Servant leadership practices

Community College Enterprise, The, Fall 2003 by Stramba, Lorraine

The serrant leadership model, first proposed in the sixties and seventies by Robert Greenleaf, but with historical references to concepts dating back to ancient philosophy, appears to be the model of choice in the new millennium. The purpose of this investigation is to examine the perceptions of servant leadership and job satisfaction in different staffing levels of a large educational institution. The Organizational Leadership Assessment was used to collect the data. The results of the study demonstrate that those in all groups with strong perceptions of servant leadership express job satisfaction, although the senior leadership group demonstrates somewhat incongruous results. Possible sources of the discrepancy and potential explanations for findings are discussed, and recommendalions for further research are proposed.

Introduction

Although living in a new millennium, educators are still governed for the most part by old notions and paradigms. Top-down, hierarchical leadership is a relic from an industrial age when only managers thought and workers simply did: yet, it is still the norm today. Antiquated pedagogical theories of knowledge dissemination still prevail in many institutions of higher education, failing to celebrate and capitalize on human learning potential. Revolutionary scientific discoveries on brain function and the nature of change inform only a few leaders and educators. Even language reflects outdated assumptions in American culture and entertainment. In order to negotiate this impasse, it is important to examine not only the meaning of work in society, but also to consider some leadership theories and their overt and subtle consequences.

In a time of enormous upheaval and challenge, technological skills and educational groundwork are briskly being eclipsed, employees of the new millennium have different expectations of the workplace than in previous eras, and the fervent search for meaning in one's life plays a crucial role in the choices people make.

In the information or knowledge age, job satisfaction will grow from paradoxical circumstances or concepts of interdependent opposites. Bennis (2000) describes change as burdensome and exhilarating. Plett (1997) calls servant leadership "two equal concepts joined in paradox." McGee-Cooper and Trammell (2002) assert that the servant leadership model is ideally suited to illuminating paradox and creating a workplace of vitality and transformation. Wheatley (1999) redefines change as a natural process within the environments of living systems-bodies, minds and organizations.

The participants in the present study are employed at a large community college in Toronto, one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world. As well as being employees in a new age, they are also educators and administrators. For a growing number, success is no longer merely defined in terms of prestige and money, but rather in terms of the impact of work on family, society, and the environment (McGee-Cooper and Trammell, 2002).

The purpose of the study is to examine the perceptions of servant leadership and job satisfaction in a large, metropolitan educational institution.

Definition of terms Community

Naylor, Willimon, and Osterberg (1996) define a community as "a partnership of free people committed to the care and nurturing of each other's mind, body, heart, and soul through participatory means."

Leadership

DePree (1989) defines leadership as follows: "The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you. In between the two, the leader must become a servant and a debtor" (p. 11).

Servant Leadership

Servant leadership is an approach to leadership and service whereby the leader is servant first and leader second. Spears (1995) defines it as "a long-term, transformational approach to life and work; in essence, a way of being that has the potential to create positive change throughout our society" (p. 4). Servant-leadership encourages collaboration, trust, foresight, listening, and the ethical use of power and empowerment.

Limitation of the study

The major limitation of the study was the time constraint under which it was conducted. As a result, sample sizes were affected, and only conve

nience samples of management and faculty were feasible. Finally, the results may not be generalizable to other institutions or groups.

Literature review Alternative models of leadership

Hierarchical models of leadership have been described as "inefficient and dysfunctional" organizing mechanisms that are controlling, authoritarian, and exclusive by their nature. Alternative views of leadership, particularly those of minorities and women, are "often not seen as valid within hierarchical approaches, resulting in them not fitting in" (Kezar, 2001). According to Kezar's research (1998, 2001), many community colleges and universities have already moved away from the traditional hierarchical leadership models in favor of an inclusive, participatory style that engages commitment, speaks to "organizational fit" issues, and draws on the abundance of expertise throughout the organization. Her study of one community college that adopted the servant leadership model concluded, however, that participatory models often do not alleviate organizational fit problems. They may create a paradoxical situation where only shared, and not diverse, perspectives are sought; and "unintentional assimilation" due to consensus building practices becomes a possibility. Additionally, a lack of awareness of power dynamics that allows one group to be "able to define the values for the environment" can often result in the worst case scenario of an alternative model becoming another dominant one with a singular leadership view, accompanied by the concomitant problems of lack of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover (Kezar, 1998; 2001). She proceeds to describe two pluralistic or multicultural leadership models in higher education. Bensimon and Neumann's (1993; in Kezar, 1998; 2001) Teams as Cultures and The Social Change Model of Leadership (High Education Research Institute, 1996; in Kezar, 1998; 2001) focus on the difficult issues of diversity and power, and they hold that the process of "building consensus and focusing on commonalities are destructive to the development of inclusive leadership cultures" (Bensimon &. Neumann, 1993, in Kezar, 1998; 2001).