). Trust in leader is typically defined as the willingness of a subordinate to be vulnerable to the behaviors and actions of his or her leader which are beyond the subordinates control (Mayer et al., 1995), whereas trust in organization is the general perception of employees on the organizations trustworthiness (Gambetta, 1988).
Servant leadership is a significant predictor of trust with covenantal relationship, responsible morality and transforming influence as the key servant leadership behaviors significantly contributing to followers trust in their leaders. Relationships built on trust and service is the basis for the influence of servant leadership (Sarkus, 1996; Tatum, 1995). Trust was central to servant leadership since leadership legitimacy begins with trust Greenleaf (1977). While the notion of trust is not exclusively attached to servant leadership and may considered a key element in all leadership models, servant leadership has been particularly considered as strongly associated with trust (De Pree, 1997; Joseph and Winston, 2005; Melrose, 1995; Russell, 2001), that is through servant leader exhibit and translate “their personal integrity into organizational fidelity” (De Pree, 1997).
• Service leadership has long been seen as a crucial component of the foundation of American democracy. In American society this notion is embedded in the institution of leadership (e.g. Church, Church, Daughters, Congregational Church, Association of the Daughters of the American Revolution, Daughters of the Women’s National Organization of the United States). However, in contrast to leadership roles traditionally used outside of this context, service roles are also central to shaping America’s public attitudes about the role of civil servants. Service-based organizations continue to demonstrate a need to strengthen leadership as key components of the American democracy system after more than a century of service role modernization (e.g., “leadership to civic and social life has been shaped by service participation,” Murchison, 1993; Martin, 1984; Martin, 1972). In a report by the University of Maryland’s Office for the National Interest titled “Civil Service’s Role in the American Society” (1999), the authors analyzed the participation of nearly 705,000 members of the general service organizations (AGOs) in a nationwide sample of 1,004 service leaders over six decades. Using the most recently available data, they concluded that in the United States, nearly 50% of service leaders were not service leaders. In addition to serving, nearly half of service-led organizations also had a high concentration of service leaders. While service leaders represented about 20.3% of AGOs—more than three times as many as the general service organizations (Fronzo, 1981; Murchison, 1976)—servant leadership is much more pervasive than was the position assumed by most academic philosophers while in education and employment groups. This suggests that within this general service organization, service leadership and civic well-being are highly intertwined. Based on the evidence cited in this paper, however, service-led organizations and other stakeholders will have to be rehashed in different historical contexts. Service-led organizations may be concerned about civic well-being, but it cannot be thought of as the only relevant concern in the context of government, which is largely a military and law enforcement department. For example, many service-led organizations can potentially address civic problems in areas such as housing, youth employment, and civic engagement. However, service-led organizations are not necessarily concerned with the moral or civic problems of people. If some of their issues are seen as less important than others, service-led organizations may conclude that government is not necessary.
* * * * SERVICE leadership has long been viewed as the foundation of American democracy. In the United States in the early nineteen th century, the American Civil War, World War I, and the Spanish Civil War served as the major factors contributing to the rise of civic culture and the establishment of civic institutions in the United States. In those organizations they were not quite so much political as civil. The idea that civil servants were not necessary as a key element in a civic structure is the basis for both the rise of civil service leadership, and the civil service leadership model associated with it. Thus, while we understand that “servant leadership and civic well-being are likely to play role for many civic institutions, the United States continues to have a much different role model in regard to their role as a civic power center,”(Pompey, 1994) we do not have evidence to support the thesis that service-driven organizations should be replaced as national figures of civic importance. Nonetheless, we conclude that in the American democracy system it appears we have a significant responsibility to support civic institutions in ways they will benefit citizens today. In particular, we think that the emergence
Master/servant leader in our system is a vital player in the positive leadership process
Servant leadership is an important tool in community leadership that can improve social, financial and civic development, facilitate the advancement of a community’s understanding of life in a multiethnic society, promote well-being in a vulnerable population, and increase support for the rule of law and the rule of justice in an authoritarian government. We develop these benefits through self-empowerment (which, ultimately, will shape the quality of our leadership systems) through collective leadership and collective and cooperative work with others within the system. The value of self-empowerment is understood in terms of individual’s role in shaping and influencing the dynamics of leadership.
| Serve the People! | Servant Leadership is a cornerstone of leadership that is often neglected by many others. I am reminded often of the struggle of the Native American in the 1970s to keep his family in line with his beliefs. This struggle resulted in an educational system of higher education for all Native Americans and a free society for individuals, regardless of experience or race. This system led to a successful healing process for Native people affected by mental illness. | Servant leadership is about being accountable to every person in the community; about being respectful of others, in all settings, regardless of race, creed, income, social class, or creed. | Servant leadership is about honoring and recognizing those who are the most responsible for the quality and sustainability of our community by allowing for the advancement of a fair and just society. | Servant leadership is about respecting those who are most impacted by the injustices and injustices of a broken social/economic system, which are often systemic or structural in our lives. | Servant leadership is about building lasting shared values in the community and building accountability in a social way. | Servant leadership is about respecting citizens and the rights enshrined by the law, especially those in the public sphere. | Secular and non-“anti-religious” or “transgender” | In the modern world the world is populated by people of different faiths, ethnicities and religious affiliations that are often not represented in the public sphere. Although our society places great importance on religious and secular values, it also creates barriers to the many people seeking out and seeking new opportunities to pursue their religious identities. It is important to remember those who face barriers, often because of religion. If our social culture places them outside of those norms, then religious people can be misused or manipulated. This is how our culture works. In this context, we are faced with a variety of questions and how we should think about the impact of religious diversity to our society. How do we address systemic and structural barriers that exist in our society that affect the needs of those in the community with whom we are together, while respecting and supporting non-religious individuals, particularly for religious purposes? | To serve, and understand, those in positions of power or position at the heart of our society. Serve in the community not just for the sake of serving others, but also because of the power these individuals wield. Serving these groups requires understanding and building
The work shown in this article builds on work by N. T. Nelson, who developed a unique process in a community of members focused on the building capacity of their communities to have, in his words, “personal autonomy” by using community self-empowered leadership, “and the capacity for community action from the community” (2005b). In this sense the model of community leadership focuses on the collective ownership of leaders, the “leadership” of the government and the building capacity for political influence. The project also integrates leadership activities with cultural competencies from the cultural/cultural traditions of communities and shows that in an authoritarian country leaders are, in effect, the “guilty players”, in that they are not held accountable for decisions they can make unilaterally. Through the work of Nelson’s own group, self-empowered leadership in a community can be a foundation to other practices of participatory democracy, in which political pressure is put forth to ensure positive outcomes for the state, community and society. The findings will also be presented as a countervailing force to democratic democratic practices in the United States. The primary aim of our study was to explore the relationships between self-empowered leadership in a large, interconnected community in a multi-city rural area of Illinois, and a national group of elders and senior citizens, including children. Our research was sponsored by the Social Work Initiative (SWINT). SWINT is a non-profit organization designed to provide support to groups which provide an environment in which they can have informed decisions, engage in decision making, and engage in social and spiritual development (DePree, 1997). Our study group comprises of 6 elders and 6 senior citizens. Each group is involved in 3.3 minutes of conversation in a local, regional or national social services center. Each of us is assigned and monitored by a mentor to help guide and empower us in developing, leading and supporting self-directed lives. Although we cannot predict when we will develop or adopt any new skills or practices, we hope to increase awareness of the opportunities presented and to develop strategies that address the obstacles present in traditional leadership education. The first half of the project involved the collection and preparation of written reports for each of 6 separate meetings of SWINT. These reports were presented in our program to the participants and are presented online at http://socialwork.nww.edu/resources/reports. To prepare reports, we recruited elders from the community, their families, and other members to serve as the project’s staff; participants to provide feedback and advice (from the program’s resources section for self-organized studies); and, volunteers to deliver the workshops and workshops to elders. (We found that all participants who had completed both programs reported their participation in the study. All of these reports have a unique content and content rating and have an overall impact on our Master/servant leader in our system is a vital player in the positive leadership process Servant leadership is an important tool in community leadership that can improve social, financial and civic development, facilitate the advancement of a community’s understanding of life in a multiethnic society, promote well-being in a vulnerable population, and increase support for the rule of law and the rule of justice in an authoritarian government. We develop these benefits through self-empowerment (which, ultimately, will shape the quality of our leadership systems) through collective leadership and collective and cooperative work with others within the system. The value of self-empowerment is understood in terms of individual’s role in shaping and influencing the dynamics of leadership.
|