Servant Leadership in Diverse Context.
In the world, there have been several forms of leadership, including authentic leadership, transformational and servant leadership. However, evidence of scandals and erosion of belief in the conventional business leadership have shown that these forms have been considered to fail, and one of the most effective forms of leadership across all philosophies is servant leadership. The latter is a form of leadership that has its roots in religious philosophies and is associated with virtue rather than command. Its applications can be seen across cultures all over the world. This text will provide evidence of its impact across cultures and religions while advocating for this application today.
Cultural perspective.
Servant leadership is relatively new in the leadership culture but has existed in both philosophy and religion (Irving, 2010). Cultural perspectives towards servant leadership across cultures are based on the human drive to bond with others and aid in the betterment of the community. The main aim of this form of motivation is seen in fortifying and integrating values of humility and empathy onto people, and this is what differentiates this framework of leadership to others.
Servant leadership in the cultural sense looks into building the community and the betterment of the society. This means that servant leaders are meant to be an inspiration to serve first. Their priority is meant to serve, and the occupation of leadership is meant to be a byproduct of their wish to serve (Mittal & Dorfman, 2012). It is such that should make one desire to lead first then serve; it is mostly associated with the need for assuming power and obtaining material possession. Among the attributes common to a servant leader are initiative and vision. For one to be considered a servant leader, they need to be ready for the possibility of failure.
Therefore, they must have a sense of direction and must have integrated communication skills. A servant leader is expected to a leader that has an integrated role where their main objective is to serve the community efficiently and to do so; they must both lead and listen. This means that they acknowledge their position and understand that they are servants of the community hence should be consistently referring to the community for advice on how to develop it (Irving, 2010). As servant leaders, they are expected to comply with codes as they are meant to inspire service. Also, service is meant to be their primary motivation rather than leading. Here, they are expected to take the initiative regularly and be aware of the people; as needs first and make the sustenance of the community their top priority. They should also have a vision as it sets a code that needs to be followed.
In addition, demonstrations of moral integrity and courage will allow leaders to display great forms of moral development and inspire the community to emulate their actions. It is through this that they can be able to integrate servant institutions that can motivate others rather than make them ignore their moral determinations. From a cultural standpoint, five factors can aid in expressing the definition of a servant leader, and they are building communities, altruism, interpersonal support, moral integrity, and egalitarianism (Mittal & Dorfman, 2012). The model should be inspirational and ethical, where the real test of the leader’s influence is if his or her people have grown in terms of wisdom, health, and freedom. Also, a more trusting base of employees who are both positive and motivated will serve as an example of their influence. They are expected to create an environment where they are the ones who are dedicated to developing followers.
Religious perspective.
From a religious standpoint, it is an inspiration of hope and is fulfilling in nature. This means that they must be driven and have an all-encompassing purpose, which sets their direction. Here, its contrast to the cultural viewpoint of servant leadership is that it focuses on the moral standpoint of the leader. This means that emphasis is on the virtues that the leader has. A servant leader is to understand that his or her position does not make him or her any bigger than everyone else, as all are equal, and they are expected to use their role to serve just as any other person would use their role to serve.
Furthermore, they are given the responsibility to be role models where everyone looks up to their spiritual qualities rather than the material advantages that come with leadership. From a religious standpoint, it is such that no person has any special privileges; the leader is meant to serve and should not expect to be served (Zentner, 2015). To do so, a leader is expected to have the following characteristics; among them is being able to listen to everyone and follow their moral intuition as they are not expected to abuse their power and make biased decisions. Secondly, they are expected to be empathetic as their influence is meant to inspire belonging. Thirdly, they are expected to make their followers feel whole. This is mostly accomplished by giving them a sense of meaning and direction.
Religion, in itself, is all about servant leadership, where it begins with the initial feeling to serve, and the conscious aspiration to lead will follow. From the religious perspective, the first characteristic of a leader is a listener. They are expected to listen more and give both guidance and comfort to the congregation and followers as this is how they fulfill their role in service. In addition, empathy is also another trait expected from a religious leader where they are meant to provide healing and hear the individual’s troubles and helping them out of the problems as opposed to objectively telling them what to do. Persuasion is another characteristic where they are expected to be able to influence their followers, and this is mostly done through acting as role models as they do not just instruct their congregating, they lead by example that the flock can resonate with their fellow servant.
Nevertheless, it is essential to understand that in religion, the leader’s primary objective is not to the goal, preferably to the people. As such, they are expected to lead the flock; hence tending to the followers while also committing to their growth. As such, they are also obligated to building the community (Zentner, 2015). Given that everyone in the community has a role; their influence is meant to bring togetherness and a sense of unity. Their role is not meant to be just authoritative for their selfish gain; rather for the gain of every individual where everyone should feel looked after.
Contrast to other forms of leadership
There are other forms of leadership that exist outside of the servant leadership spectrum; whoever each of them has a contrast to the servant leadership that makes the latter a better form of leadership. For one, transformational leadership has an emphasis on the ultimate vision and values to be achieved rather than moral standards (Hoch et al., 2016). Also, authentic leadership differs in that emphasis is on self-awareness. Also, spiritual leadership has a different focus on vision, faith, and hope to desire to seem similar to servant leadership.
Conclusion.
In sum, the role of the servant leader across all philosophies and religions is to serve unconditionally. However, the difference in the cultural and religious perspective of the servant leader is not in their role instead of their definition (Beazley & Gemmill, 2006). With a religious leader, it is assumed that everyone is equal; hence they should consider themselves equal to everyone, and the term leader is meant to be a role they play in the community rather than a title. However, culturally, the servant leader is intended to be an example and a role model as it is an occupation rather than a role. Being a servant leader collectively understands the true meaning of being a leader and serves to be its best definition, given that it puts value on virtue.
References
Beazley, D., & Gemmill, G. (2006). Spirituality and Servant Leader Behavior. Journal Of Management, Spirituality & Religion, 3(3), 258-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/14766080609518629
Hoch, J., Bommer, W., Dulebohn, J., & Wu, D. (2016). Do Ethical, Authentic, and Servant Leadership Explain Variance Above and Beyond Transformational Leadership? A Meta-Analysis. Journal Of Management, 44(2), 501-529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316665461
Irving, J. (2010). Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Servant Leadership. Research Gate. Retrieved 15 May 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304681790_Cross-Cultural_Perspectives_on_Servant_Leadership.
Mittal, R., & Dorfman, P. (2012). Servant leadership across cultures. Journal Of World Business, 47(4), 555-570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.009
Zentner, A. (2015). Servant Leadership and Religious Values: Drawing Speculation to Commonalities between Servant Leadership Characteristics and Faith-Based Values. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2638587