needing reply with intext citations and references   Review the…

DorineMitchell needing reply with intext citations and references   Review the…needing reply with intext citations and references Review the seven different emphases of servant leadership in Chapter 3 of the textbook. Which emphasis was most divergent from your view about servant leadership and which was most convergent? Explain your response. Strengthen your claims with supporting citations. Chapter 3 Different emphases of servant leadershipThe Poets (or romanticists and visionaries)The Poets emphasize the romantic and visionary aspects of Greenleaf’s writings, and the inspirational role played by literature, including poetry, on his thinking. Without question, Greenleaf was a visionary – an idealist – and he wanted others to appreciate what life in the workplace, and in the broader community, could and should be likeThe Poets turn to various leadership writers who use poetry to explain and expand their ideas. For example, Max DePree (1989) laments the fact that ‘talent may go unnoticed and unused’ by quoting Thomas Gray’s famous verse (from Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard):Full many a gem of purest ray serene,The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear:Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,And waste its sweetness on the desert air.Jim Autry’s (1991) poetry is used to expand fundamental servant leadership and business points, and poetry is featured and celebrated in The International Journal of Servant Leadership (IJS-L). Volume 2, for example, contained a poem by Meg Wheatley, Greenleaf on Robert Frost, a chapter called A Poetics of Servant Leadership, and concluded with a section entitled A Place for Poetry.However, romanticists and visionaries move beyond poetry, believing that the widespread application of servant leadership can bring about fundamental changes in the very nature of society – the IJS-L’s manuscript reviewers’ guidance document speaks admirably of ‘educating the whole person’ in order to ‘heal the heart of humanity’ – and their commendable idealism generates articles with titles including phrases such as: Servant Leadership and Unconditional Forgiveness; Servant Leadership, Forgiveness, and Unlimited Liability; Happiness, Success, Quality Of Life, And Love; and more.The Romanticists possess admirable passion, and their views are often reflected in the writings of others who encourage new patterns of work and relationships to emerge within the employment relationship, including those not holding a declared servant leadership persuasion. Others consider this focus on poetry and romance to be tangential, at best, to their understanding of the world of work; they favour the appeal of ‘The Managerialists’, with their understanding of how servant leadership should be applied within the world of business.The Managerialists (or partially reconstructed Taylorites)In his non-poetic guise, in The Servant Leader (2004) with its references to performance management, negative appraisal, firing people, handling conflict, leadership when things go wrong, and much else, Autry deals with servant leadership in practice – or the harsh realities of organizational life, as he calls it – and, understandably, this is what the Managerialists consider to be the ‘real world’. Autry considers the application of servant leadership within the context of business, and shows how sound managerial practice may be applied systematically while adhering to, and being guided by, servant leadership principles.Similarly, Douglas’s (2003) discussion of servant leadership among supervisors shows that the principles and practices are grounded in the reality of corporate life: ‘Supervisors who model servant leadership will face all the challenges of any other manager – personal and organizational conflict, budget crises, sexual harassment, hirings and firings, reorganizations and complex ethical dilemmas. The difference is the approach servant-leaders use in making decisions and managing resources.’In typically graphic style, Stephen Covey (1994), the renowned management guru, also exemplifies that a servant-leader can become engaged in tough action: ‘Later in life, I served as a vice president under a benevolent dictator. The servant-leader who replaced him was actually tougher. That experience taught me that servant leadership is not soft or touchy-feely. It’s a much tougher style because when you set up performance agreements and become a source of help, people have to be tough on themselves. They just can’t sit around and blame others.’ Reinke (2004) makes a similar point: ‘the servant-leader does not accept mediocre performance, but keeps everyone focused on achieving organizational objectives within the constraints of shared organizational values’.Many other commentators agree. McGee-Cooper and Looper’s Lessons on Layoffs: Managing in Good Times to Prepare for Bad Times (2001b) provides advice on how a servant-leader should handle layoffs, and examples of how the servant-leader can utilize human resource policy and practices to make the organization healthier, thereby obviating the need for redundancies. They also comment on management practices to ‘weed out non-performers within the six-month probationary period’.This notion of performance is also found in the work of Irving and Longbotham (2006), ‘We trust that these findings will encourage increased exploration into the positive effects of servant leadership on team effectiveness, as well as a robust application of servant leadership in contemporary organizational settings’. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) conclude their examination of servant leadership with ‘The excitement surrounding servant leadership may be justified, as it appears strong relationships with positive outcomes such as employers’ extra effort, employees’ satisfaction, and perceptions of organizational effectiveness were found. Organizations may look for opportunities to recruit individuals who possess servant leadership characteristics’.Arguably, the work of Showkeir (2002) illustrates the managerialist approach in clearer terms than anyone else. He recognizes that, in order for servant leadership to be positioned alongside successful business practice, a sine qua non in his writing, it needs ‘a solid business argument that reconciles the attainment of unequivocal business results (profit, market share, and so on) with the need and longing for individual meaning and purpose at work’. He believes that much of the misunderstanding over servant leadership is because of a lack of ‘connection between servant leadership and attaining business results’. These references illustrate an important principle: sound managerial practice need not be antithetical to the principles of servant leadership.The Egalitarians (or redistributive socialists)The speeches and writings of George SanFacon (for example, Awake At Work, 2008) epitomize the views of the Egalitarians, who view servant leadership as an opportunity to create new structures and governance in the workplace, thereby redistributing power from single managers to a wider community of participants. SanFacon’s leadership of the University of Michigan’s Housing Facilities Department resulted in a removal of their traditional management hierarchy, and the introduction of shared governance with managers in collaborative teams – the traditional boss-subordinate relationships were removed, with managers reporting to a Council. As SanFacon and colleagues (Malinoski and SanFacon, 1998) describe:[The] Facilities Council decision making is collective and done strictly by consensus … The Council’s consensus process consists of hearing and understanding what each individual has to say, and reaching a decision that is acceptable to all and consistent with the mission statement … Departmental staff and others may appeal decisions made by the Council or a Council memberThe Egalitarian emphasis can be detected in their description of ‘consensus decision making’, ‘resources freely shared across units’, ‘time for participants to adjust to the equalization of their roles’, and ‘power and authority distributed more equally among the members’. SanFacon developed his thinking in Awake At Work (2008), and the following quote illustrates egalitarianism precisely:Organizations – both for-profits and not-for-profits – are deserving of our commitment and support to the extent that they extend such consideration to each of their stakeholders … With consensus decision-making and open access to decision-making bodies, every person in the system has influence and power. No one person has unilateral power over another, and there is protection against the arbitrary use of power.Many find this approach appealing, and Bowie’s A Kantian Theory of Leadership (2000) resonates with SanFacon: ‘Kant’s moral philosophy … is basically egalitarian … Given these egalitarian commitments, how can Kant provide a theory of leadership when ‘leadership’ has connotations of elitism and hierarchy?’ As Bowie develops his argument, he comments: ‘Perhaps a Kantian would endorse a theory of leadership that specifically eschews the notion that the leader is somehow superior to his or her followers. Servant leadership is one such theory … there are many passages in Greenleaf that would fit with a Kantian theory of leadership.’For many, that represents a step too far, perhaps even an abrogation of the leader’s responsibility to lead, of the manager’s responsibility to manage; but, for others, it represents the application of one of Greenleaf’s cardinal principles: that leadership should be exercised on the basis of primus inter pares – first among equals – and what, they contend, could be more appropriate than the emphasis typified by SanFacon.The Peripherals (or zealots and agnostics)The Peripherals are a diverse group of people and organizations unified through a common characteristic: they confess allegiance to servant leadership principles without any necessary reference to the work of Greenleaf. Apart from this common factor, they include a disparate range of views and reputations, from the commendable to the questionable (and both categories remain nameless).First, are many overtly Christian writers, speakers and websites, who base their views on Bible verses such as ‘And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant’ (Matthew 20: 27 KJV). Building on such teaching, they construct a series of principles to expound the principle of servant leadership. Then there are institutes established to ‘provide opportunities for the spiritual formation and leadership development of people who are called to be servant-leaders’, and training organizations who introduce clients to ‘a unique style of leadership that is modelled on the approach of Him who said he came to serve, not be served’, and universities introducing students to ‘the nature, styles, and skills of Servant Leadership, utilising historic and contemporary models and emphasising moral roots of responsible leadership’. Some Christian organizations appear to equate servant leadership’s apotheosis with work to alleviate the needs of the least privileged in society: ‘asylum seekers, the homeless and drug addicts’.Typically, such organizations have admirable aims, undertaking commendable work – the word ‘zealots’ is used charitably – and, although they may make fleeting references to a Greenleaf website, usually they promote servant leadership from a standpoint peripheral to Greenleaf’s writings.The agnostics comprise writers who advocate servant leadership, but their writings reveal that they are not advocating it from a Greenleaf perspective, or (at times), it appears, from any other robust body of work. Within this group of agnostics are books, journal articles and websites that may have servant leadership in the title, or in a prominent position, but contain little reference to servant leadership in a recognizable form. Worse still, they may contain sentiments running counter to Greenleaf and other advocates. They may contain many important points regarding leadership, consistent with many leadership textbooks, but the whole thrust of the article misses, and perhaps contradicts, many of the fundamental servant leadership principles. This is the reason for labelling them agnostics – they continue to struggle to come to terms with a set of beliefs that are clear and relevant to others. The Peripherals contain reputable individuals (and their companies) but, for some reason, often they have not fully grasped the significant and substantial distinguishing characteristics of servant leadership as set out by Greenleaf.The Discreet (or silent disciples)The Discreet are those people who are wary, circumspect, and prudent; in other words, they are cautionary and guarded, and concerned that any understanding and application of servant leadership should recognize the contextual aspects of their organization. They may adhere to servant leadership principles without declaring their commitment publicly. For that reason, many of these individuals and organizations are difficult to identify.To illustrate this contextual point, take the example of two businesses with a deserved reputation for their commitment to servant leadership: TDIndustries and Southwest Airlines are among the most frequently mentioned exemplar organizations (see also Chapter 11 for a more elaborate description of these companies). The TDI website’s Culture, Mission, and Values page announces, ‘TDIndustries strives to model the management style defined by Robert Greenleaf as ‘Servant Leadership’. We firmly believe our shift to this culture during the 70s has made us one of the most unique companies in the country – it is to this practice that we attribute our many years of success.’ Its servant leadership page tells its customers that the company ‘uses Robert Greenleaf’s essay, The Servant as Leader (1970), as a blueprint for our behaviour’.The Southwest Airlines website is quite different, even though their commitment to servant leadership is unequivocal. At the time of writing, a 10-minute visit to their website could find no overt reference to servant leadership. This was quite unexpected, as there are many YouTube clips of their former president, Colleen Barrett, promoting the virtues of servant leadership and its beneficial effect within the business. The site contains its mission statement with the words ‘We are committed to provide our Employees a stable work environment with equal opportunity for learning and personal growth. Creativity and innovation are encouraged for improving the effectiveness of Southwest Airlines. Above all, Employees will be provided the same concern, respect, and caring attitude within the organization that they are expected to share externally with every Southwest Customer.’ While it is possible to detect the servant leadership influence throughout the site (in much the same way as their commitment to distributed leadership can be detected on other websites), there is no overt declaration of adherence to the Greenleaf principles.This example, from two companies with an impressive servant leadership track record, merely illustrates the contextual aspect of what may motivate many of the Discreet. Anecdotally, and based on numerous conversations with executives at leadership conferences, it is possible to describe other companies as committed to servant leadership principles but reticent when it comes to making a public announcement, and sometimes even a clear statement within the privacy of their own companies. They prefer not to wear the tag or label in a way that identifies them with what others may consider another management concept or fad. For some, it makes sense to make a bold declaration; for others, it does not.What is true for organizations can be even truer of individuals; again, there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence. As discussed in To Be A Servant-Leader (Prosser, 2007), some individuals work as leaders in businesses where the organizational culture is inimical to the principles of servant leadership. Such courageous individuals remain true to their belief in Greenleaf’s writings, ensuring that they do not alienate their bosses or enable colleagues and staff to seek or gain unfair advantage. After all, being a servant-leader does not equate with being naïve.It is clear that sincere individuals and whole organizations can be loyal to the principles of servant leadership, yet remain discreet.The Syncretists (or harmonisers and mystics)A Syncretist is someone who attempts to reconcile or blend different dimensions of belief and practice into their lives and, as these quotes illustrate, sees it as a logical conclusion of acting consistently in every aspect of their life:So there is a strand in servant leadership that encourages us to take a more holistic view of who we are as individuals, which helps to stop this compartmentalization that considers work as one part of our life and the rest of our life as something completely different. (Larry Spears in Lloyd, 1996)The servant leadership concept is a principle, a natural law, and getting our social value systems and personal habits aligned with this ennobling principle is one of the great challenges of our lives. (Stephen Covey, 1998)Is Servant Leadership a Spiritual Concept? Well, of course it is! You will find it in the sacred writings of Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and Christianity. But you will also find versions of it in secular humanism and in systems that are theistic and non-theistic. (Don Frick, 2007)Links with philosophy, ethics, philanthropy, virtues, mysticism, emotional intelligence, self-esteem and much more can be detected in many servant leadership journal articles. The contributors, academics and practitioners alike, readily describe servant leadership in terms of its connection with other ideas and practices – partly to legitimize it, partly to encourage further adherents, but chiefly it appears to syncretize, and thereby rationalize, a kaleidoscope of belief and practice (as the three quotes above and the two examples below demonstrate).Korac-Kakabadse, Kouzmin and Kakabadse’s ‘Spirituality and Leadership Praxis’ (2002) shows that, while ‘spirituality, historically, has been rooted in religion … its current use in business and in the workplace is most often not associated with any specific religious tradition’. They add that ‘Increased attention to personal meaning and transformative leadership has shown striking benefits of integrating personal development and awareness at work’. They also quote various sources to illustrate ‘the dramatic increase in interest in incorporating spirituality into management theory, management development and management practice’.The second example is found in the work of Whetstone (2002), who sets out to identify a link between servant leadership and what he calls personalism, which he explains through terms such as ‘centrality of the person’, ‘human dignity’, and ‘participation and solidarity’. – and His assertion that ‘Servant leadership is a more appropriate paradigm for implementing personalism with the business community’ is significant from the perspective of the servant leadership Syncretist, as is a concluding point that ‘genuine servant leadership is consistent with the five themes of the philosophy of personalism’.Spears’s quote, at the start of this section, went on to remind readers that Robert Greenleaf ‘really felt people would grow best, in both a personal and spiritual sense, by being encouraged to integrate more fully both their personal and their work lives’; and Frick’s (2007) quote concluded with, ‘You could say that Greenleaf took a religious concept, distilled the spirituality beyond doctrine, and applied it in fresh ways’.It would be wrong to claim that Greenleaf started the widespread interest being shown by many in uniting all aspects of one’s life, but it can be rightly claimed that servant leadership provides many actual and potential Syncretists with the opportunity to integrate beliefs and practices. The Systematizers (or architects and quantity surveyors)The Systematizers set out to plan and build theoretical and applied models of servant leadership, subsequently measuring its impact on individuals, teams and businesses, and demonstrating its contribution to wider organizational concepts and practice.In many ways, the Systematizers are not a separate emphasis at all; they are a group of academics and practitioners who have attempted to bring together concepts and practices concerning servant leadership into coherent models through a series of codifications and distinguishing features, in much the same way as systematic theologians developed an integrated statement of belief for parts of the church.However, the very act of engaging in model-making or codification is a distinguishing feature that justifies grouping them together. The Systematizers believe servant leadership ‘requires rigorous quantitative and qualitative research. As the current literature on servant leadership is filled with anecdotal evidence, empirical research is critically needed to test and validate these various questions and to create further predictions and hypotheses’ (Sendjaya and Sarros, 2002) – and with commendable vigour they set about their task.Typically, but not exclusively, quantitative analysis is undertaken by the quantity surveyors, who delight in statistical analyses to determine the length, breadth, height and depth of the impact of each and every aspect of servant leadership principles (for example, see Hebert, 2006). By means of their commitment to statistical enquiry – through correlation coefficients, significance tests, hierarchical regression analysis and the like – valuable information and insights are obtained, providing scope for others to pursue even further quantitative analysis.Again typically, but not exclusively, architects qualitatively undertake the creation of codifications and, given the metaphysical nature of Greenleaf’s work, their codifications of the conceptual and practical nature of servant leadership into sets of precepts is vital.The codifiers and modellers (and, often, the functions of architect and quantity surveyor fuse into one person) have used their knowledge and expertise to identify servant-leader characteristics and the following examples, presented alphabetically and taken from qualitative and quantitative work, are among the best known:AMCA’s eleven defining qualities (2008)Autry’s five ways of being (2004)Barbuto and Wheeler’s five factors (2006)Daft’s four precepts (1999)Frick’s ten skills and capacities (2004)Keith’s seven key practices (2008)Laub’s six key areas (2008)Patterson’s seven virtues (2003)Sipe and Frick’s seven pillars (2009)Spears’s ten characteristics (1995)van Dierendonck and Nuijten’s eight dimensions (in press)Wheatley’s seven keys (2004)Some question the need for the development of ever more codifications, while others celebrate the proliferation of interpretations as an indication of the growing interest in servant leadership, praising this organic rather than mechanistic development. Perhaps a coalescing of the lists may happen over time, becoming a generally agreed set of characteristics.The Systematizers have at least one thing in common with the Syncretists: they bring together different elements of belief and practice to establish a ‘whole person’, or the identification of an all-embracing model, thereby uniting elements of servant leadership.BusinessBusiness – Other