Content uploaded by Professor Motsamai John Modise
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Professor Motsamai John Modise on Nov 07, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Professor Motsamai John Modise
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Professor Motsamai John Modise on Mar 12, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Volume 8, Issue 2, February – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
IJISRT23FEB319 www.ijisrt.com 1929
Servant Leadership is getting to the Root of Positive
Forms of Leadership, A Leader is a Servant First
1Dr. John Motsamai Modise
South African Police Service
2Dr. Kishore Raga
Professor Emeritus: Nelson Mandela University
Abstract:- This review paper advances our knowledges
in leadership by providing a detail discussion on servant
leadership evolution and the current leadership theories
which is relational leadership theories. According to the
paper, a servant leadership paradigm's pervasive notion
of service permeates the relationship between leaders
and followers (Greenleaf: 1977) and encourages workers,
which may serve as a bridge to start reestablishing
community relations (Lester, 1983: 173; Whitson, 2020:
241). The fundamental tenet of servant leadership is that
those who put their followers' needs ahead of their own
are the ones who will most effectively motivate their
flock (Greenleaf, 1970). Humble leaders foster great
relationships with followers and motivate them to put
their all into their work because they care more about
others than themselves (Owens & Hekman, 2012).
According to the philosophy of servant leadership, the
leader must first put the interests of the followers first
before serving the mentor (Burch, Swails, & Mills, 2015;
Spears, 2010; van Dierendonck, 2011). The servant
leader is someone of character and moral impact who
prioritizes the needs of others while being a strong
communicator, a compassionate team builder, and a
systems thinker with vision, according to Greenleaf, the
author of the foundational research on the servant
leadership theory (Greenleaf, 1977). After reading the
literature on servant leadership, which is not a novel
idea and can be connected to the example of figures like
Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mother
Theresa who advocated it as the best way to approach
leadership (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). The work of
Robert Greenleaf, who more than 30 years ago invented
the term "servant leadership," brought the idea back
into the academic literature (Dannhauser, 2007). Many
well-known leadership writers and thinkers adopted a
new way of thinking as a result of Greenleaf's ideas on
leadership. Despite initial opposition to the idea, which
was mostly due to perceived contradictions in and
misconceptions of the language, servant leadership has
gained momentum as shown by the rising number of
research works on the topic (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002;
Van Dierendonck, 2011).
Keywords: Servant Leadership, Employee, Community
Relations, Attributes of Servant Leadership, Servant
Leadership Qualities, Jesus Dilemma Servant, Benefits of
Servant Leadership, Criticism on Servant Leadership.
I. INTRODUCTION
Servant leadership is a philosophy where a leader is a
servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants
to serve. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead.
The best test is: Do those served grow as persons; do they,
while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more
autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants.
Servant leaders aspire to serve their team and the
organization first ahead of personal objectives. It is a
selfless leadership style where a leader possesses a natural
feeling to serve for the greater good. Servant leadership
leads employees to put an optimal effort in achieving the
objectives of the organization as they feel included and
valued. It’s been gaining momentum since its establishment,
with several organizations already adopting it. The goals of
servant leaders are to encourage and support followers in
achieving their unique potential (Greenleaf, 1977; Parris &
Peachey, 2013). To do this, servant leaders develop a human
understanding of their followers (Liden et al., 2008). Both
inside and outside of the organization, servant leaders work
to improve the community (Kiker et al., 2019). Community
improvement is one of the main objectives of policing, and
servant leaders place a strong emphasis on helping others
and improving the community (Russell et al., 2018).
In order to create a better society, servant leaders act in
a way that benefits their subordinates (Greenleaf, 1977;
Parris & Peachey, 2013). According to Kiker et al. (2019),
the role of the police leader in fostering better relationships
between the police and the community is closely connected
to the servant leader's initiatives to empower the group and
its members to serve the community and foster greater
community development. Some managers are more
concerned with maintaining control and finishing the given
task than they are with creating an environment where the
employees can thrive and possibly be considered for
management in the future (Zou et al., 2015). Greenleaf
created the phrase "servant leader" to characterize the
character, nature, and status of the non-hierarchical leader
(Spears, 2010).
The premise that servant leadership encourages good
follower behavior is supported by a wealth of studies. Liden
et al. (2014) found that serving culture—the spread of
servant leadership behaviors among followers—was
positively associated to employee job performance,
creativity, and customer service behaviors in a sample of
961 workers operating in 71 restaurants of a modestly large
restaurant chain. In a situation when there aren't enough
Volume 8, Issue 2, February – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
IJISRT23FEB319 www.ijisrt.com 1930
police to meet community needs, serving culture was
crucially negatively connected to intention to depart (Liden
et al., 2014).
II. CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWOK:
UNDERSTANDING SERVANT LEADERSHIP
To fully understand servant leadership, we borrow the
words of Larry Spears, the Executive Director of Robert K.
Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership who, in his
description of servant leadership, highlighted the following
four attributes as central to the servant leadership
framework.
Service to Others:
The innate desire to serve others is at the heart of
servant leadership. When serving the team and the
organization, leaders set aside their self-interest. By
recognizing the contributions of the team members, the
philosophy is strengthened. In their interactions with team
members, servant leaders stress and model the servant role.
Success is therefore guaranteed as long as the leader of the
team supports and acknowledges the team's ability to
achieve organizational goals.
A Comprehensive Work Ethic:
An integrated work ethic includes the interplay of
individuals, groups, and society as a whole. It emphasizes
how crucial it is to support individuals in maintaining their
essential beliefs and individuality in both their personal and
professional lives. Greenleaf believed that by allowing
individuals to be who they are and valuing their unique
skills and talents, the company will ultimately benefit over
time through increased performance.
Fostering a Sense of Neighborhood:
To successfully accomplish corporate goals, servant
leadership aims to cultivate a sense of belonging among the
workforce. A community is a collection of individuals who
share similar social, economic, and political interests and
reside in the same area or culture. According to Greenleaf,
servant leaders deliver human services through instilling a
feeling of community in their employees. He suggested that
the actions and output of servant leaders are the outcome of
the manifestation of this sense of community.
Power Sharing While Making Decisions:
By assigning others the decision-making responsibility
that is given to them, servant leaders foster servant
leadership in others. According to the theory, delegating
authority rather than clinging to it is the best strategy for
achieving organizational success. Fostering an empowering
company culture and encouraging employee involvement
and talents are two ways to share power. The measures
result in a highly engaged workforce that motivates
employees to help the company reach its goals. With servant
leaders at the bottom and stakeholders like employees and
other stakeholders at the top, the servant leadership
paradigm thus resembles an inverted pyramid. It is the
reverse of the hierarchical structure of traditional leadership.
Historical Overview of Servant Leadership:
Robert K. Greenleaf first discussed the philosophy in
an essay called “The Servant as Leader,” which was first
published in 1970. Greenleaf indicated that servant leaders
in organizations provide support to their employees,
allowing them to learn and grow through inclusive
leadership, which employs their expertise and strategies to
the fore. Robert Greenleaf (1970) advocated the idea that
more servants should emerge as a leader and that individuals
should only follow a servant leader. His unpopular thesis
cautioned individuals against simply accepting the authority
of existing institutions; instead, he suggested that they
should only accept the authority of those who were proven
servants. Trust, which is considered the “root of all great
leadership” (Bligh, 2017:34) was central to Greenleaf’s
view of leadership, perhaps in large part because of the
power afforded people in those positions and the temptation
to use that power for hedonistic pleasures. Keith (2012)
compares and contrasts the power model of leadership with
the service model of leadership and concludes that it is only
the service model that is both moral and effective. He hinges
his comments on the ultimate use of power. While the power
model views power as an end to be attained and wielded for
selfish gain, the service model views it as a tool to be
acquired on behalf of others (Keith, 2012). Greenleaf (1970)
envisioned institutions as the answer to many societal
problems and believed that if people would insist on servant
leadership, then the only viable institutions that would
prevail would be those that were servant led. To Greenleaf,
individuals and society would be better off under these
institutions.
Servant Leadership:
According to Russell, Russell, and Broome (2018), the
definition of servant leadership is "whoever wants to be
great must be a servant, and whoever wants to be a leader
must be a slave to all." The primary goals of the term "SL"
are to lead and serve the populace. The SL allegedly states
that other people should be served first (Waterman,
2011:61). Attitudes of empathy are demonstrated and used
in the workplace and the neighborhood. Additionally, (Eva,
et al., 2019:111–132) defined SL from three viewpoints that
make it more complete and practical than other leadership
models. These viewpoints are results (i.e., organizational
citizenship behavior), examples (i.e., selfless behavior), and
finally antecedents (i.e., personality). They added that SL is
a follower-centric approach to leadership that takes the
needs and interests of the followers into priority while
reorienting the leader's concerns about others in the
organization and community. It provides an effective and
dynamic style of leadership where the servant and leader can
work together (Martin, et al., 2017). The police must obey
and uphold the laws and directives of the government as
their masters' employees. They make decisions as leaders,
instructing their subordinates and even the wider public,
based on various conditions and contingencies (Cortrite,
2007 and Sylven, 2018: 22–26).
They cooperate with both the public and the
government. They must therefore conduct their business in a
way that prevents public uproar while upholding the rule of
Volume 8, Issue 2, February – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
IJISRT23FEB319 www.ijisrt.com 1931
law and the rule of justice (Whitson, 2020: 237]. Greenleaf
described the “best test” of servant leadership:
The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the
servant – first to make sure that the other people’s highest
priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to
administer, is this: ‘Do those served grow as persons? Do
they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer,
more autonomous, more likely themselves to become
servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in
society? Will they benefit or at least not be further
deprived?’ (Greenleaf, 1970:7).
According to Greenleaf, servant leadership is explicitly
tested through the personal development of the followers.
He proposed that the four outcomes of health, knowledge,
freedom, and autonomy in the followers should be measured
over time in order to determine whether the followers are
more likely to imitate the servant-leader by becoming
servants themselves.
Russell & Stone (2002:146) Characteristics of Servant
Leadership in Practice on Behavioral Theories as:
Listening:
A deep commitment to intently listening to others.
According to Greenleaf, “Only a true natural servant
automatically responds to any problem by listening first”
(1970:10). Servants commit to asking questions, but more
importantly, they actively listen to the answers provided.
For instance, someone who has listening skills will often
will often repeat what there hearing, which affirms
understanding by doing so, they facilitate constructive
conversation and better comprehend the needs of the person
or group.
Empathy:
The ability of the leader to place him or herself in the
position of someone else. Greenleaf wrote, “The servant
always accepts and empathizes, never rejects” (1970:12),
and “Men grow taller when those who lead them empathize,
and when they are accepted for who they are…” (1970:14).
Empathy as a part of social awareness involves social
interaction and practicing compassion, sympathy, concern,
or understanding.
Healing:
The ability to ‘help make whole’ those individuals with
whom a leader has contact. In essence, the healing process
includes providing emotional support, encouraging team
members, and seeing the best in the employees by
recognizing gifts and talents.
Awareness:
Awareness of situations in general, as well as self-
awareness, this ability aids the leader in understanding
issues involving ethics and values and enables a leader to
approach situations from a more integrated and holistic
position. Self-awareness focusses on the recognition of
one’s emotions and how they impact others.
Persuasion:
Seeking to convince others, rather than coercing
compliance. Greenleaf notes that “A fresh look is being
taken at the issues of power and authority, and people are
beginning to learn, however haltingly, to relate to one
another in less coercive and more creatively supporting
ways (1970:3-4). Servant leadership utilizes personal, rather
than position power, to influence followers and achieve
organizational objectives.
Conceptualization:
Being able to think beyond day-to-day management
realities; to have fantastic dreams. The servant-leader can
think of remedies for issues that do not yet exist (Greenleaf,
1970: 23-25).
Foresight:
The ability to foresee the likely outcome of a given
situation. “Prescience, or foresight, is a better than average
guess about what is going to happen when in the future”
(Greenleaf, 1970:16).
Stewardship:
The leaders’ ability to place trust in others;
empowerment. Organizational stewards or ‘trustees’ are
concerned not only for the individual followers within the
organization, but also the organization as a whole, and its
impact on and relationship with all of society (Greenleaf,
1970: 31).
Commitment to the growth of people:
A conviction that people are valuable on their own
terms, independent of their monetary worth as employees. A
public display of gratitude and support for others. Per
Greenleaf, “The secret of institution building is to be able to
weld a team of such people by lifting them to grow taller
than they would otherwise be” (1970:14).
Community building:
Seek to build a sense of community with those within
the organization (Spears, 1998:4-5. “All that is needed to
rebuild community as a viable life form…is for enough
servant-leaders to show the way” (1970:30). Servants
cultivate communities where people feel c sense of trust and
belonging.
Servant-Leadership Qualities:
In his article Fons Trompenaars and Ed Voerman Jesus
Christ (In the bible) exemplifies the paradigmatic servant-
leadership qualities described by culture experts Fons
Trompenaars and Ed Voerman in Servant-Leadership
Across Cultures employ three symbols to illustrate servant-
leadership:
The hyphen serves as a pivot for servant leadership since
both the servant and the leader on either side of the
hyphen are equally significant. Compound leadership, or
servant leadership, is a style in which the whole is more
than the sum of its parts.
Volume 8, Issue 2, February – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
IJISRT23FEB319 www.ijisrt.com 1932
Anyone may begin at any place on the two-way circle
and move in either direction. Some leaders are driven to
serve others are driven to lead. Every leader starts with
their best quality and adds to it with other traits.
Although many leaders describe servant-leadership as an
inverted pyramid, this changing world needs a rotating
pyramid because some situations require the serving part
of leadership, while others the decisive part.
Benefits of Servant Leadership:
Stronger Teams:
By serving the team, servant leaders acquire the
respect of their teammates which increases collaboration,
leads to productive behavior, instills harmony, and builds
stronger teams.
Conducive Working Environment:
Working alongside the leader in an organization fosters
a positive work environment where interactions are more
productive and there is less competition to impress the
leader through minor political squabbles.
Alignment of Personal and Professional Goals:
Receiving the support and inspiration of a servant
leader for their personal and professional growth, employees
can align their goals on a personal and professional level
with those of the firm. The alignment improves employee
engagement, commitment, and loyalty to the organization
ultimately increasing productivity and profit.
Improved Organizational Agility:
Teams that have their leaders' support are more
adaptable to a shifting environment, resulting in an agile
organization. Employee learning and development processes
that focus on enhancing strengths and addressing
shortcomings are augmented by professional development
supported by leaders.
Leadership Training:
By working alongside their servant leaders, team
members learn to take responsibility and ownership
accelerating their leadership capabilities.
Employee Motivation:
Servant leadership improves employee motivation,
which inspires the courage to be more creative and
innovative.
People-Oriented Corporate Culture:
The philosophy strengthens and develops a people-
oriented corporate culture.
Decreases Employee Turnover:
Empowered employees will be encouraged to stay in a
company and continue working towards achieving the
organization’s objectives.
Criticisms of Servant Leadership:
On the pragmatic front, several scholars are skeptical
about the theory's relevance to real-world situations. They
question if today's emphasis on individual work and
achievement is compatible with the collectivist goals of
servant leadership (Lloyd: 2001: 31). Some claim the theory
is unreliable because it "ignores accountability and the
underlying inherent hostility of people in the workplace"
and neglects to take into consideration the varying levels of
skill across people" (Lee & Zemke, 1993: 3)):
Some critics, notably Sendiaya and Sarros, criticized the
servant leadership theory arguing that Jesus Christ is the
founder of servant leadership, not Robert K. Greenleaf.
The concept is cemented by evidence from Christian
Bible Gospel authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
According to feminist scholars, leadership is generally
connected with masculinity and that servant leadership is
founded on the patriarchal view of leadership.
Some scholars debate the applicability and practicality of
the servant leadership theory in the real world in terms of
the compatibility of its goals of uplifting team members
and the organization ahead of individual needs to the
contemporary ideals of individual performance.
Due to its disregard for accountability, the hostility of
employees in the workplace, and varying levels of
individual competency, other scholars consider servant
leadership to be impractical.
Limitations of Servant Leadership:
The idea is ambiguous on the function of morality in
servant leadership.
Servant leaders might not have a thorough understanding
of customer service and corporate operations.
The idea may not be appropriate because some servant
leaders lack the willingness to serve.
Servant leadership depends on its team's moral
foundation.
The concept of servant leadership can consume a lot of a
leader's time and require extra work.
The authenticity needed for servant leadership is
daunting and difficult to achieve.
Perception risk: Servant leaders run the risk of being
viewed negatively, which would reduce their formal
power.
Lack of confidence - Employees are expected to make
decisions and take responsibility for them. This can lead
to a situation where an employee is unable to see the big
picture and lacks the confidence to make choices that
would advance the company.
Making decisions after consulting with others may take
longer.
Servant Leadership provides a viable alternative solution
to deal with the challenges that law enforcement leaders
face. Laub (1999) posited leaders who use servant
leadership practices motivate their employees by:
Exhibiting sincerity,
Respecting people,
Developing people,
Building community,
Volume 8, Issue 2, February – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
IJISRT23FEB319 www.ijisrt.com 1933
Providing leadership, and
Sharing leadership.
Although not a comprehensive list, the servant leader
may also display the following qualities: listening, empathy,
healing, persuasion, awareness of one's surroundings,
foresight, envisioning the future, commitment to the
development of people, and stewardship (Spears, 1998).
According to Laub (1999), each of these techniques
strengthens the leader's capacity to contribute to the
achievement of the organization's goals. Servant leadership
is a viable solution or alternative to this leadership
challenge. It provides the opportunity for leaders to put an
alternative thought process into practice to confront our
changing world (Daft, 1998; Greenleaf, 1973, 1977;
Greenleaf, Frick, & Spears, 1996; Greenleaf & Spears,
1998; Spears, 1998).
According to Laub (1999), each of these techniques
strengthens the leader's capacity to contribute to the
achievement of the organization's goals. There is a workable
solution or alternative to this leadership challenge: servant
leadership. It gives decision-makers the chance to apply a
different way of thinking to deal with our changing world
(Daft, 1998; Greenleaf, 1973, 1977; Greenleaf, Frick, &
Spears, 1996; Greenleaf & Spears, 1998; Spears, 1998).
Jesus Christ of Nazereth the Dilemmatic Servant-
Leader:
Trompenaars and Voerman identified seven polarized
binaries of servant-leadership that address all cross-cultural
dilemmas. While these dimensions are not overtly spiritual,
nevertheless Jesus exemplifies each of them:
Leading Versus Serving:
Overachievement or servitude are not characteristics of
servant leadership. Leaders in cultures that respect
performance accomplish team goals and celebrate individual
accomplishments. Roles, responsibilities, and coordination
are defined by their organizational structures. In contrast,
‘ascribed’ cultures draw status from birth, age, gender,
wealth, and family background. Jesus was task oriented. He
said to the Father, ‘I have brought you glory on earth
completing the work you gave me to do’ (John 17:4), and
later declared, ‘It is finished’ (John 19:30) on the cross.
Yet he washed his disciples’ feet because he knew
‘that he had come from God and was returning to God’
(John 13:3). He had ‘equality with God’ and yet chose to
empty himself of those privileges (ekenosen Gk) (Phil. 2:6,
7). Jesus came from divine family background; yet he
embraced his destiny to serve as prescribed by the Father.
Rules Versus Exceptions:
Some cultures value rules, codes, and standards. Other,
relational, cultures emphasize exceptions, friendships, and
specific circumstances instead of universal rules. A culture's
centrality in actuality is not something that servant leaders
seek. Instead, they embrace cultural diversity and adjust to
unique situations. Jesus set the universal rule without
exception for righteousness, healing, and life: ‘This leads us
to a fundamental truth. All the evil due, by justice, to come
to us came on Jesus, so that all the good due to Jesus, earned
by His sinless obedience, might be made available to us.
Despite this universal rule, Jesus ministered by
exception. He showed Thomas his nail marks; he redeemed
Peter’s three denials by thrice asking, ‘Do you love me ‘and,
he called the grieving Mary Magdalene by name at his
grave. When people faltered, Jesus saw opportunities for
people to grow.
Parts Versus The Whole:
Servant leaders connect individual parts with the
whole. Individualistic cultures value independence,
creativity, and individual welfare. For example, the Western
economy is based on Adam Smith’s principle that individual
profit benefits the whole society. In contrast, collectivistic
cultures value group welfare, even at individual cost.
Servant-leaders encourage people to innovate as part of
a team with a common goal. In The Light Prize, Gary Oster
defines the leader’s role as ‘integrating the broad abilities of
‘wild ducks’, those quirky, individualistic, highly intelligent
employees who ignore corporate attempts to make them
more efficient. Jesus changed the world by recruiting a
handful of wild ducks: Paul the persecutor; Matthew the tax
collector; Peter the unstable ‘rock’; and Mary Magdalene
the prostitute. He chose unlikely individuals to change the
whole:
Had He not come to save the world . . . Surely the Son
of God could have adopted a more enticing program of mass
recruitment. . . . Yet in the end have only a few ragged
disciples to show for His labors . . . He had to devote
Himself primarily to a few men, rather than to the masses,
so that the masses could at last be saved.
Control Versus Passion:
Servant leaders combine control with passion. They
thrive in both neutral cultures which emphasize control of
emotions, thinking, and a no-nonsense and serious approach
to life, and also ‘affective’ cultures which live life with
passion, beauty, humor, and playfulness. Servant-leaders
fuse the two approaches by showing their emotions at the
right moments.
With perfect control, Jesus famously slept on a cushion
during a ‘furious squall’ and ordered the storm to ‘Quiet! Be
still!’ (Mark 4:35-41). Similarly, when he encountered the
adulterous woman being mobbed, he calmly wrote on the
ground and chided, ‘If any one of you is without sin, let him
be the first to throw a stone at her’ (John 8:7). Yet when
Jesus entered the Gentiles’ court where non-Jews
worshipped at the temple, he overturned the tables and
expelled the mercenaries. He unleashed controlled rage at
those preventing the Gentiles from praying and the temple
from being a house of prayer for all nations (Mark 11:15-
17).
Volume 8, Issue 2, February – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
IJISRT23FEB319 www.ijisrt.com 1934
Specific Versus Diffuse:
Specific cultures prefer facts, numbers, and
measurable. However, in diffused cultures, the broad
context supersedes the parts. Diffuse cultures value empathy
and developing a relationship before doing business. Once
accepted, friends are friends in every area of life.
Jesus ministered in a diffused manner when he
included his disciples doing ‘the will of my Father’ as ‘my
brother and sister and mother’ (Matt. 12:50). Once a
relationship is made, strangers become family. Yet Jesus
insisted, ‘not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen’
will disappear until the law is accomplished (Matt. 5:18). He
was meticulous when the situation demanded. He initiated
‘moments of truth’ by providing people with what they
needed at the moment they needed it. To address the tax
dilemma, he provided a fish with exactly the four drachma
needed to cover the taxes (Matt. 17:24-27). He preserved the
relationship with the exact provision at just the right
moment.
Short-Term Versus Long-Term:
Some cultures have a short-term horizon and others a
long one. A servant leader casts the vision for the grand
design; fulfills daily assignments; and develops emergent
strategies by garnering input. Jesus unveiled the grand
design of his impending crucifixion, resurrection, and even
the end-time events. Yet, he changed his plan to minister
only to the Jews when the Canaanite woman pleaded with
him to heal her daughter. In every culture, the servant-leader
listens, gathers information, consults advisers, and makes a
resolute decision.
A servant-leader integrates hindsight, insight, and
foresight because different cultures have emphases on the
past, present, and future. Past-oriented cultures see the
future repeating previous experiences, elderly wisdom, and
collective memory. Present-oriented cultures focus on
executing daily tasks, and future-oriented cultures strategize
for the future. Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega. He exhorts
us to pray for today’s bread and not worry about tomorrow.
Yet, he warns us to keep watch ‘because the Son of Man
will come at an hour when you do not expect him’ (Matt.
24:44).
Push Versus Pull:
Servant leaders are both internally inspired and
externally motivated by the environment. They can navigate
‘push cultures’ whereby inner principles determine
behaviors and decisions. These leaders have strong
willpower. They value talk before listening, and initiative
before caution. In contrast, leaders in ‘pull cultures’ draw
external wisdom and strength from nature and social
relations. They listen and adapt with caution and modesty.
Jesus had a strong internal drive. He was aware of what lay
in men's hearts. But he always complied with requests from
outside, especially those for healing. In response to their
appeals from the outside, he stopped where he was heading
and said, "I will."
III. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SERVANT
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
These Suggestions Are Meant To Direct The Creation
Process And Delivery Of Servant Leadership
Experience:
The key methods for developing student leadership
should focus heavily on practical exercises and
simulations, especially in the early phases of this
development component (concrete experience).
In order to foster development and self-awareness,
reflection should be a planned component of leadership
"experiences" (including in-class activities) and students'
ongoing leadership development journey (reflective
observation).
Students should be given a conceptual framework for
hands-on learning using a variety of delivery formats
(e.g., lectures, texts, videos) and sources (e.g.,
instructors, guest lecturers, community leaders), enabling
them to gain knowledge of servant and authentic
leadership and see themselves as such (abstract
conceptualization).
Students should have the chance to participate in
outside-of-class service learning opportunities that allow
them to put their growing leadership skills into practice
in a way that advances some aspect of the greater good
(active experimentation).
Recommendations For Leadership Practice:
While there are many opportunities for future research,
the present research provides the basis for informed
recommendations at the level of leadership practice.
Because servant leadership is a significant predictor of team
effectiveness, it is vital for organizations to incorporate
these themes into leadership for team contexts. Specifically,
the following servant leadership themes are recommended
for leading in the team-based context:
Providing accountability,
Supporting and resourcing,
Engaging in honest self-evaluation,
Fostering collaboration,
Communicating with clarity, and
Valuing and appreciating.
For those seeking to lead at the crossroads of
contemporary research and practice, these findings reinforce
the vital importance of servant leadership in organizations
structured around decentralized and team-based
communities.
IV. CONCLUSION
The perception of fairness and respect among
employees who report to servant leaders (Burton et al.,
2017). This is significant for law enforcement since,
according to Hilal and Litsey in 2020 and Trinkner et al.,
officers were more likely to use fair rules and less likely to
use excessive force in departments where they believed that
the rules were enforced correctly. in 2016. According to
Volume 8, Issue 2, February – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
IJISRT23FEB319 www.ijisrt.com 1935
Trinker et al. (2016), supervisor behavior was the most
important predictor of officers' perceptions of a procedurally
fair organizational climate, highlighting the crucial role that
police supervisors' leadership abilities play in creating
strong community ties. Servant leadership focuses on the
betterment and support of others by seeking to meet the
interests, needs, and ambitions of others’ above one’s own.
In the setting of larger companies, smaller firms, and some
NPOs, researchers have found that a manager practicing
servant leadership may have a great empowering potential
towards their followers (Sendjaya, 2015; Van Winkle et al.,
2014). (Parris & Peachey, 2013b; Van Winkle et al., 2014).
REFERENCES
[1].
Bligh, M.C. (2017). Leadership and Trust. In J.
Marques & S. Dhiman (Eds.). Leadership Today:
Practices for Personal and Professional Performance
(pp. 21-42). Switzerland: Springer.
[2].
Burch, M. J., Swails, P., & Mills, R. (2015).
Perceptions of Administrators’ Servant Leadership
Qualities at a Christian University: A Descriptive
Study. Education, 135, 399-404.
[3].
Cortrite, M. D. (2007). Servant leadership for law
enforcement. University of California, Los Angeles,
CA. Doctoral dissertation available from ProQuest
Dissertation and Theses Database (UMI No.
3299572).
[4].
Dannhauser, Z. (2007). Relationship between servant
leadership, follower trust, team commitment and unit
effectiveness. Doctoral dissertation. Stellenbosch:
University of Stellenbosch.
[5].
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A
journey into the nature of legitimate power and
greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
[6].
Hilal, S. & Litsey, B. (2020). Reducing police
turnover: Recommendations for the law enforcement
agency. International Journal of Police Science &
Management,22(1),73–83.https://doi.org/10.1177/
1461355719882443.
[7].
Keith, K.M. (2012). The case for servant leadership.
Westfield, Indiana: The Greenleaf Center for Servant
Leadership.
[8].
Kiker, D., Callahan, J., Kiker, M. B., & Bri, A.
(2019). Exploring the boundaries of servant
leadership: A meta-analysis of the main and
moderating effects of servant leadership on
behavioral and affective outcome. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 31(2), 172-197.
[9].
Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant
organization: Development of the servant
organizational leadership (SOLA) instrument.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic
University.
[10].
Lee, C., & Zemke, R. (1993). The search for spirit in
the workplace. Training. 6(6), 2129.
[11].
Lester, D. (1983). Why do people become police
officers: a study of reasons and their predictions of
success. Journal of Police Science & Administration,
11(1),170–174. https:// www. researchgate. net/
publication/290810192_why do people become
police_officers_A_study_of_reasons_and_their_pred
ictions_of_success.
[12].
Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Zhao H, et al. (2008) Servant
leadership: development of a multidimensional
measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership
Quarterly 19(2): 161–177.
[13].
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S. Liao, C. and Mauser, J.D.
(2014b), Servant leadership and serving culture:
influence on individual and unit performance,
Academy of Management Journal, 57(3), 1434-1452.
[14].
Lloyd, B. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility:
Minimising the Abuse of Power. In, S.K.
Chakraborty & P.Bhattacharya (Eds). Leadership and
Power: Ethical Explorations, New Delhi, India:
Oxford University Press.
[15].
Martin, H. C., Rogers, C., Samuel, A. J., & Rowling,
M. (2017). Serving from the top: Police leadership
for the twenty-first century. International Journal of
Emergency Services, 6(3), 209-219.
[16].
Owens, B. P., & Hekman, D. (2012). Modeling how
to grow: An inductive examination of humble leader
behaviors, contingencies, and outcomes. Academy of
Management Journal, 5: 787– 818.
[17].
Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A Systematic
Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in
Organizational Contexts. Journal of Business Ethics,
113, 377.
[18].
Parris, D.L., & Peachey, J.W. (2013). A systematic
literature review of servant leadership theory in
organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics,
113(3), 377-39300
[19].
Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A
theoretical model. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 64(02), 570. (Publication No.
3082719)0
[20].
Russell, E. J. Russel, J Rodger E. Broomé, B. E.
(2018). Surveying the Experience of Servant
Leadership within the Fire and Emergency Services.
Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice. Volume 5,
Issue 1, 49-68. Spring 2018.
[21].
Russell, R. F., and Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of
servant leadership attributes: developing a practical
model. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 23(3), 145-157.
[22].
Sendjaya, S., and Sarros, J.C. (2002). Servant
leadership: its origins, development, and application
in organizations. Journal of Leadershiop and
Organization Studies, 9(2), 57-64.
[23].
Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and Servant
Leadership: Ten Characteristics of Effective, Caring
Leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1, 25-
30.
Volume 8, Issue 2, February – 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
IJISRT23FEB319 www.ijisrt.com 1936
[24].
Sylven, L. and Crippen, C. 2018. First to serve and
protect, then to lead: Exploring servant leadership as
a foundation for Canadian policing. Journal of
community safety & well-being. Social innovation
narratives. Journal of CSWB. 2018 Oct; 3(2):22-26.
www.journalcswb.ca.
[25].
Trinkner, R., Tyler, T. R., & Goff, P. A. (2016).
Justice from within: The relations between a
procedurally just organizational climate and police
organizational efficiency, endorsement of democratic
policing, and officer well-being. Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law, 22(2), 158–172.
https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000085.
[26].
van Dierendonck, D. & Nuijten, I. (2011). The
Servant Leadership Survey: Development and
Validation of a Multidimensional Measure. Journal
of Business & Psychology, 26, 249-267.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1.
[27].
Van Winkle, B., Allen, S., De Vore, D., & Winston,
B. (2014). The Relationship between the Servant
Leadership Behaviors of Immediate Supervisors and
Followers’ Perceptions of Being Empowered in the
Context of Small Business. Journal of Leadership
Education, 13, 70-82.
[28].
Waterman, H. (2011). Principles of “servant
leadership’ and how they can enhance practice.
Nursing management, 17(9), 24–26. Eva N., Robin
M.
[29].
Sendjaya S., van Dierendonck D., Liden R. C.
(2019). Servant leadership: a systematic review and
call for future research. Leadership. Q. 30 111–132.
10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004 [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]
[30].
Whitson, M. (2020). Forgiveness: A humble path to
servant leadership for police. In J. Song, D. Q. Tran,
S. R. Ferch, and L. C. Spears (Eds.), Servant-
leadership and forgiveness: How leaders help heal
the heart of the world (pp. 237–249). State University
of New York.
[31].
Zou, W., Tian, Q., & Liu, J. (2015). Servant
Leadership, Social Exchange Relationships, and
Follower’s Helping Behavior: Positive Reciprocity
Belief Matters. International Journal of Hospitality
Management,51,147-156. https ://doi. org/1 0.1016
/j.ijhm.2015.08.012.
