Servant Leadership
Christ model of leadership is founded in the word “servant.” The essential idea of servant leadership is that the leader serves the people he leads, implying that followers are an end in themselves rather than a means to an organizational purpose or bottom line.[1]
The leader as servant is devoted to serving the needs of organization members, and develops employees to bring out the best in them. He facilitates personal growth in all who work with him and builds a sense of community within the organization. Servant leaders are felt to be effective because the needs of followers are so looked after that they reach their full potential and perform at their best.
Servant leadership forces one away from self-serving, domineering leadership models, and makes those “in charge” think harder about how to respect, value and motivate people. By emphasizing the value of the individual over and above anything else, servant leadership demonstrates influence through empowerment and the paradox of humility and will.
[1] Greenleaf, Robert K. 1977. Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Organizational Behavior: Human Relations Frame
Institutions normally arrange themselves under various “frames.”[1] These frames serve as typologies for understanding the way the organizations behave, communicate, and carry out their mission. The frame that represent my theological and philosophical leadership assumptions is the human relations frame.
Human Relations. The human relations frame considers that the organization functions by the cooperative effort of all the people in the organization. The individuals within this frame will function best and become most efficient when their needs are being meet.[2] [3] The leaders within these organizations rely on the ability to motivate, encourage, met needs of the individuals to bring out their “best” for the good of both the organization and the individual. The leader sees the people in a different way than the leader in the structural frame sees individuals. The structural frame leader sees people as a means to the end. The human relational leader sees people as the end.[4]
The key to effectiveness, in the human relation frame, is to tailor organizations to people. The human relation theory seeks to find an organizational form that enables people to get the job done while feeling good about what they are doing.[5][6] This theory rest on a few assumptions:
1. Organizations exist to serve humans needs.
2. Organizations and people need each other (Organization needs the ideas, energy, and talents of people. In the inverse, people need organizations for careers, salaries, work opportunities).
3. When the fit between organizations and people is bad, then problems occur; when the fit is good then both benefit.
Organizations utilizing the human relations are those that provide opportunities for self-actualization and self-control. When organizations remove the constraints on workers this enhances participation and serves as a way to create a synergic effort towards reaching the goal.[7]
The model of shared governance allows the needs, gifts, and abilities of the individual to be used for the glory of God. The human relations model shows a community guided and lead by the Spirit. This frame recognizes that God uses His Spirit to inform more than just the leader at the top, but intentionally positions people to accomplish the outcomes of the institution’s vision. Leaders model the way and equip; empower; and delegate responsibility (2 Tim 2:2; Eph. 4; Matt 28) to the community to fulfill the shared vision.
[1] Bolman, Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. 1991. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
[2] McGregor, Douglas. 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[3] Herzberg, Fredrick., and Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Snyderman. 1959. The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.
[4] Bensimon, Estela M., Anna Neumann., and Rober Birnbaum. 1989. Making Sense of Adminstrative Leadership: The “L” word in higher education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report N0. 1. Washington DC: School of Education and Human Development.
[5] Maslow, Abraham. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50. P. 370-396.
Maslow, Abraham. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
[6] Goleman, Daniel. 1998. What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review. January 2004.
[7] Birnbaum, Robert. 1992. How academic leadership works: Understanding success and failure in the college presidency. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass Publishers.