Andrews University
School of Education
Philosophical Foundations
Competency 1A
By:
David Stunkard
1
Table of Contents
REFLECTION ON PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS COMPETENCY ............................... 4
World Ideologies ............................................................................................................................. 4
Worldview....................................................................................................................................... 6
My World View “Theistic Matterism” ........................................................................................... 9
Premises/Metaphysics ................................................................................................................. 9
Knowing/Epistemology ............................................................................................................ 15
Human Values/Axiology .......................................................................................................... 18
Theistic Matterism Defined ...................................................................................................... 20
Leadership Theories and Self........................................................................................................ 21
Paper One - Personal Leadership Concepts .................................................................................. 22
Leadership in Organizational Culture ........................................................................................... 23
Dyadic Leadership ........................................................................................................................ 26
Description of Charismatic Theory............................................................................................... 31
Theoretical Synopsis ..................................................................................................................... 34
Application of Theory ................................................................................................................... 37
Analysis......................................................................................................................................... 38
Greater Theoretical Dynamics ...................................................................................................... 39
Behaviors and Traits ..................................................................................................................... 40
Description of Servant Leadership Theory ................................................................................... 43
Theoretical Synopsis ..................................................................................................................... 45
Application of Theory ................................................................................................................... 47
Analysis......................................................................................................................................... 49
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 50
Paper Two - Philosophy Found in Organizational Change and Culture ....................................... 51
My Background and Experience ................................................................................................... 52
Building a Theoretical Basis ......................................................................................................... 55
Psychological Change ............................................................................................................... 55
Organizational Change ............................................................................................................. 57
Leading or Managing ............................................................................................................ 57
Quantum Leadership ............................................................................................................. 59
Transformational Change...................................................................................................... 60
Reviewing the Religious Literature .............................................................................................. 62
Learning Related to Competencies ............................................................................................... 62
2
Summary of Learning ................................................................................................................... 65
Personal Reflection ....................................................................................................................... 67
Paper Three – Servant Leadership ................................................................................................ 67
The Work Setting .......................................................................................................................... 68
Servant Leadership as the Courier Supervisor’s Model ............................................................... 69
Servant Leadership Theory ....................................................................................................... 69
Responsibilities of Supervisor and Couriers ............................................................................. 70
Servant Leadership Skills and Experience................................................................................ 71
Servant Leadership Values, Attitudes and Assumptions .......................................................... 73
Servant Leadership Integrated Practice .................................................................................... 75
Servant Leadership Challenges and Failures ............................................................................ 76
Supervisor Reviewed by Couriers ................................................................................................ 79
Critiques of Servant Leadership.................................................................................................... 81
Reflection ...................................................................................................................................... 82
Overall Summary .......................................................................................................................... 84
3
#1A PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS COMPETENCY VERIFICATION
Leadership and Self: Philosophical Foundations is a part of a cluster of competencies focusing
on the self-awareness and the personal and professional identity required when practicing
leadership.
REFLECTION ON PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS COMPETENCY
The strength of the portfolio regarding my philosophical foundations is seen in the
worldview paper I wrote for the class, LEAD636 Foundations in Leadership. I entitled that
paper, “Theistic Matterism”. It is included in its entirety later in this paper. The primary
criticism of the paper is that the professor did not believe it would substantiate competency in
philosophical foundations, although it met the measure of the class to receive a grade of “A” as a
reflection of my worldview. It is my intent in this paper to clarify that there is a breadth of
philosophical understanding that I hold and that my worldview responds uniquely to the various
ideologies held.
Three additional papers were included in the following presentation that demonstrates a
broad and integrated philosophical foundation. My personal leadership philosophy will be
discussed within the context of leadership theory. I describe myself as having expressed
charismatic leadership in the past. I write about my integrated leadership philosophy through the
experience of organizational change. And I conclude with my efforts to live my worldview
expressed in servant leadership.
World Ideologies
Stevenson and Haberman (2004) wrote a book that identifies ten different theories of
human nature. Those ten theories are listed as Confucianism, Hinduism, The Bible, Plato,
Aristotle, Kant, Marx, Freud, Satre, and Darwinism. Confucianism can be identified as the way
4
of the sages, where philosophy is based upon proverbs of wisdom. Hinduism places individuals
on a quest to become one with the universe through discovery of ultimate wisdom gleaned and
practiced through multiple reincarnations. The Bible is listed as a title that describes humanity’s
search for a supreme being known as God. Plato comes from ancient Greece and taught that the
rule of reason comes from realism. Aristotle taught in the same society as Plato and argued that
human fulfillment is found in idealistic persuasions. Kant challenged the Christian church view
of his time by arguing that reasoning was a higher value than mysticism causing science to
change its perspective, which encouraged Newtonian thinking of cause and effect. Marxism
became a social science that challenged the political structure of the day. The individual was to
be seen as part of a collective. Freud, a contemporary of Carl Marx, taught that the individual
unconscious mind had three identities of Id, Ego, and Superego. These three stages indicated at
what level of a person would perform. The Id represented the basic childlike instinct, the Ego
represented a perception of the world and how one negotiated in it, and the Superego was the
moral conscience of the individual. Much of his arguments stemmed from a naturalistic view
that humans developed their Id, Ego, and Superego from a mother fetish. Satre argued the basis
of existentialism, which is that the individual is unique and needs to seek their own value within
their existence separate from all others. And Darwinism presented the idea that the world has
evolved through stages to become what it is. And due to the evolving premise, he cannot
determine a long-term view of what the future will look like.
World ideologies are often discussed through the question of epistemology.
Epistemology can be described as “how do we know?” (Knight, 2006, p. 20). Religions and
educators have addressed the subject in a variety of different ways. Knight (2006) suggests that
in education learning takes place using several means. The traditional philosophies include
5
idealism, realism, and neo-scholasticism. Modern philosophies are identified as pragmatism and
existentialism. Postmodernism is a current view that argues that there is no absolute truth.
Knight identifies several contemporary theories of education called progressivism, humanism,
perennialism, essentialism, reconstructionism and behaviorism.
In brief, the various schools of thought can be described in the following ways. Idealism
looks for the ideal. Realism sees what is practical. Scholasticism seeks to rationalize existing
paradigms. Pragmatism has to touch or experience something. Existentialism funnels
everything through ones own self-identification. Postmodernism declares that there is no
standard of absolute truth. Educational theories such as perennialism incorporated pragmatism
and Freudism into a more open learning environment that would allow learners to release selfexpression rather than reiterated history. Essentialism can be described as an expression of
idealism and realism and is most interested in transmitting tested facts than it is in allowing
innovation. Reconstructionism is based more on a socialistic approach to understanding and
learning. It emphasizes collective learning. And behaviorism has Skinner as its most recognized
proponent who argues that behavioral modification is a significant part of learning. In this view,
humanity is a higher form of animal.
Worldview
In defining what a worldview is I would first go to Sire (2004) who makes the general
comment that a worldview is simply our perspective on “the truth of the matter” (p. 122). In
forming a worldview Sire suggests seven basic questions –
1. What is prime reality?
2. What is the nature of external reality, that is the world around us?
3. What is a human being?
6
4. What happens to persons at death?
5. Why is it possible to know anything at all?
6. How do we know what is right and wrong?
7. What is the meaning of human history? (p. 20).
In contemplating these questions one must first decide ontology, what is real, and epistemology,
how do we know. Certain groups of humanity declare God as real and the revealer of all
knowledge. Others disallow a supreme being and declare humans exist because they are selfaware and they discover knowledge because it is innate within us or can be gleaned from
external influences.
When addressing the combination of worldview with the above described varieties of
world philosophies it can be easy to see that others may not agree upon a person’s worldview.
Sire writes, “A worldview needs to be neither conscious nor basically consistent. It need not
answer every question that can be raised, only those relevant to each person’s life situation”
(Sire, 2004, p. 93). My worldview is relevant to the above quote by Sire as it addresses those
issues relevant to my life situation. Over the course of my life I feel that I have wrestled with the
basic tenants of world philosophies. I contend that I will continue to wrestle with the relevance
my worldview as long as there are individuals or perspectives that challenge me.
I have narrowed Sire’s seven basic questions down to my concept of death verses life as
preeminent. I believe that there is a God and that I exist. Therefore, I can entitle my worldview
Theistic Matterism. However, if there is no God and I do not exist, then, to me, there is no
eternal relevance and what does it matter. It would seem to me that if death is understood as
non-existence, then even if I have a short existence it is so miniscule compared to eternity that it
7
seems my existence is futile. But I do not believe that my life is futile. I actually refuse to
believe it. My worldview declares that there is a God and that I am relevant and that eternal life
is of utmost significance compared to eternal death. I declare that we are all relevant. I feel that
I have a contribution to the existence of others. And I feel that my worldview is significantly
relevant to those who hold contrary beliefs such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Darwinism,
Postmodernism, and Fatalism.
When I wrote my worldview paper I had several other worldviews in mind. First, I had
to acknowledge that a theistic worldview was itself multi-dimensional. There are monotheistic
and polytheistic perspectives. Within each philosophical ideology are diverse subgroups.
Within Christianity itself are well over 300 organized denominations. Judaism has different
branches. Islam is cleric lead and has different tenants. Hinduism believes in nirvana but has
different gods that express utopian thinking. I realize that many belief systems cross over and
others stand in stark contrast in describing God. It is the unique nature of humanity that wrestles
with a worldview as a concept and not an absolute.
Also, I had to acknowledge that there were groups who hold ideologies that were in
complete contradiction to the position that I hold. As a value statement I ask the evolutionists
who are not theistic, the fatalist, the secular humanist and the agnostic to what value does life
have meaning if life is temporary. And I would challenge theists who believe that the soul does
not die what wholesome value is contributed to those who do not believe in God when there is no
real definition to death except for changing forms. What contribution to Hinduism or Buddhism
does an eternal soul have to convince them that Christianity is a more worthy worldview? Our
arguments to convince lay at the root of our worldview and should be thought through. As a
theist I would hope that my worldview matters as I express it as a representative of God. My
8
Godview permeates my life and I would like to think that it matters to God and is attractive to
those who meet me. I am aware that many of the other worldviews are not attractive to me. I
only hope that what I hold to is thoughtful and not arrogant.
I do not stand alone in my view. Besides my understanding of what the Bible teaches
regarding God, I would suggest two authors who argue persuasively regarding the reality of God.
Francis Schaeffer (1972) argues that it is reasonable to believe in God and that revelation has an
important part in revealing such a truth. C.S. Lewis (1952) is another excellent Christian
apologist that argues that through inductive reasoning from life experience there is enough
logical thought that should lead to the acknowledgement of the existence of God.
My World View “Theistic Matterism”
I have called my personal worldview theistic matterism. It is the best description of what
I define as relevant to my way of thinking. The focus is not legitimized by established
worldviews. My premise corresponds with Sire’s position presented above. I hold to the view
that I have the same right and privilege as Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Gandhi, and Jesus to present an
original view and let the world accept or reject it. It is my philosophical foundation
Premises/Metaphysics
How is it that there is a philosophy called naturalism when so many world religions are
linked to it? How did we get the term scientific method and Darwinism when there are links
between the two? Why is there a separate philosophy that is called Marxism when it is so
intertwined with naturalism, the scientific method, Darwinism and secular existentialism? Could
it be that it stems from the platform that it is announced? Scientists use one term where
theologians use another. Social sciences offer their terminology and the educational world uses
9
their own descriptors. Each individual looks at their existence and tries to make sense of it. We
all try to describe to ourselves what is really real. We see a tadpole change into a frog and try to
explain the mystery of life. And as we describe our different perspectives we find our humanity
limited to the awesomeness around us. I believe that I am real and that my perspective is unique
to the universe.
I have looked at the world philosophies and offer another view. I seek to offer some
basic life questions to philosophies like nihilism, naturalism, Darwinism and post-modernism. In
what way do I actually matter in those philosophies? Regarding the world religions of
Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Deism, Pantheism and mainstream Christianity, I ask the same
question? Is there a real God and how is it that I matter to Him? I do recognize that
existentialists relate to the question of existence and personal value, however, my answer uses a
unique language that I prefer. Whereas my overall worldview rejects aspects of each of the
above-mentioned philosophies and religions, I offer my own window to what is real.
I don't like labels and yet I find that life expects them. So I am going to label myself with
a worldview entitled, “Theistic Matterism” and maybe, just maybe, before I die the world will be
using my new made up "ism" as a chapter in every great book on world philosophies. The root
of my worldview stems from my belief that everything in existence comes from an eternal God.
Although my viewpoint harmonizes with Christian Theism I have chosen to limit my title to
Theism alone. I understand the plurality of world views interpret Theism differently. However,
there is plurality within “Christian” Theism as well. Issues like the nature of God being a trinity
or a monistic God demonstrate such differences. I subscribe to God as three separate and distinct
entities that are all eternal.
10
I see the triune God working in harmony with each other as they created humanity’s
existence. The concept of harmony is fundamental to my presupposition of who God is. It is the
crux of the integrity of the character of God. There is perfect harmony in the triune God. It is
my definition of perfect love. My belief is that God is putting forth effort to reinstate the fallen
condition of humanity back into perfect harmony with God. I think my worldview offers an
attraction to humans that struggles with their reality.
Matterism is an abstract descriptor. It reflects my most basic internal struggle to discover
the value of my existence. Matterism states that I not only exist but that I exist with purpose. It
is the basis of my axiology. I also hold to a supposition that all worldviews come as an extension
of the human dilemma. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Marxism,
Confucianism all discuss the meaning in life and how to relate to human suffering. My two
descriptors attempt to categorize the basis of my resolve.
In my senior year in high school my humanities exam was simple; write for 50 minutes
about anything you want in the realm of philosophy. I chose to write that everything that I was
writing was futile because I really did not exist. The most I would give in to was that I was a
part of the figment of another being's dream world. My response was written as an antagonist
because I believed in just the opposite of what I wrote. I was determined to write in such a
manner because my commitment at age 17 was to become a minister for God and I saw the high
school course in humanities as a joke. I was a strong left-brain thinker and philosophy and art
was a waste of my time. I was narrow and unapproachable to differing viewpoints.
Today, I believe strongly that the God of my childhood is real, yet I understand there are
many individuals who do not or cannot relate to the God of my understanding. George Knight,
in his book Philosophy & Education (2006, p.20), calls my reaction to humanities during my
11
senior year a position of a skeptic. It is the position promoted in the television series, STAR
TREK, THE NEXT GENERATION. It becomes clear in a particular episode regarding their
holodeck. One of their holodeck characters believes he is alive but the crew lets him "live" in a
miniature holodeck. He is a computer-generated program. But the belief that I hold in this
postmodern world is an antithesis to the skeptic. I have hope. I have ambition. I have a belief
that there is a utopian society yet to come where there will be justice.
James W. Sire writes in Naming the Elephant (2004) that a person's view of death is
significant in understanding a worldview. Although my faith walk highly emphasizes that faith
in Jesus Christ is the only hope of eternal life, the significance to me is in how that hope was
given. My personal faith looks at it this way - There is a creator God who has always existed
who created a human being that began to exist at a single point in eternity. That creator God
always knew what it meant to be. That creator God defines good and bad to me. That creator
God defines right and wrong to me. That creator God defines eternal life and eternal death to
me. And it is the wages of sin (antagonism against God) that brings death to me. And then I
find a resolution in a single event throughout all of eternity. The eternal creator God that only
knows life dies, so that a person who had a beginning and should conclude with death trades
experiences (realities) and is offered eternal life. His experience becomes mine and my
experience becomes His. And this is where I find the confidence in my worldview. My
definition of death is equal to the state of being before Adam existed and after Adam died. I
have hope that I can live forever, by God's grace. But it must have meant something significant
to the creator God to die (cease to live) so that I might live (not be dead). The incarnation of this
eternal God to become a material being like me is a significant factor in my life experience and
12
appeals to my view of my state of being compared to what it would be if I held a different
worldview.
The philosophy of theistic existentialism offers great insight to me as how others relate to
existence before essence and I see my thoughts connecting to this philosophy. Christian
existentialism relies on three major assumptions drawn from Soren Kierkegaard's unique
understanding of Christianity. The first is that the universe is fundamentally paradoxical, and that
the greatest paradox of all is the transcendent union of God and man in the person of Christ. The
second concerns having a personal relationship with God that supersedes all prescribed
moralities, social structures and communal norms. The third asserts that following social
conventions is essentially a personal aesthetic choice made by individuals.
As a theist, perhaps the song written by Isaac Watts (1674-1748) is most clear about what
moves me regarding God. Watts followed the Aristotelian and scholastic traditions in logic and
influenced many theists.
I sing the mighty power of God that made the mountains rise,
That spread the flowing seas abroad, and built the lofty skies;
I sing the wisdom that ordained the sun to rule the day;
The moon shines full at his command, and all the stars obey.
I sing the goodness of the Lord that filled the earth with food;
He formed the creatures with His word and then pronounced them good.
Lord, how Thy wonders are displayed where'er I turn my eye!
13
If I survey the ground I tread, or gaze upon the sky!
There's not a plant or flower below but makes Thy glories known;
And clouds arise and tempests blow by order from Thy throne.
Creatures that borrow life from Thee are subject to Thy care;
There's not a place where we can flee but God is present there.
Sire (p.20) asks seven initial questions that he suggests are the basis for each individual
worldview. Listed are those seven questions with my answers.
1. What is prime reality – the really real? There are three unique and eternal entities
known as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.
2. What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us? The cosmos was
created by God to be mathematically precise and creatively unexplainable. God offered a
reality that could be experienced in both the measurable and abstract.
3. What is a human being? We are a creation of God where a unique wholistic (body,
mind and spirit) attachment was established through the creative act. All other creation
was spoken into existence whereas humanity was formed out of that which was spoken
(dust) together with a personal breath of life breathed into the nostrils by God the Son.
4. What happens to persons at death? Nothing, they cease to exist. They are dead.
They will not be alive again until they are brought back to life.
14
5. Why is it possible to know anything at all? We were created by God to reason, feel
and dream in the dimensions of our reality.
6. How do we know what is right and wrong? I postulate that there is no morality unless
there is a God. Morals are divine. Values, norms and ethics are humanity's choices of
applied morality.
7. What is the meaning of human history? We are to live eternally in harmony with the
population of the cosmos. Current history is to reconcile humanity with God.
Knowing/Epistemology
I believe there is a difference between how to learn and how to remember. And I work
on techniques that will help me to learn to remember. Every moment of my life puts new data
into my mind. Translating the data into information is my next challenge. Then to move that
information into knowledge is my next challenge. And my final challenge is to move knowledge
into wisdom. This prescription is found in, The Brainsmart Leader (1999), by Buzan, Dottino &
Israel.
But the question is how to learn. For me, I like a good debate. That debate for me is best
described as mental gymnastics. I don't always need another person to argue with. I can argue
with myself just fine. The learning process is looking at something over and over again to
discover if there is anything new. I like being an explorer. I like to learn from the pragmatic
approach. I'm very analytical and see very minute detail. And since I know that my memory is
15
limited, I usually remember where my resources are to be found so that I can find what I should
know.
I truly believe that learning needs a practical application to it or it will be temporary
learning. Some say that once you learn how to ride a bike you will always be able to ride a bike.
But why is it that if someone learns to speak a language and then does not use it for 10 or more
years that that the language fades away? Ask Moses!
There is a question of innate or learned that should be addressed. A baby does not have
to learn to suck while nursing. A baby does not have to learn to breathe when born. The heart
does not have to learn to beat. But a child must learn to walk and to talk and to write their
alphabets. I also believe there is a difference between a spiritual gift and a talent. The gift is of
Divine origin as life itself is and a talent and what to do with life is a learning process. Learning
comes from inner dialog, communication with others and finding the conative connection (see K.
Kolbe, 1999). And I learned from Vince Lambardi (2001), a person must repeat over and over
the same lessons so that they can be successful in learning for the innate does not provide all that
is necessary to be a winner.
My thought processes limit what I know about myself and about God as I relate to the
stimuli around me. Revelation and nature are two primary sources of input for me to evaluate
what I know. Freed’s model of learning also suggests that I need other people to teach me what
they perceive. I learn about God and myself as people tell their stories of how they perceive the
activities of God. Feedback is of utmost importance. Perspective from other sources fills in
gaps, perceived or not, that I have.
I worry about how I relate to what I understand since I perceive that so many of those that
I admire around me don't understand the way I do. My worries are laid aside when I learn from
16
the unique perspectives of my peers; things that I would never reflect upon by myself.
Constructionist learning has taught me that information is gathered from a variety of
perspectives. Knowledge is gained by pulling from self, culture, nature, experience, intuition
and inspiration. From a cosmic perspective I have an endless opportunity to extract knowledge
to formulate what is real and what is true.
As I reflect upon myself I must note that I am regimented. I have strengths in math and
language study. I have a dominant strength in critical thinking (emphasis on critical) and
analysis. I am detail oriented. I am weak on theory as I emphasize practical application
(pragmatism). But I am opposite this description as well. I like to be free. I enjoy
experimentation, risk, narrative speaking. I am purposeful to use variation. I am organized in
arranging free flow time. I am fun and serious. I provoke in a threatening way to create a
reaction. I humbly inquire of a superior or diverse thought to enhance my perspective. I listen
and reflect. I argue and pursue.
There are many theories of educational styles of learning. The way someone teaches
directly corresponds to what a student is learning. Using variation in style of approach to any
subject should enhance the learning curve as no subject is completely engaged through a single
approach. I think that all the learning styles presented have something positive to offer just like I
think all the schools of philosophy have something to offer. They each have their own unique
perspective that compliments the whole. If one does not allow variation they are retarding a
portion. I have to be willing to expand more while maintaining principles. I do learn from the
different styles and I try to teach from the different styles.
Perennialism – This school of learning declares absolutes and focuses on what
culture has accepted as basic thought over the course of time. Rationalism
17
is the focus of this educational philosophy.
Essentialism – This school of learning emphasizes reading, writing and
arithmetic as core basic knowledge for all to know. The philosophical
roots for this school of thought are idealism and realism.
Progressivism – This school of learning emphasizes the adaptation of the
individual to experiential learning. Its source is in the philosophies of
humanism and existentialism.
Multiculturalism – This school of education brings awareness and celebration of
pluralism and diversity. It is a reactionary movement to counter the
injustices of other philosophies.
Reconstructivism – This school of learning emphasizes that obtaining knowledge
through experience is an ever-changing process that connects old
knowledge with new learning in a social context. It is the basis of critical
pedagogy that lead to Marxism and Socialism.
Behaviorism - This school of learning emphasizes natural laws, controls and
manipulation of the environment to achieve identified outcomes. Its roots
are in the philosophies of naturalism, positivism and materialism.
Human Values/Axiology
I have surveyed various individuals who have influenced the world in their thinking from
Plato to Marx. Stevenson and Haberman (2004) wrote an excellent synopsis of the dominant
world philosophies in Ten Theories of Human Nature. Throughout my educational career I have
been exposed to all of these views to different degrees. Even though I really would like to read
their works in their entirety, I have never been motivated and arranged the time to dig deeply into
18
their thoughts. It is primarily due to the fact that my worldview has a component to it that says
that I'm right and you're wrong so I don't want to spend a lot of time digging into something that
seems to me to have a false foundation. And yet, I have done this in so many ways within my
own search to view God correctly.
Christianity has many divergent views even if they all call themselves Christian. I have
dug deeply in the various Judeo-Christian philosophies/theologies. I know more about aspects of
the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormon's theologies than those who come and knock on my door.
I have worked closely with Hindus and live in a world of secular humanists, but I only wish that
I could convert them to a different world view, MINE. I have noted that I am pulled to those
who share common views with me. I think it is great to have those individuals as a source of
support and security but are we feeding off each other in a narrow scope because we have such
similarities in our journey.
I picked up a book out of my personal library by Francis A. Schaeffer, (1972) He is There
and He Is Not Silent. Schaeffer presents a position that, metaphysically, God exists and that
there is no argument about it. His argument is that if all other worldviews don't have a logical
and consistent position about metaphysics because they fail to answer all of the questions posed,
then they are automatically eliminated. The conclusion is that God answers all questions
consistently and rationally so a theistic worldview stands alone.
I look at it another way. In school I answered many multiple-choice questions. When
given four responses and I knew for a fact that three of them did not make sense related to the
question, I knew those three were the wrong answers. When I chose the remaining answer I got
the question correct even if I could not explain it. It was my only rational answer available.
Schaeffer says that there is always only one right answer; we just have to ask all of the right
19
questions to prove God. What I have learned from this is that I can be respectful to other people
regarding their view on things, but I don't have to be apologetic regarding what I have to offer
others. I do have to be sensitive regarding my hermeneutics when sharing my view because a
part of anyone's worldview is the concept that worldviews may in part or in whole be wrong.
Theistic Matterism Defined
I have taken some pragmatic steps to secure my axiology and create my theistic
matterism worldview. It is based upon God being real; I am real. If neither of us exists, then
there is only futility because of my non-existent mind. It doesn't have to get any harder than that
for me. If there is no God, it doesn't matter. If I'm not alive, it doesn't matter. If there is no life
after death, then it doesn't matter. Since I am matter created in the image of God, then I do have
purpose and value. No matter what fate falls me in this life, I live with an intent and hope that an
eternal God is determined to offer me eternal life and I appreciate that. I matter to God and that
matters to me. Also, the cosmos that I live in is made of matter and everything in it matters to
the creator, God. Therefore, I want to share that every person in the world matters to God, too.
In the Biblical book of Ecclesiastes a belief is postulated. It states that everything done
under the sun is futility. The conclusion of futility is ultimately death. But the other story told in
the same book is that everything gained in life is futility, too, and is all lost in death. The hidden
message is in the Hebrew language. The Hebrew word for futility is Abel and the Hebrew word
for gained is Cain. The two sons of Adam both died but the conclusion of the story is that
purpose was offered both but only one took it and the irony is that his name was Abel and he
died because of the foolishness of his brother. Even though it appears that Abel was the wasted
life, Ecclesiastes turns it around and says that because there is a God, Abel’s death was not
futility because God valued his life. Abel did good by God and God will do good by Abel. And
20
that is why my theistic matterism worldview is so meaningful. We matter to God and God will
bring justice to the injustices of this life. I have not discovered a greater, more significant
worldview that answers life’s questions. It is what drives me in this life. It is my moral, value
and ethical drive. It is why I use the word harmony in the response to Sire’s seventh question. It
is what drives my interest in harmonizing cultural diversity. The core of God is harmony. It has
been called unity in diversity. And it is the driving force of my nature.
I'm a pragmatist, too. I realize that not everyone will see my perspective. Some may say
that if it works for me, they're OK with my point of view, it's just not theirs. Well, if Plato can
teach us anything about love, it is that real love hurts. And pragmatic love will work through the
differences and, in the end, I have confidence that love, true love, will pull the universe together
and theistic matterism will be significant. I am somebody, because God don’t make no junk!
God is love!
Leadership Theories and Self
I have written three papers regarding a personal reflection on my theory of leadership for
myself. Within the contents of these three papers are the descriptions of various leadership
theories and a description of how I have included my worldview into integrated practice
reflecting certain leadership philosophies.
It is my perspective that leadership practices stem from personal paradigms. I hold to a
view that individuals are just as diversified in leadership theories as they are worldviews. I find
that Yukl (2006) supports the view that there are various leaderships styles held by a variety of
successful leaders. Although I argue that I once could classify myself as a charismatic leader,
actually, I would prefer a more idealistic, to me, approach of servant leadership. However, when
I sought to practice servant leadership, I did not feel that I consistently measured up to Spears
21
(1995) list of characteristics. My leadership philosophy is more of an ideal than it is a consistent
practice. I find myself, in a practical sense, wanting a transformational style of leadership, where
the individual transforms in their mind to chosen corporate vision and mission. Instead, I find
myself leading by means of transactional leadership, where I have to negotiate for a common
success. As much as I am philosophically opposed to authoritarian leadership, I find myself
pulling upon that style when time from my leadership is not granted to allow other approaches.
However, this self-analysis does not negate my success in leadership.
I believe that the three papers referenced in this section clearly articulate my
understanding of various philosophies and that I have declared my current leadership style to be
servant-leadership. And I believe that servant-leadership is in harmony with my expressed
worldview that everyone is important and valued. Every person matters is a value that is
consistent in my view.
Paper One - Personal Leadership Concepts
Leadership is a concept that is broadly defined. And the theories of leadership are
multiple. At the beginning of this course I wrote a definition of leadership that said, “Leadership
is the unique ability an individual projects that causes others to believe, through trust, they are
capable to follow a course.” This definition captures my world view. It is very important to me
to describe leadership with what I respect the most; a leader must do more than inspire but is
found to have innate, God-given abilities that cause others to want to follow. To me, that means
that everyone is a leader within their own dimension because they have something to offer others
that are unique to themselves. When a single individual contributes their strength to the whole
which leads to other’s success, there is a natural affinity that takes place. This means that
leadership must be flexible and dynamic as the necessity for individual strengths change. I
22
would suggest that leadership culture is fluid and the leader/follower relationship changes based
upon how the individual contributes to the definition espoused above.
Leadership in Organizational Culture
Schein (1995) defines culture as “A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group
learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked
well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct
way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (p. 279). As his formal definition,
Schein highlights a systematic and categorical view. While I agree with the definition
conceptually, I hesitate to accept it as a rigid concept. As figure 1 displays Schein’s 10 major
categories of “overt phenomena that are associated with culture” (p. 276), he acknowledges that
they are not actually the culture.
23
Figure 1
Group
Norms
Espoused
Values
Behavior
Regularities
Root
Metaphors
Formal
Philosophy
Shared
Meanings
Rules of
Game
Habits of
Thinking
Climate
Embedded
Skills
The organizational map above aptly illustrates that there is a significant crossover of each
dynamic. The map would be better suited if each of the 10 circles were actually 10 clouds that
interconnect and take different shapes based upon ever changing wind patterns. My bias would
suggest that a stable organizational culture today does not always dictate the cultural consistency
tomorrow. As individuals mature, retire, increase in number they have an impact upon the
whole. External and internal factors change. This may negotiate a willful or involuntary change
24
in the culture. I do not argue against consistent dynamics that hold a group together. I do argue
that the pattern that holds the culture together is pliable.
Regarding leadership and culture Schein (1995) offers a particular viewpoint. He states,
“If one wishes to distinguish leadership from management or administration, one can argue that
leaders create and change cultures, while managers and administrators live within them” (p.
273).
This is a view that can be interpreted in various ways as leadership is understood
differently. My view is that leadership can be displayed by individuals in each and every
position. This lends itself to my view that culture may have identifying characteristics but they
are fluid. One can believe that an autocratic leader controls the culture. This may be true to a
certain extent. But bring in a charismatic character into the mix that won’t go away and the
culture will be affected by the extra influences. I would agree that the phenomenon described by
Schein weighs heavily in how fast or slow the various clouds change their shape.
Overall, Schein addresses the complexity of organizational culture with keen insight. To
admit that the different nuances are hard to define is relevant to the mystery of culture. When
people find themselves at odds with the system of doing things, it is always pertinent to ask the
question of perspective. Schein’s argument reminds us that culture can be the hidden mechanism
behind a position that brings people together or keeps them apart.
Changes in culture are espoused in different types of change theory. For instance,
Greenleaf (2002) brought change to the whole leadership paradigm with his servant leadership
concept. Yukl (2006) calls this attempt the attitude-centered approach. Change was to take
place in values, teambuilding and cultural change initiatives. Servant leadership also changes the
culture through the role-centered approach. The role of leadership is to be responsible in seeking
25
to elevate the work force and not self. The autocratic approach to leadership is done away with
and a collaboration approach can be taken. Improvement programs approach brings change
through education, self-awareness and self-help processes. To see a growing, or larger,
perspective helps to facilitate change. These changes all affect the strengthening of the servantleadership paradigm. It appears that Schein’s thoughts on culture and change fit nicely into
leading an organization toward the servant leadership model.
Dyadic Leadership
Dyadic leadership is an interaction between a leader and a follower. As I build upon my
leadership definition I have noted the significant importance of mentoring. It would seem
obvious that a good mentor would seek to encourage success in the apprentice. It would be
worthy of the mentor to guide the follower into finding their voice (Covey, 2004; De Pree,
1989), or their conative connection (Kolbe, 1990). When an individual discovers the significant
contribution they offer to others, my world view believes that they find their significant
contribution to themselves. A leader facilitates this process in others.
In order for the dyadic relationship to work best in mentoring a learning process needs to
take place. Both the leader and follower need to understand how the other thinks and what
motivates the other. If a leader is in a power position and seeks to dominate the learning process,
the follower will need to adapt to the authority figure. However, I would subscribe that the best
learning comes for working together and learning from each other. This can include formal
education using the constructionist model of learning (Knight, 2006). People progress
exceptionally well while learning from experience (Merriam & Caffarella, 1999). Both Kolb
(1984) and Jarvis (1995) perpetuate the idea of learning cycles. Kolb’s model (see Figure 2)
represents a cycle of learning where a person has a concrete experience which is observed and
26
reflected upon. A person, either mentor and/or follower will review everything that seems
pertinent to them and then exchange concepts through and constructionist approach which
inspires broader reflection and learning. Concepts can develop from this type of exchange and
testing can take place in new and unique situations. Because we are all different individuals with
unique contributions, it would serve the mentor best to allow the apprentice to relate and adapt to
the experience and identify areas of application for further experimentation. Kolb points out that
the learning cycle can be entered into at any stage and the process is just as valid for learning.
Jarvis, on the other hand states that the learning cycle always starts with a concrete
experience. He contends that experimental learning and reflective practice combined form the
highest level of learning. Jarvis also believes that the learning cycle develops skills and attitude.
These concepts seem to support the basic tenants of my definition of leadership.
However, as I reflect I do realize that I am reading into this learning cycle my biases of
leadership defined and regard mentoring in a specified context that is non-autocratic no matter
the position power. I also acknowledge that I want to interpret the dyadic relationship through
the lense of a high exchange relationship.
27
Figure 2
Leadership in Teams/Groups
Leadership faces the reality of subunits that exist. Trying to micromanage all of the
different groups or teams become insurmountable the larger the organization. Everyone is
accountable to someone else, either through stockholders or stakeholders. So there is a need to
allow the various parts to work together. Addressing the nature of teams is significant for
leadership. Yukl (2006) suggests that there are four different types of teams with separate
defining characteristics which have a nature of their own. The teams are listed as “functional
operating teams, cross-functional teams, self-managed teams and executive teams” (p. 319).
Functional operating teams have members who form a group because they are somewhat
specialized but still perform the same basic functions. The group usually has a single formal
leader. The team usually has a long duration of time and the members are usually stable.
28
Cross-functional teams have an assortment of functional teams that come together for the
purpose of coordinated the individual activities. They usually work together through
representation from each group or outside organizations. Usually the activities of the collective
group are more complicated than the functional groups by themselves.
Self-managed teams are self-governed and typically would be responsible to perform the
same type of operational task repeatedly. The team members usually have similar functional
backgrounds. Members are responsible for performing tasks and learning how to perform new
tasks.
Executive teams are formed to evaluate direction and overall purpose. They observe the
resources and overall functionality of the corporate objective and seek to improve both. They
facilitate relationships between groups and maintain a healthy relationship with stockholders or
stakeholders.
Each group represents specific dynamics which require various skills. Some groups
require technical skills, cognitive skills, interpersonal skills, project management skills or
political skills. The application of these various skills depends upon the nature of the group, the
culture of the organization or mission of the organization.
Leadership must understand the value of teams and facilitate healthy interaction. Yukl
(2006) identifies eight team building procedures as guidelines “to increase cohesiveness, mutual
cooperation and identification with the group” (p. 334).








Emphasize common interests and values.
Use ceremonies and rituals.
Use symbols to develop identification with the group.
Encourage and facilitate social interaction.
Tell people about group activities and achievements.
Conduct process analysis sessions.
Conduct alignment sessions.
Increase incentives for mutual cooperation.
29
Leadership has the responsibility to model effective problem solving and decision
making. Groups need to discover their autonomy and still relate to the whole. So much depends
upon cohesive and healthy group dynamics so that individuals in the group can contribute to the
whole. Again, Yukl (2006) offers guidelines for leading decision group meetings.










Inform people about necessary preparations for a meeting.
Share essential information with group members.
Describe the problem without implying the cause or solution.
Allow ample time for idea generation and evaluation.
Separate idea generation from idea evaluation.
Encourage positive restatement and idea building.
Use systematic procedures for solution evaluation.
Encourage members to look for an integrative solution.
Encourage efforts to reach consensus when feasible.
Clarify responsibilities for implementation.
These concepts about leadership and team/group identifications and behaviors are
important to understand as it connects with leadership theory. The efficacy of the group often
depends upon the efficacy of the leader. Leaders disperse their trust in the decisions of others.
Others have the opportunity to influence the whole which empowers them. There is an inherent
risk in empowering others in that they may want to usurp power over others. When leadership
styles clash chaos may begin. How a leader relates to the potential dynamics is determined by
their style of leadership. Margaret Wheatley (1999) suggests that leaders should not shy away
from chaos because great things develop from it.
It has been my experience that empowered groups have been a source of strength for me.
As I reflect upon the option of control versus delegation I have discovered that greater advances
take place through the pooled resources of various talented people. And it continues to be my
view that everyone around me is talented in ways that compliment each other and it would be
30
irresponsible of me to stagnant such talent. That’s why charismatic and servant leadership
theories have been attractive to me regarding leadership.
Description of Charismatic Theory
Followers seek leaders who have attributes of competence. Although attributes of
competence vary from situation to situation the key ingredient is that there is a measure of
competence which is defined. In the area of a charismatic leader the competence is more than a
leadership trait of a dynamic, enthusiastic character (Bass, 1989; Bass & Avolio, 1988). Traits
and behaviors are likely to be defined as someone who can “advocate a vision that is highly
discrepant from the status quo, but still within the latitude of acceptance by followers” (Yukl,
2006, p. 250). Yukl goes on to say that “charisma is more likely to be attributed to leaders who
act in unconventional ways to achieve the vision” (p. 250).
Other authors such as David A. Nadler and Michael L. Tushman (1995) describe a
charismatic leader as someone who is envisioning, energizing and enabling. These three
qualities should be the basic description of a charismatic leader. However, each individual
leader will express themselves in a different way because these characteristics are expressed
through personality.
Attribution theory of charismatic leadership has been defined by Yukl (2006) with the
following characteristics:
Influence Process
1. Personal identification
2. Value internalization
Leader Behaviors
1. Innovative visioning
2. Unconventional behavior
3. Impression management
31
4. Self-sacrifice and personal risk
5. Role modeling exemplary behavior
6. Showing confidence in followers
7. Analyzing the environment
Facilitating Conditions
1. Crisis or disenchantment (p. 255).
For charisma to be an attributional phenomenon the focus must be placed upon a single
leader. A leader inspires followers through personal identification. Followers find an attraction
to a leader for personal reasons and seek to please the leader. Personal traits and skills, including
creating a vision
that is appealing to followers, creates a magnetic allure toward the
charismatic leader. A charismatic leader is ultimately a conceptual visionary that responds with
a plan to move out of a crisis or disenchantment.
Yukl (2006) compares and contrasts the strengths and weaknesses of charismatic
leadership. “Negative charismatics have a personalized power orientation. . . .In contrast,
positive charismatics have a socialized power orientation." (p. 259). These concepts differentiate
a charismatic leader who will seek to edify themselves compared to a leader who seeks to instill
devotion to an ideology. The latter inspires a devotion that lives beyond an individual and
becomes the mentoring tool to create new charismatic leaders through the followers. If the ideal
charismatic leader is effective, the integration of transformational leadership blends into an
inseparable union of theories.
Figure 3 is a map of what best describes the attribution theory of charismatic leadership.
The photos reflect two characters from the Star Wars saga. Luke Skywalker (on the left)
represents a charismatic leader that determines to use his force for the good. Darth Vader (on the
right) represents a charismatic leader that reflects power and control using his power for bad.
32
For those who follow the entire saga will readily see that these two movie characters perfectly
reflect the charismatic description.
Figure 3
Leader Traits & Behaviors
Self-Confidence
Strong Convictions
Unconventional Behavior
Strategic Insight
Dynamic Energy
Self-Sacrifice & Personal Risk
Innovative Visioning
Influence Processes
Facilitating Conditions
Personal Identification
With Leader
Leadership Approval
A Sense of Urgency
Internalization of New
Values
Follower Disenchantment
Exists
Status Quo Easily Challenged
Leaders Emerge In Crisis
Situations
Leader Provides
Inspirational Vision
Attribution Theory of
Charismatic Leadership
Positive Charismatics
Negative Charismatics
Personalized Power Orientation
Emphasize Personal Identification
A Socialized Power Orientation
Emphasize Internalization of Values
Devotion to Ideology
Authority is Delegated
Participation is Encouraged
Rewards are Given
Without
Internalization
Devotion is to Self, Not to Ideals
Ideology is a Tool and Fluid
Followers are Weak & Dependent
Centralized Leadership Without
Delegation
Rewards & Punishment Used to Control
One needs to note that charisma does not necessarily denote ecstatic and glamorous
presentations. The root of the word charisma reflects a giftedness of an individual. Charisma by
its very nature reflects the concept of leadership and is expressed in the Bible as spiritual gifts
listed 1 Corinthians 13. Charisma is actually discovered in every person in the Biblical context
of the church. This is what has shaped my concept of leadership through the years.
33
Theoretical Synopsis
One of the best books that I have read regarding the application of charismatic leadership
was written by Kouzes and Posner (1995). I submit that what they state regarding leadership is
one of the most inspiring pieces of literature in the application of charismatic leadership. They
describe Five Fundamental Practices of Exemplary Leadership which is to challenge the process
– leaders are pioneers, they take risks. Inspire a shared vision – help others to understand the
potential. Enable others to act – bringing in the talents and energies of others. Model the way –
be an example of dedication. Encourage the heart – reinforce the energies and commitments of
others.
Kouzes and Posner describe the four most admired characteristics of leaders. Honest –
confidence in the integrity of leaders. Are they truthful, ethical and principled? Forwardlooking – leaders need to know where everyone is going. Inspiring – enthusiasm, energy and a
positive outlook. Competent – having the ability to not only in their own area of expertise, but
also able to place competent people around them in their areas of weakness.
People want leaders to be credible, and have a sense of direction. Leaders must be able
to stand before us and confidently express an attractive image of the future and all must believe
that the leader has the ability to take everyone there.
Leadership is about creating a new way of life. Leaders must foster change, take risks,
and accept the responsibility for making change happen. Many like to maintain peace, and the
status quo is rewarded greatly. Innovation is discouraged; it causes problems.
Charismatics treat every job as an adventure; Treat every new assignment as a start-over,
even if it isn’t; Question the status quo; Send people shopping for ideas; Put idea gathering on
your own agenda; Go out and find something that needs fixing; Assign people to the
opportunities; Renew your teams; Add adventure and fun to everyone’s work; Take a class; learn
34
a new skill; Set up little experiments; Make it safe for others to experiment; Eliminate firehosing;
Work even with ideas that sound strange initially; Honor your risk takers; Debrief every failure
as well as every success; Model risk-taking; Encourage possibility thinking; Maximize
opportunities for choice; Make formal clothing and titles optional.
Charismatics develop a mission statement. Time is spent explaining how to develop a
vision. The vision is a general statement which links where one has been, where one is and
where one ultimately would like to be in three to five years.
Leaders share with others a vision that can be corporately recognized and accepted. It
focuses highly upon the role of a leader accomplishing this. Though the charisma of a leader has
significance it is not necessarily the key. Sharing thoughts, dreams, aspirations and listening
sincerely to others inspires others to share and create a vision.
Trust must be built amongst the team and they will trust your leadership. It provides
mutual successes. You make the people you lead successful and they will make you successful.
Listening to those you lead can enable you to lead them from where they are to where you want
them to be.
Empowering the team with authority to make decisions with your complete support
grants them the ability to be ambitious for success. Encourage choice making and developing
competency comes in this approach.
Kouzes and Posner (1995) use the expression “set and share the values.” I see this term
to mean that a leader helps everyone to see the short and long term goals and then operates in a
manner to achieve them. Rewards are given to those who work toward achieving these goals.
What can not be taught can be caught by the example of the leader.
35
Charismatics need to encourage change and ultimate success by creating, noting and
publishing small successes. To communicate the larger goal is sometimes too overwhelming for
individuals to believe in. So you give them something smaller to believe in that will ultimately
lead to the larger goal. Smaller successes add up to enable the larger success. Success with one
individual at a time can ultimately have the whole group successful.
Acknowledging the achievements and successes of individuals can be done through
promotion, money, plaques, recognition events, and thank-yous. To have someone know that
you believe in them and acknowledge their contribution encourages greater motivation for
further success.
Leaders challenge the process. They search for opportunities to change the status quo.
They look for innovative ways to improve the organization. They experiment and take risks.
And since risk taking involves mistakes and failure, leaders accept the inevitable
disappointments as learning opportunities.
Leaders inspire a shared vision. They passionately believe that they can make a
difference. They envision the future, creating an ideal and unique image of what the community,
agency or organization can become. Through their strong appeal and quiet persuasion, leaders
enlist others in the dream. They breathe life into the shared vision and get people to see the
exciting future possibilities.
Leaders enable others to act. They foster collaboration and build spirited teams. They
actively involve others. Leaders understand that mutual respect is what sustains extraordinary
efforts; they strive to create an atmosphere of trust and human dignity. They strengthen others
by sharing information and providing choice. They give their own power away, making each
person feel capable and powerful.
36
Leaders model the way. They create standards of excellence and then set an example for
others to follow. They establish values about how constituents, colleagues, and customers
should be treated. Because complex change can overwhelm and stifle action, leaders achieve
small wins. They unravel bureaucracy, put up signposts, and create opportunities for victory.
Leaders encourage the heart. Getting extraordinary things done in organizations is hard
work. To keep hope and determination alive, leaders recognize contributions that individuals
make in the climb to the top. And because every winning team needs to share in the rewards of
team efforts, leaders celebrate accomplishments. They make everyone feel like a hero.
Application of Theory
I have provided pastoral leadership in several churches over the course of 16 years.
Throughout that time I have been assigned to various churches that have had zero membership
growth in the previous decade before I arrived. I never saw myself as extraordinary but I did
assess the situation that each congregation had an autocratic form of leadership for years prior to
my arrival. Although I can be labeled as an impassioned extrovert with overzealous enthusiasm,
it is not what I consider a long lasting strength in long term development.
What I did was change the leadership style to a delegated empowerment of the
congregation. I changed the administrative process at the church board level to include a budget
for each department. This provided leadership in each area to make decisions regarding their
programs without coming back to the board for line item votes before anything could happen.
Pastoral leadership became more of a model of connecting one person’s giftedness (charisma)
with another person’s giftedness (charisma) so that everyone had a purpose to participate. Job
descriptions were written to define purpose. And the most important leadership choice that I
made was to teach each congregation how to develop a mission statement and create long term
37
and short term goals. The process seemed to be more motivating than the conclusion as people
were empowered with information and insight. And then they were encouraged to actively
follow through with their dreams.
In one district I led as a pastor had two congregations of about 60 members each. The
joy that I had during the two and one-half years there was that one congregation more than
doubled their attendance reaching 140 gathering together for services together each week. The
other congregation seated 96 people and for more than two months straight had 98 in attendance
each week.
Analysis
The story told is what I would call a success story. Some would say that I was a success
which I would accept in the context of being a part of a group’s success. But for me, leadership
was simply a choice to unleash the awesome charisma of the masses and not get in the way. It
was the situation that existed in comparison to the choice of leadership style that seemed to be
the difference. Yukl puts it this way:
The ability to see opportunities that others fail to recognize is another reason for a leader
to be viewed as extraordinary. Charismatic leaders influence people to collectively
accomplish great things that initially seemed impossible. The risks inherent in the use of
novel strategies make it important for the leader to have the skills and expertise to make a
realistic assessment of environmental constraints and opportunities for implementing the
strategies. Timing is critical; the same strategy may succeed at one time but fail
completely if implemented earlier or later. Leaders need to be sensitive to the needs and
values of followers as well as to the environment in order to identify a vision that is
innovative, relevant, timely and appealing (p. 251).
38
Further analysis would suggest that the example was not truly a reflection of charismatic
leadership. Theorists would suggest the whole focus needs to be upon a single charismatic
leader and therefore empowering the followers would fail to fit the theory. But I would disagree.
A negative charismatic leader will lead as an autocratic leader based upon their charisma. But a
positive charismatic leader would exhibit traits that would inspire the followers to reflect the
model of the vision. Therefore, I would suggest that inherent within the attribution theory of
charismatic leadership that establishes a good leader would contain a moral imperative to
perpetuate itself. Since a charismatic leader is established when refusing to accept the status
quo, followers would learn how to find their own charisma. A good charismatic leader would
not want their leadership to settle back into status quo. The legacy of a good charismatic leader
is that the followers would believe in the vision and find individual niches to expand the vision.
Many would categorize Jesus as a charismatic leader. But His inspiration was to develop
multi-generational charismatic leaders that would find opportunities to bring a new vision to
different parts of the world. It appears to me that the attribution theory of charismatic leadership
can be passed down to the followers without disturbing the role of the original leader. If the
theory is about the individual, it would die with the individual. If the theory is about the
ideology, the theory should always be applicable.
Greater Theoretical Dynamics
There are authors who believe that in its purist form the attribution theory of
charismatic leadership cannot stand alone. Nadler and Tushman (1995) expressed their
views regarding limitations of the charismatic leadership. The categories are listed as
“unrealistic expectations, dependency and counterdependency, reluctance to disagree with
39
the leader, need for continuing magic, potential feelings of betrayal, disenfranchisement of
next levels of management and limitations of range of individual leader” (pp. 110, 111).
Nadler and Tushman would suggest that the theory of instrumental leadership would be an
appropriate compliment to charismatic leadership. This would provide an emphasis on
structure, control and a reward process.
The theory of servant leadership could be a fitting description of the various
expressions of leadership in the same setting presented in the personal narrative. The
description of delegation which created empowered autonomy in so many individuals was a
major factor. Participative leadership brought about a more focused expression of
consultation, power sharing, decentralization and democratic management. Attributional
behaviors reflected a growing amount of high exchange felt by subordinate and leader. As a
matter of fact, there were great risks taken against traditional roles to the extent that I
suggested that the pastor was on an equal plain as the member and vice-versa. To elevate a
subordinate’s view that they should see themselves as an equal with their perception of a
leader being superior was a new paradigm. Again, the theory of servant leadership plays an
important part here.
Behaviors and Traits
It is true that the initiator of charismatic leadership is also a revolutionary. In my
described situation I replaced what I believed to be autocratic predecessors. To implement a
new direction I behaved autocratically. I rose up to be independent in voice to suggest a
different way of doing business. I authoritatively commanded democracy and empowerment
to the people. I preached it and demanded it. I had boundaries that were established. The
rich person was not allowed to dominate the poor by leverage. Racial differences were not
40
allowed to be a schismatic factor but an opportunity to reach avenues not tapped into by the
majority population. These were some of the autocratic boundaries set.
But the nature of participative leadership expressed was designed to intentionally
change. Through what Hersey and Blanchard (1995) describe as situational leadership I
intended to move a group of individuals to the highest level of readiness where the followers
were competent, willing and self-assured. I was able to empower a group of individuals,
moving them from following a leader into becoming leaders through full delegation.
After establishing the mission statement each church developed long term and short
term goals based upon their mission. The goals were organized into tasks that individuals
chose to do. Even if I did not participate in a select task, I was supportive and exhorted the
tasks before the group and outside vendors. Any resources that I found that would enhance a
particular task were funneled to those who were trying to accomplish the task.
Relation-oriented behavior was also necessary. Church congregations are social by
nature. People who felt a warmth and haven of rest in our environment were more likely to
become involved. It reflected another one of my boundaries as to all individuals had to feel
safe and welcome in our group or the antagonist would feel unwelcome and had to leave or
change.
Participative leadership combined the task-oriented performers and the relationoriented people into a harmonious blend. Everyone was allowed to find their voice (Covey,
2004) to accomplish what they wanted with a group of individuals who cared about their
success and happiness. When it was understood that everyone had an equal voice without a
leader dictating, it was fun to participate. As a charismatic leader I participated with the
constant pronouncement through preaching and teaching, caring and sharing that everyone
41
had value. As a charismatic leader, to tell everyone that they matter is empowering both
ways.
A synthesis of the behaviors expressed above can be demonstrated by the description
of the “Big Five Personality Traits” presented by R.J. Hogan, G. Curphy and J. Hogan (Yukl,
2006, p. 197)
Big Five Personality Traits
Specific Traits
Surgency
Extroversion (outgoing)
Energy/Activity level
Need for Power (assertive)
Conscientiousness
Dependability
Personal integrity
Need for achievement
Agreeableness
Cheerful and optimistic
Nurturance (sympathetic,
helpful)
Need for affiliation
Adjustment
Emotional stability
Self-esteem
Self-control
Intellectance
Curious and inquisitive
Open-minded
Learning oriented
42
These traits are, to me, the ingredients of a positive charismatic. With this model of
leadership being described as primarily a single individual, necessity leads to these
characterizations. People need to know you are there to contribute (surgency). Actions must
be reliable (conscientious) or people will lose trust and leave. Charisma stems in today’s
thinking as enjoyable (agreeableness). When the followers become a little disconcerted the
charismatic leader is the stabilizing force (adjustment). And the concept of never being
satisfied with the status quo makes a new direction (intellectance) a necessity. All of these I
believe I have as a part of my leadership capabilities.
Description of Servant Leadership Theory
In the world of leadership where the respected head of the organization commands with
authority comes a new paradigm. It is called, servant-leadership. The originator of the theory of
servant-leadership, Greenleaf (2002), writes,
The servant-leader is servant first. . . .It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to
serve, to serve first. . . .[so that] the care taken by the servant-first [is] to make sure that 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? (p. 27)
Greenleaf describes his theory on a basis that servant-leadership is intuitive. It has a
moral basis to it. There is a visionary that inspires others to follow and discover their
imagination. Servant-leadership is a state-of-being which exhibits characteristics of strength in
43
humility. These concepts are hard to define in a concrete manner, yet they are the foundation of
the theory.
Servant-leadership is described as a dichotomy. People may wonder how a person can
both serve and lead at the same time. The answer is found in the character and integrity of the
leader. If the leader is self-confident and understands the vision of success, then to let others
achieve successes first finds its own rewards. To succeed alone is a lonely venture.
Larry Spears (1995) describes servant-leadership as having 10 critical characteristics.
They are: Listening, Empathy, Healing, Awareness, Persuasion, Conceptualization, Foresight,
Stewardship, Commitment to the growth of people, and Building community (pp. 4-7). Each of
these characteristics requires an exchange between two or more people. These traits include
moral and ethical standards which highlight concern toward others and their well being. The
focus is upon individuals and not the institution.
Servant-leadership at its fundamental base is where one person seeks to value all others.
As a theory of leadership the sole purpose is to instill within every person their value. The work
of servant-leadership is not compliance, but freedom. Peter Senge (1995) says it best when he
wrote,
The idea that everybody has to be in agreement about ‘the vision’ is complete nonsense. If
you, as a manager, push for such agreement, you probably will get it, but it probably will be
superficial. What really matters is not superficial, ‘intellectual’ agreement but what is in
people’s hearts and minds. In a 1,000-person organization there had better be 1,000 visions.
Otherwise, you won’t have anybody committed to anything. You will have only superficial
compliance to the official vision. (p. 230)
44
This is to say that servant-leadership enables everyone to find their own leadership voice. It
reflects the values found in servant-leadership of reversing the pyramid structure of leadership
from top-down leadership to bottom-up leadership. And in its idealistic sense, servant-leadership
finds everyone on an equal plain working together in service toward one another. The following
map portrays the concept.
Figure 4
Leader
Follower
Follower
Leader
Theoretical Synopsis
Today the concept of servant-leadership is advanced by such authors as Covey
(December 2006), De Pree (1989), Spears (1995) and Buchanan (May 2007) amongst a host of
other advocates. These authors all believe that there is a moral attribute to leading followers into
their strengths. They all believe that the qualities of servant-leadership require the leader to have
enough clarity in their own vision that they are willing to exchange authority for serving the best
interest of the whole.
Because Greenleaf promoted servant-leadership with a moral imperative and as an
intuitive process, the concept has been hard to prove through researchable means. Barbuto, Jr.
and Wheeler (June 2006) provide an attempt at research supporting servant-leadership. They
45
state that “the empirical examination of servant leadership has been hampered by a lack of
theoretical underpinnings and no suitable measure” (p. 301). However, they provide research
that reflects Spears’ 10 characteristics of servant-leadership referred to above. They then
compare servant-leadership to other theories. Their findings are that servant-leadership has a
strong positive correlation to transformational leadership theory and LMX leadership theory.
Yukl (2006) defines transformational theory as having a moral basis. This viewpoint is
significant in the correlation between transformational and servant-leadership theories. LMX
theory (Graen & Cashman, 1975) supports good interpersonal relationships with high-LMX
leaders as they develop trusting and mutually beneficial relationships with their followers.
Servant-leadership develops the same relationship with all employees. Servant-leadership
emphasizes the leader’s purpose, whereas LMX describes the normative response of both leader
and follower.
Not all authors find an appeal to servant-leadership. There seems to be a discomfort by
some of Greenleaf’s account of discovering servant-leadership as a Christian with its moral focus
(Wikipedia). Some see Jesus as a prime example of servant-leadership. Others find Hindu
characters like Gandhi or the Chinese philosopher Tao Te Ching as models. Wallace (2007)
addresses the subject of servant-leadership from a world view perspective relating various
religious perspectives to the theory. His arguments favor the Christian relationship to servantleadership. He is open to much criticism regarding this favoritism over other world religions.
Especially as one looks at the fact that there are individuals and time periods where each religion
has had their morality questioned.
The reality is that I am a Christian who finds value in the servant-leadership concept. At
the crux of the theory is the moral overtone for leadership to work tirelessly to strengthen and
46
support their followers. Great effort needs to take place by the leader to support all followers
and not just a select few with a high LMX. Servant-leadership, to me, is the overriding theory
that any other theory exhibited is to be guided. It is the superior theory.
Application of Theory
Many years ago I discovered the flaw in autocratic leadership. People sat around and
waited to be told what to do. It led to a very mundane and unproductive setting. So in pastoral
ministry I was determined to direct stagnant congregations into lively, responsive and rewarding
congregations. Servant-leadership concepts seemed to be the most applicable forms that would
inspire growth in others and be mutually satisfying to me.
Servant-leadership is not very hard to implement. All I had to do was start telling people
that I believed in them. Not just to one person or a select group, but to each and every individual
in the congregation. For those who were groomed to take orders and held by restraints of topdown authority in the past, it was a little scary. A trust had to be established to prove there
would be no punishment for initiative. So the first step of implementing servant-leadership was
to create a new and safe environment.
Some of the methods incorporated to move toward servant-leadership were to delegate
authority. The church financial processes needed to be changed. Budgets were established and
voted upon by the church as a whole, not just the church board. Once a department was given a
budget there was no need to come back to the church board to vote specific expenditures. That
freedom brought out initiatives that autocratic thinkers may have wanted to control but could not
stop.
When individuals approached me for permission to do a project, it was never granted.
That was because they needed to learn that they already had permission and did not need my
47
authority. What I could give them was my blessing, experience and knowledge. My role was to
make sure they were successful. I would direct the team to resources that they had available,
such as the quiet yet talented church members who usually sat on the sideline. By including
more talent into the mix, more activities took place, resources were increased and more people
became involved. When individuals find their voice and are empowered (Covey, 2004; De Pree,
1989; Spears, 1995) they find personal benefits and many unexpected rewards.
In every setting where servant-leadership was implemented, I would lead the
congregations through the process of creating a mission statement, long term and short term
goals (as described above from the charismatic leadership perspective). Although the mission
statement provided the unifying focus of the congregation, the process itself left the long lasting
impression. In creating the mission statement, various individuals were given assignments in
demographic research. They were to learn about their congregational consistency and the
demographics of the community where they lived. Each individual that provided their research
results were then deemed an expert in their area and they became the spokesperson of their
sources. It became quite clear to the congregation that I, as their pastor, functioned as a
facilitator and not dictatorially. This ownership of the direction of the congregation by its
members had a life impact. They were empowered with a personal vision that they owned and
began sharing it with others.
The pattern of implementing servant-leadership in various settings, for me, was that it
usually took about one year to move into a stable, new structure. The second year would
demonstrate the positive effects upon the congregation. I have seen in multiple settings a
consistent 24% annual tithe gain. I had one congregation with 68 members and about half that in
attendance, two years later they had 120 members and 140 in attendance. Another congregation
48
had 61 members with about half in attendance and two years later they had 96 members on the
books, seating for 96 members and 98 individuals in attendance every week. This type of growth
brings a congregation alive.
Coordination becomes significant in the servant-leadership process. With so many
empowered people there needs to be an effort to keep competition for time and resources to a
minimum. The church calendar of events became the center of church board discussions.
People who took ownership in their programs sometimes had to negotiate for facility use.
Servant-leadership principles suggest that one is not to become an independent autocratic leader
in this new found power and then make demands upon everyone else to further the individual
success. Therefore, the servant-leader needs to display integrity and groom the same in others to
perpetuate the process.
Analysis
Servant-leadership is unique in its role as a leadership model. It has many benefits and
can be used in conjunction with other models such as charismatic leadership, transformational
leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1988; Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004), instrumental
leadership, LMX theory of leadership and situational leadership (Barbuto & Wheeler, June
2006). It stands in contrast to autocratic leadership. The intuitive aspects of servant-leadership
are to be morally sensitive to the individuals and systems that are being influenced. A servantleader is a wholistic approach to the entirety and not a part. The leader is to be a servant first
toward everyone and everything to establish leadership.
When servant-leadership is practiced there is an empowerment for those being served.
Mutual respect is granted to the servant-leader as those being served learn that the server is
capable of leading but instead seeks to serve. The foundation behind the concept is that the
49
natural ingredient to human beings is a moral influence of building others in turn builds oneself.
This becomes the source of motivation and inspiration for individuals to work. Efforts put forth
become pleasing and gratifying. It is the strength of servant-leadership.
Conclusion
The search to refine my personal identification of leadership offers a slight change to my
definition of leadership that was stated earlier. Although my personal world view has not
changed, my articulation of leadership has changed. Leadership appears to be better defined as a
person who enables others to be empowered toward success in whatever pursuit taken through
the combination of personal and/or corporate efforts with a high degree of integrity.
Yukl (2006) has highly influence me in his focus on leadership traits and skills. He
states,
Personality traits seem less important than skills for effective leadership. . . Leaders with a
socialized power orientation and a high level of cognitive moral development use their
influence to build commitment to idealized goals, and they seek to empower subordinates
by sharing information and using more consultation, delegation, and development of
subordinate skills and confidence. . .Some traits and skills appear to be especially relevant
for effective task-oriented leadership. . .Some traits and skills are especially relevant for
effective relations-oriented leadership. . . A strong achievement orientation can be a source
of motivation to strive for excellence and pursue innovative improvements. . .The
willingness and ability to learn and adapt are important requirements for effective
leadership in today’s uncertain and turbulent world.
50
My response to these poignant statements would be that it is my goal to have the traits
and skills that are needed to lead others. With these socialized leadership skills and traits I have
been comfortable with expressing them through leadership theories espoused by charismatic
leadership, transformational leadership and servant leadership. Authors argue that these three
leadership styles are very closely related and can be separated only by the best fit in
organizational context (Smith, et al., 2004). Although I don’t like the status-quo and charismatic
leadership is a successful change agent formula, not every setting needs a dominant single figure.
Transformational leadership offers me the moral basis to lead with integrity and servant
leadership highlights my world view of equal contribution by all with value and contribution by
the grass-roots individual as well as executive leadership. Everyone has their role and if one
individual such as a leader does anything to undermine another’s role, it would seem to me a
determent to leadership. Leadership should unleash the potential of the masses. That is why
servant leadership is valuable to me.
I see myself as continuing to use an ethical leadership
style of transformational (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1998) and servant leadership.
Paper Two - Philosophy Found in
Organizational Change and Culture
Leading organizational change is big business. There are multiple consulting firms
whose entire business is to provide guidance through organizational change. Corporations invest
thousands and sometimes millions of dollars to bring about change. Change has to be addressed
as it affects the life of the business cycle. The corporate question is to determine if change
sustains life or death to the business.
An organization may have an identity but the people are key factors in any organization.
Without people there would be no leaders or performers of production. And people do not like
51
change even though they are constantly bombarded with change. For instance, people age but
most do not like it. The same can be seen in the workplace. Equipment gets old but to
modernize means to leave the familiar in many instances. To face the unknown is to face the
human fear factor. Resistance is both intellectual and emotional. Making changes is a very
human adventure.
This paper will look at the concept of organizational change. Two contexts will be
addressed and reviewed. One is leading organizational change in a church setting. The other is
looking at organizational change in the corporate setting. Although couched in different
language, both settings will demonstrate congruent issues. Motivating and sustaining change can
be difficult. Both face the same human factors.
My Background and Experience
For sixteen years I served as a minister. After my internship it was my experience to be
placed in small congregations defined as less than 75 members. One of the strengths in small
congregations is the family orientation found there. They know each other intimately as they
participate in each other’s lives. There is a nurturing matriarchal or patriarchal culture in small
congregations. And it is to their wisdom that the group submits.
As a young pastor I was idealistic and came in with the belief that the people in the
church wanted to grow. It was clear that in theory all claimed to hold the same view of mission.
However, as effort was made to increase the congregation it became clear that there was a social
screening. Nothing was to be done without the authorization of the one in charge. And no
person could be assimilated into the church unless they could meet the social standards of
congregational leadership. This, to me, demonstrated why small churches stay small. It is the
formula for keeping churches small and eventually to their death.
52
Two areas that I identified seemed to need change. First, the hierarchical structure of a
sole individual having supreme rule needed to change. And the second, the culture of not
accepting people into the social structure needed to be broken. This seemed to be a daunting
task.
How did I break through to change? It was not always easy but it always took place.
First, I identified their values. Small congregations always have family members around that
have stopped participating in church because of some feud. A primary focus on youth and young
adults were my focus. I took advantage of the natural bonding that could potentially take place
because of my youth. The leadership had a high value of wanting their children back in church.
Once the youth starting coming back to church I found an ally for change. When change became
apparent and leadership resisted, it was their children that stood up for change. It became an
opportunity for people to truly identify their values. Did the leadership want to maintain control
of everything at the cost of losing their children again, or were the children and grandchildren
more valuable to keep. My role was to keep preaching wholesome, relevant sermons. And I also
sought to maintain a level of integrity to genuinely love each individual. I sought to establish
trust and build a rapport with everyone.
The other focus that I addressed was the creation of a mission together with short term
and long-term goals. I did this because the structure allowed only a single voice to lead without
a shared view of purpose. As a matter of fact, the congregational leader of these small
congregations was primarily situated in values of the past that could not relate to modern
experiences. For the leader, it was safer to hold to the past ideologies and avoid the risk of
making wrong decisions so they controlled everything. To allow someone else the opportunity
53
to make a decision meant that they might not make the right decision. They reasoned that it was
safer to maintain control.
I organized a weekend retreat with just the leaders while pastoring different small
congregations. The purpose was the same in each setting. I used the idealism that we all shared
that we are here to witness to our community for the Lord. I gave each an assignment before the
retreat to do demographic studies in different areas both within the congregation and also the
community. Once we identified the internal and external realities the question was asked, “What
do we have to offer the community?” As a group the identification was made and the root of
structural change was in place. Now, since the group identified the mission, vision and goals,
they went back to the congregation to share what they learned.
The next step was to change the style of budgeting and the church board’s style of
approval for ministry. Departmental budgets were established to meet those goals and autonomy
was given. The church voted the church budget in business session, which supersedes all church
board decisions. Money was now available to departmental leaders without direct oversight by
the board so long as they did not overspend their budgets. Ownership in the mission expanded
and the growth came almost immediately. The overwhelming growth tended to silence the
negativity with quick short-term wins. The positives silenced the negatives. Every congregation
that I pastored had growth at record setting paces. I believe that growth took place due to
organizational and cultural changes.
My background to this study also includes a transition into working as a supervisor of a
team of laboratory couriers at Florida Hospital. It was a transition for me, personally. However,
I interviewed for a position that sought a leader that would initiate change. In this setting the
laboratory couriers accounted for their work manually, using paper and pencil. I was to lead the
54
team through a transition that would require learning modern technology using the computer.
The specifics of the change process are written in another paper. However, what is appropriate
to highlight here is that the change was done autocratically. It is my view that leadership needs
to determine when to transition autocratically and when to lead change through delegation.
One of tasks that I needed to do was make certain that all employees were successful in
incorporating change. Training and inspiring were necessary. A great investment in time was
required to prepare the team to use the new technology. Many of the couriers are from the
generation that does not use computers at all. Their hand-held units that they used had small
print and were difficult to see. It was emotionally upsetting to some. Then the deadline for
implementation was set and the emotions escalated. There were quick learners and not so quick
learners. Teaching skills were so important. Adapting to the various learning styles was not
academic but real life experiential learning. Intensified training went out to those having
difficulty. One courier did quit. But the assurance that six months down the road after
implementation that they all would be deemed experts became a part of their reality. Now, they
do not want to go back to paper and pencil. They have experienced the value of the new tool.
Building a Theoretical Basis
Psychological Change
Kurt Lewin (1997) is known as the father of field theory in social change. Field theory is
described as having the basic tenants of “(a) behavior has to be derived from a totality of coexist
facts, (b) these coexisting facts have the character of a ‘dynamic field’ in so far as the state of
any part of this field depends on every other part of the field” (p. 187). His three-phase change
description of unfreezing, moving and freezing reflects a much larger dynamic in field theory. In
the world of constant change a person has to find a way to create permanent change. And
55
change being sought for is change that has wholesome value. Lewin’s theme reflects upon the
change of force fields that surround people. Each force has a different level of influence. It is
best to look at the combined influence of all the forces before one seeks to evaluate actual
change.
Each person has habits that affect change. The breaking of a habit that is socially
conditioned is a force field of great resistance. To overcome such resistance requires a force
sufficient to break the habit and unfreeze the custom.
There is the conduct of the individual or group standards to be considered. “If the
individual should try to diverge ‘too much’ from group standards he will find himself in
increasing difficulties” (Lewin, 1997, p. 328). This would mean that if the group is resistant it is
harder to bring about change. If the group is in favor of the change, it is harder for the individual
to oppose the change. The group seems to cause the individual to hold to the social standard.
A leader can identify the best effort of initiating change by evaluating a structure of
change. If the group is opposed to change the structure of change should be to effect changes
through individuals. Getting enough individuals to identify change can have an impact of the
group field. If the group standard is changed, then the effect the group has on resisting change is
eliminated.
The forces of resistance to change can come from the individual, the group and society at
large. Lewin suggests that in order to unfreeze, move and refreeze any change that a
determination must be made between as to the best way to effect change. As mentioned in the
previous paragraph regarding the individual and the group, it is suggested that the group may
have to be separated from society if society is opposed to change. It would be necessary to work
56
through individual groups that collectively are ready for change and then have them begin the
process of influencing society.
The three identified stages of unfreezing, moving and refreezing are all a part of the
human psychology. The expression, “set in our way,” comes from our human desires to be
comfortable with or worldview. Unfreezing is a metaphor that describes the thawing away of
being solid and unmovable. Once the ice is thawed it becomes like water and can be more
readily reshaped. Humans, when melted, are pliable yet are still manipulated by the forces that
remain an influence to restructure the realities. Once the change takes place, it would be
necessary to refreeze the new situation before falling back to the old way of doing things.
My premise stated in the introduction is that corporate change is tangible as it is applied
in the realm of humanity. In other words, all change has a human reality to it. Lewin writes,
The concept of a psychological force, of tension, of conflicts as equilabria of forces and of
inducing fields, have slowly widened their range of application from the realm of individual
psychology into the realm of processes and events which had been the domain of sociology
and cultural anthropology. (p. 335)
It is from here that I present the theories that I have considered that were written in the field of
organizational change.
Organizational Change
Leading or Managing
I have seen two primary foci in organizational change. One is in structure and the other
is culture. In creating a view of the organizational life cycle Bridges (2003) describes seven
stages. They come in the order of: Dreaming the Dream; Launching the Venture; Getting
Organized; Making It; Becoming an Institution; Closing In; and Dying. In each step there is a
distinct change that takes place. After becoming an institution Bridges indicates that there is
57
only one more step between life and dying. It is imperative that if the stage of closing in takes
place that dreaming the dream needs to be reinitiated or the organization will soon die.
The point of such an opening paragraph in this section is to demonstrate that,
fundamentally, change takes place in the organizational life. Addressing organizational change
is significant for the success of any organization.
As one looks at the theory of organizational change and the research regarding such topic
it is interesting to note the complexity. If organizations have a life cycle of their own, can a
leader lead through change, or does one only manage through change? Kotter (1996) makes a
clear distinction between leaders who lead and managers who manage changes. Kotter indicates
that that leaders act out of vision and concepts. Managers are the implementers. However,
Purser & Petranker (2005) argue that the concept of change is impossible to constitute. They cite
Henri Bergson by saying “it is impossible to constitute movement, change, or momentum out of
the immobile” (p. 187). It is their perspective that time is dynamic and does not allow for
duration. They argue that “the past, however, is no longer an accurate guide to the future” (p.
193). Instead, they have developed their own proposal about forecasting and predicting. Their
concept is called “future infinitive”. They suggest that rather than planning for the future and
constructing change toward a goal, which may or may not be met, planning to be open and
flexible creates healthier change because it creates a talent for improvising and invention. Purser
& Petranker rejected Lewin’s (1997) concept of time where people unfreeze, move and refreeze
out of the past and into the future as well as rejecting Weick & Quinn (1999) who joined Lewin’s
concept describing it as freeze, rebalance and unfreeze.
It seems to me that Purser and Petranker have a manager’s perspective on change.
Managers function in the practicalities of the here and now while leaders cast a vision of the
58
potential of creating a future. Quantum theory (Wheatley, 1999) in leadership may describe the
natural formation of chaos and the development of order out of chaos outside of human control,
but I do not believe that it negates that the elements within the universe may participate in the
change. That means that humanity has a part to play in the order of the universe. We can create
chaos as well as order. However, I do like the concept that a leader in organizational change will
have the capacity to being open and flexible.
Quantum Leadership
Believing that leaders can manage organizational change I have learned from a variety of
authors regarding how to plan change. Porter-O’Grady & Malloch (2007) describe their concept
of change through quantum leadership theory. They argue that no individual faces their
existence alone. Thus, what happens to one person or aspect of the organization has a ripple
effect upon all other parts. The concept is simply written, “change is.” Adaptation is the word
they use to describe continuous change. They argue that leaders are always interpreting,
explaining, adjusting and applying the issues and dynamics of change since change is constant.
Also, they continue by stating that chaos is good as it allows a healthy organization the
opportunity for everyone to determine a better way. The process of facing chaos is described as
crisis, change, and contingency. This requires leaders to always have a structure that brings a
variety of components together to face the change and evaluate the change through the corporate
mission and values. Porter-O’Grady & Malloch suggest that it is the structure of a mission and
values that are the stabilizing factor to chaos. Mission and values are the redeeming factors to
complexity theory.
59
Noting that quantum change is continuous Porter-O’Grady & Malloch describe a fivephase expression of change that attaches to shifting context and adaptation. These five phases
are: Shifting Conditions, Redefining, New Behaviors, Reformatting, and Change Response. The
cycle of transformational learning is defined as Unlearning/Learning, Sustaining and
Maintaining. The five phases and cycle of transformation may be entered into at any stage with
the understanding that the process is always cyclical and never ending.
Transformational Change
Holding to the view that there is a distinction between leadership and management I
would like to also distinguish the difference between transformational change and transitional
change. Leadership can hold to a structure where decisions for change are made from the top
down. Transitions can be made through this approach but the likelihood of employee acceptance
is much more difficult (Dunn & Swerczek, 1977; Yukl, 2006). Transformational change is
where leadership spends time allowing each employee to relate to the change and transform their
thinking around a newly developed concept (Jimmieson, Peach, & White, 2008). The structure
allows for a two-way dialogue to take place and ownership in the change. Without allowing
individuals to transform resistance to change may take place in the following categories: Lack of
trust; Belief that change is unnecessary; Belief that the change is not feasible; Economic threats;
Relative high costs; Fear of personal failure; Loss of status and power; Threat to values and
ideals; Resentment of interference (Yukl, 2006).
John Kotter teaches at Harvard Business School. Over the course of years he has made a
transition of leadership styles. He is now a proponent of transformational leadership. He lists
eight challenges to change and eight remedies to those challenges (Kotter, 1996).
60
1. Allowing too much complacency.
2. Failing to create a sufficiently powerful guiding coalition.
3. Underestimating the power of vision.
4. Under communicating the vision by a factor of 10 (or 100 or even 1,000).
5. Permitting obstacles to block the new vision.
6. Failing to create short-term wins.
7. Declaring victory too soon.
8. Neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the corporate culture.
1. Establishing a sense of urgency.
2. Creating the guiding coalition.
3. Developing a vision and strategy.
4. Communicating the change vision.
5. Empowering broad-based action.
6. Generating short-term wins.
7. Consolidating gains and producing more change.
8. Anchoring new approaches in the culture.
In regard to leading change, Kotter’s first priority in developing change is the reoccurring
theme through all eight steps. The sense of urgency for change must be created at first and
reinforced throughout every stage. Kotter also indicates that a person can move on to the next
stage without finishing the previous stage. However, the preceding stage must be complete
before the following stage or the whole process collapses.
One of the reoccurring themes in transformational leadership is the high priority of
developing a vision and strategy as seen in stage three of Kotter’s eight stages. Bridges (2003)
emphasizes vision through his three-stage model of change described as ending, the neutral zone,
and beginning. His example is how a square morphs into a circle. His pictograph shows a break
up of the square into pieces and how those pieces transform into a circle. If people cannot
visualize the change and understand the purpose, they tend to resist the change.
Transformational theory can use learning theory in communicating the change vision.
Hendry (1996) vehemently argues that Lewin’s concept of unfreezing, moving and refreezing
explains certain aspects of the forces that change faces. Cognitive dissonance and political
61
forces are multifaceted. Hendry emphasizes Lewin’s connection to Gestalt’s theory of learning.
Then continues to describe behaviorism as another learning process. He continues to build his
case that change comes through experiential learning through individual and group experiences.
To Hendry, all of these various forms of learning bring about avenues of change.
Reviewing the Religious Literature
The religious literature describing church growth and change carries with it common
themes. As in the non-religious material there is a great focus on bringing about change through
the process of developing a mission and vision statement tied together with communal values
(George, 1992; McGavran & Arn, 1977; Wagner, 1976). The same literature describes a
structure of decentralized power where church members are authorized to represent the church
organization. And the culture is groomed to be open to change through accessions in
membership and added activities.
The religious literature also describes why people resist change and what it takes to bring
about change. Elmer Towns (1990) compiles a book that includes John Maxwell stating that
people resist change because of misunderstanding, lack of ownership, habit patterns and seeing
change as not worth the price. Maxwell suggests that people will change when they hurt enough
that they have to change, learn enough that they want to change, and receive enough that they are
able to change. The motivations for change that Maxwell describes reflect changing out of
negative feelings to the overwhelming sense that comes out of having plenty.
Learning Related to Competencies
It is my purpose to demonstrate the skill to bring about organizational change as well as
organizational behavior, development and culture at the same. As noted in the above-mentioned
62
theories, change is constant. Throughout my years of employment, in both the religious and
hospital setting I have many anecdotal stories describing changes that I have led others through.
Simply to record that over 1,000 people have made certain life decisions to become baptized
Christians under my leadership is exceptionally rewarding to me. But, I have sought to
demonstrate in the non-religious setting that I have also demonstrated leadership skills that have
brought about organizational and individual changes.
Since I arrived at Florida Hospital I have noted through my responsibilities as a
laboratory courier supervisor that a certain culture transpires that costs the hospital unnecessary
expenditures. Each of the seven campuses use a contract courier service for transportation of
specimens beyond the routine laboratory couriers. After monitoring the expenditures I was able
to demonstrate how we could bring about a savings through a centralized courier dispatch
station. The problem to be addressed was to stop employees from calling contracted couriers to
perform tasks that were equally capable of being handled by Florida Hospital couriers without
delay in process and without additionally incurred costs.
The process to bring about the change took place when another manager was given the
task to find a way to cover costs in their area. After receiving a bill that had exceptionally high
courier charges that manager approached me to see if I could add insight. My director had
already been informed about my perception and now the other manager went to their manager
with the same insight. Together, the two directors, the manager and myself agreed that the
problem should be brought before the various campus directors for discussion.
Prior to attending the directors’ meeting I put together some general figures and followed
a suggestion by my director. It was decided to offer to hold a one week trial to see what the
effect would be if all calls went through a centralized dispatcher. The directors agreed upon the
63
concept and the plan was put into place. The result was that it could be clearly shown that the
change was a financial benefit to the hospital and the directors voted to make the change to have
the Florida Hospital dispatcher take all campus calls for courier service and to prevent direct
dialing to the contract courier services accept by the dispatcher only. Thus, the change saved the
company money.
The issues were actually much more complicated than briefly described above. Directors
looked at the dollar savings and thought it was a good idea. However, the front line worker was
not brought into the decision making process. They were told they were going to change their
process unconditionally. The new process disgruntled some employees. Others were very
cooperative. The dispatcher was worried about the additional calls, fearing that they might
become overwhelming. Employees made allegations that there was a delay in the process of
delivering specimens. They had presumed that the previous process was working fine and now
that they had to do something different, some began to make overzealous exaggerations about
timeliness.
It was too bad that not everyone was comfortable with the initial change. The situation
taught everyone that when people put trust in a process, the new process takes time to earn the
same level of trust. Directors took the word of their staff when the complainer stated that the
service now took hours compared to less than an hour turn-around-times by the contracted
courier service. We were able to provide data indicating times of calls and exact delivery times
by both the contracted courier services and our Hospital Courier service. The data demonstrated
the Hospital couriers were always were always efficient. The data demonstrated that delays were
imagined. And the data demonstrated that the new process was more efficient in timeliness and
dollars spent than before.
64
I worked with the dispatcher to monitor the change in situation. The dispatcher indicated
that over the course of time he had been winning over the negative people. He continued to
assure them that he would take care of their needs. Building trust was a key to the change in the
behavior of laboratory courier requestors. Strangely, I assess that the ordinary employee does
not sense the financial benefits as they are simply addressing the workflow needs.
Summary of Learning
Using Kotter’s (1996) eight stage process of creating major change, I would like to
suggest that I have been able to demonstrate success. As a courier supervisor I do realize that
my role is subordinate to higher authority and that I am not functioning as a leader but a
manager. Regardless, I believe I have been able to establish a sense of urgency. It was based
upon the timing of others who also discovered the urgency and the cultural environment where
trimming costs was a major priority of the hospital system and, thus, the directors and managers.
Creating the guiding coalition was done through approaching the directors. Getting
placed on the directors’ agenda was a major step in initiating the change process. Without them
we would continue acting the same.
Developing a vision and strategy came with the suggestion of performing a pilot. A
second pilot was actually performed the demonstrated a consistent behavioral pattern. However,
the cost savings did not warrant an additional FTE to maintain the new approach through
nighttime shifts.
Communicating the change vision was the weakest part of the process. However,
placards were made and distributed to every campus through the efforts of my director. Without
her assistance, we would not have completed this stage to the extent we did.
65
Empowering broad-based action had to be done in a stern way. The laboratory’s
executive director approached me to state that I should inform the contract courier service that if
they received any call during our hours of operation, they would not be paid for those calls.
When Florida Hospital employees failed to follow the new process, the contract courier company
refused their call.
Generating short-term wins came in the form of saved dollars and faster turn-aroundtimes. This information was communicated quickly to the directors. How much of that
information went to the frontline employee is not known. I would suggest that it did not get out
as much as desired as some employees still do not see the advantage we currently have over the
past system.
Consolidating gains and producing more change is stage seven. At this point I see only
the beginnings of producing more change. I am maintaining the data of calls and charges so that
when the discussion arises again I will have the information needed in the form best understood
by the directors. It will take some effort, but I am very interested in taking the next steps of
providing data as to how to consolidate the nighttime runs to save money and enhance
efficiencies.
Anchoring new approaches in the culture is directed more toward my directors allowing
me the latitude to continue to influence changes. Again, I am currently in a management role
with leadership thinking. I feel good that I have been given opportunities. I sense that I have
contributed to the healthy development of the workflow. The dispatcher has learned to view a
larger picture with me. The Hospital couriers seem to be a little bit more integrated into the
entire lab process. And the communication level between departments is enhanced.
66
Personal Reflection
I have acknowledged in the past that I have been a charismatic leader. This fits within
Kotter’s view of creating urgency with the cautions of setting aside the ego. While pastoring I
had more to do with creating the structure of delegated authority than I do in my current position.
It is a difficult tension I sometimes face. I think that I am still able to create and communicate
vision as I have in the past. I definitely empower the couriers to work as independent agents.
They know that I support them and I know they are clear in what they are supposed to be doing.
I believe that I have consistently been a twenty-first century leader as described by Kotter (1996,
p. 172). I do have leadership thinking, delegation of authority and a willingness to allow
independent relationships to be performed by the frontline employee with their customer. And I
demonstrate a dedication of my time to inform, train and encourage employees while they are
going through their learning curve. And most importantly, I try to clearly identify to the team
what our purpose is. I believe that when the frontline employee understands their purpose they
will be instruments of change that will be in harmony with the direction the group wants to go.
Methodologies, tools and people change, but what we identify ourselves as should be our
constant. Digging deep enough we can find our worldview and discover the value of our course
in life and make a great contribution. To me, its what makes me aspire to want to be a leader
that is known as a servant leader (Covey, December 2006; Greenleaf, 2002). To be a
transformational change agent is my goal.
Paper Three – Servant Leadership
What kind of leader am I? Can I function as a servant-leader in the context of my current
work setting? After 16 years of pastoral ministry where the theory of servant leadership seemed
to fit nicely, the question of adaptation and implementation is addressed in this paper. This paper
67
specifically describes my efforts to function as a servant-leader in my current work setting. It is
not designed to be a compare and contrast of past professional context with the current setting.
But it is safe to note that everything that I am has a constructionist link to previous experiences.
Integrity is very important to me so I have faced my human weakness by reflecting upon failures
in implementing the ideals of servant leadership in every situation. My failures do not negate the
relevance of the value of being a servant-leader.
The Work Setting
Florida Hospital is a seven campus hospital system located in a tri-county region with the
main campus in Orlando, Florida. Each campus has its own laboratory department with a system
wide integrated system. The primary function of the hospital laboratories is to service the needs
of hospital patients. Some specimens are transported from one campus to another as unique
laboratory equipment for particular tests and personnel are not at all seven campuses.
Florida Pathology Laboratory (FPL) is a subsidiary of Florida Hospital. FPL has as its
function the responsibility to serve as the outreach department into the community to provide
laboratory services to doctor’s offices, nursing homes and other business types. The testing for
specimens received from the community locations is performed at the hospital laboratories. In
order for Florida Hospital to meet its secondary purpose of supporting the community laboratory
needs it provides a team of couriers to transport specimens to the laboratory for testing.
A third operation linked to laboratory courier work is the service provided between
separate divisions of Adventist Health Systems of which Florida Hospital is a part. Two other
divisions, Heartland and Memorial, represent a group of hospitals located in Florida. Each day a
courier is sent to pick up specimens from the hospitals in these other two divisions. The
68
specimens usually are for highly sensitive testing that will be performed at Florida Hospital
Orlando or be sent away in a batch to specialty testing in other parts of the United States.
The teams that makes up the courier service provided are five individuals for the Florida
Hospital routes, eight FPL staff, two for the other divisions and one dispatcher. This group of 16
individuals is managed by a single supervisor.
Servant Leadership as the Courier Supervisor’s Model
Servant Leadership Theory
Robert Greenleaf (2002) is known as the author of the servant leadership theory.
Greenleaf presented his theory as a concept without specific definition. Greenleaf writes that
“serving and leading are still mostly intuition-based concepts” (p. 26). In essence the servantleader “manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s
highest priority needs are being served” (p. 27). This leadership model has been written and
expounded upon by many authors (Buchanan, May 2007; Covey, December 2006; De Pree,
1989; Spears, 1995). All of these authors suggest that if a leader emulates efforts to build
success in the team, the team will in turn respond in kind. Servant leadership is a polar opposite
of autocratic leadership. And intrinsic within the theory is a moral overtone of humility.
In the context of servant leadership being expressed through a courier supervisor’s
position, two elements were considered. Is there a difference in how servant leadership is
expressed when the individual functions as a leader (conceptualization) or as a manager (task
directed)? Leadership authors debate the proportion of this dichotomy (Yukl, 2006). The
dichotomy was a part of the internal struggle I had while determining my level of servant
leadership expressed in my work responsibilities.
69
Responsibilities of Supervisor and Couriers
As a courier supervisor with Florida Hospital I am responsible to oversee the task of
transporting specimens from one location to another. This includes understanding the nature of
the responsibility. Being able to conceptualize the importance of our responsibility is the first
priority. Each courier is responsible for maintaining the integrity of each specimen. To ruin the
integrity of a specimen is to change the results of testing a specimen. Wrong results lead to
wrong diagnosis with the potential of causing harm to the patient up to and including death. The
essence of responsibility alone should induce a level of seriousness to the job.
Another responsibility is to describe the rules and regulations, policies and procedures to
insure the integrity of the samples transported. Extensive training is provided both as one starts
their career as a laboratory courier and through annual review or as updates take place. This
level of focus becomes very detailed.
Another responsibility is to provide each courier with the tools they need to do their
tasks. Providing them with properly working vehicles, tote bags, electronic tracking devices,
client updates, materials, as well as a host of other particulars is important for quality daily
experiences.
Each courier must learn a route and how to manage the peculiar responsibilities of their
route. I usually train a person for a minimum of three days before they attempt their route alone.
Once left alone they always have the dispatcher and myself to call at any time. In about three
months they become experts on their route.
For job success each person must meet the public and coworkers in a positive way. It is a
part of the hospital’s expectations of each employee on a daily basis and is a part of the
employee’s annual review. Each courier should respectfully serve the staff and clients for whom
we transport. In particular, the FPL couriers meet multiple clients each day and they function as
70
ambassadors for the hospital system. Part of my responsibility is to encourage customer service
skills through the various personalities of the couriers.
Another one of the tasks that I am responsible for is to maintain a schedule. This
schedule is two-fold. The schedule of the route is somewhat variable based upon traffic,
timeliness of clients, and relocation or deletion and addition of clients. The other aspect of
scheduling is granting vacations and time off for the courier team. The relationship between
completing the tasks in a timely fashion and being people oriented and addressing their personal
needs may sometimes conflict. Servant leadership must address this dynamic in a practical way.
Servant Leadership Skills and Experience
Servant leadership is not only managing down, it can also be managed up. Since my
responsibility is to manage the tasks of a team, I sometimes seek opportunities to offer relevant
input up the corporate ladder. Since I am a subordinate I must demonstrate an expertise as a
servant-leader to assist my director in their success. I had collected data on the cost and times of
contract courier services which I thought valuable during budget evaluation time. The efforts of
working with my director were recorded on June 21-22, 2007. (See portfolio for entire journaling
document)
I had requested an opportunity to also gain input from the director regarding a
presentation tomorrow. I would be presenting data that indicates the cost and activities of
contract services for transportation of lab specimens. I had the data collected and I wanted the
director’s input on organization and formatting. Also, my presentation was going to be before
the lab directors which are at my director’s organizational level. To inform my director as to
what was going to be presented seems to be not only a practical decision, but also a polite thing
to do.
71
My director affirmed that the data was pertinent and valuable in the format offered. She
spent time this afternoon rearranging the data to emphasize some specific aspects by creating
formats that could display patterns of courier work that she hoped will also be significant. I’ll
review her work in the morning to prepare for my presentation.
I think that a servant leader works best when effort is made to inform others. The
interchange is always helpful to all parties involved. When the team gets together there seems to
be an automatic harmony that takes place.
Most of the morning time was spent doing finishing touches on the research data that I
was going to present to the lab directors today. I am so very thankful that I gave the data to my
director yesterday for her to review. I am glad that she had time to review it as we both worked
on the formatting of the data.
The meeting was in the afternoon and the presentation went marvelously. The data was
well received and unexpected! It helped the directors see tangible evidence that connected to
other items on their agenda. Because my director already new the content of my material and
items that they had previously discussed, information was easily translated into practical
applications. I honestly did not realize how valuable a tool my research would be but I knew that
the financial information regarding the details of courier costs were needed. I was at the meeting
to address a little aspect of laboratory processes and ended up providing a tool that aided in the
larger picture. The affirmation that I received from the group, including my director, made the
effort that I put forth to collate the data worth the effort.
72
Servant Leadership Values, Attitudes and Assumptions
One of the great experiences that I have had is when I was riding with a driver
reevaluating their route. As we were talking I must have offered a suggestion that sounded too
directional and the courier responded with, “Dave, I’m the expert on this route. I do it every day.
I know what needs to be done.” What I liked about this experience is that the courier believed
them self to be an expert. That was music to my ears. And I support that concept. The question
I knew that I needed to address next was how to incorporate a larger picture into the courier’s
thinking with the specific responsibilities of the route. How does a courier’s performance on a
route affect others? What would a courier do if they were to manage their route efficiently? On
June 13, 2007 I was able to journal the workings of this process.
What a pleasant day I experienced today. Everything was relatively quiet and work went
smoothly. I worked many background activities to get the vehicles working and scheduling
service for some of them. I distributed all of the reports to the couriers to deliver. This is usually
done by the dispatcher. I do this once in a while for no other reason than to just do it. It helps
the dispatcher with the use of his time allowing him to focus on other responsibilities.
I placed all of the reports and organized them for one of the couriers. I’ve done this
before and let the courier know that I’m trying to help them to get out on their route quicker as
they fight traffic and have over-time often. The only draw back on this situation is that the
courier likes to visit and gets started late because she “wastes time” so she takes my efforts to
help as an assault against her behavior even though she tells me she understands the need not to
get over-time. When she got finished with her morning run she found that she had an hour to
take her half hour lunch. She spoke words of appreciation for the help I provided earlier but her
tone was chastising and her questions to clarify her responsibilities on the route came with a
73
subtle negative attitude. I’ll keep working to encourage her to function in a timely manner and
arrange for her to still find socializing opportunities.
The dispatcher and I spoke about how the couriers communicate to him with very
independent thinking regarding their routes. The way the dispatcher describes what the couriers
say to him indicates an independent spirit instead of a team spirit. Each courier is given a
sizeable amount of autonomy in performing their responsibilities. However, it appears that
human nature demonstrates that when the work load is lightened the couriers like to go off and
do a few personal chores while on the clock. When we require them to add a few extra stops on
their routes, they complain because it interferes with the personal plans to stop at the bank or
stop by the post office while they are on their route. I’ll have to work through those issues.
The good news is that these issues are exhibited by a small number of the couriers. On
the other side of the coin one of the couriers came to me today and asked if he could go off his
route for about 10 minutes to go home to get some needed medicine for himself. Without
hesitation I told him “yes” and that I appreciated his asking. He did his route, stopped at home
and still made it back to the office at the scheduled time.
It is interesting that I started my narrative out by saying that I had a pleasant day. After
that I spoke about a less than perfect work force dynamic. But what made the day pleasant was
that we “talked” about the dynamics and the courier was free to speak her mind to me and that is
what made it pleasant. There is a freedom to share and opportunities to speak further about the
more sensitive issues. And I was pretty calm through all of the discussions so I’m feeling pretty
good.
Servant leadership values are expressed in Florida Hospital values. The core values of
Florida Hospital are listed as Integrity, Compassion, Balance, Excellence, Stewardship and
74
Team. As referred to earlier in this paper there is a lot of training and expectations of
performance. Every effort is made to help each courier gain this success. When the entire team
incorporates these core values into their working experience I like to highlight and reward those
success. On July 3, 2007 I put together the quarterly report which reflects integrated excellence
by the courier team.
I stayed in the office to do paperwork. I had the end of the month and end of the quarter
reports to do. I learned that the courier team had achieved the highest standard of success since I
had been leading the team. We have two measurable indicators that we keep track. Regarding
couriers missing specimens, we had zero missed for three months in a row. That is a record for
us. Regarding returning specimens that need to be delivered to the laboratory within 90 minutes
(STATs), we seek to have a 95% efficiency rating. We had a 100% rating missing the time once
in over 500 calls throughout the quarter. This information gets communicated to quality check
committees. However, I have a brag board in our courier room where we post this information
and highlight it. I immediately bragged to the department directors regarding the couriers’
successes and they joined in the excitement. We will provide a free meal to all the couriers as an
additional statement for a job well done.
Servant Leadership Integrated Practice
There is a way to bring about change when a failure to perform brings about an ill effect.
As a servant-leader the intent is not to embarrass someone but to offer positive options that
would be seen by others as helpful. This is not always easy. Some individuals may see a
corrective action as a highlighting of their failure. Please note that as my journal entry below
indicates that the director asked if this was a consistent problem. How I answered it is what I
hope to be proper modeling of servant leadership. On June 12, 2007, I wrote:
75
First, a co-worker failed to offer complete services to a client. There have been a few
times that this has taken place in the past so I thought about a solution. I approached our mutual
director and stated that I had a situation that I wanted to address with a solution up front. I
suggested that the marketing team always have specimen lock boxes with them, which I would
supply, so that whenever they were at a client’s office and there was a need for a lock box, they
would always have one with them. It would save double work for someone else to go to the
client whom the marketer just visited. It would provide the client with instant gratification of
service. The director liked the suggestion. When the director probed if there was a routine
problem I suggested that even if the problem was routine, the action plan offered was what I was
there to offer. He liked the thought of the efficiency of the plan and how it would make
everyone happy because we would have done a better job in serving our clients.
Servant Leadership Challenges and Failures
Being human can express the fact that we are not robots and thus can exhibit sensitivity
to human realities. However, it also allows for insensitivity. I have faced that reality and have
noted it in my journaling. Note May 11, 2007:
I also failed for a few moments today in being a good servant leader. For some reason I
became a little hyper and asked in a loud and frivolous manner for a couple of couriers to keep it
down in the other room while I was beginning to read some material to a group of people in the
next room. It was done in a playful, yet loud, manner. One of the individuals in the group I was
with made a simple statement that I was not encouraging to them. They were correct and I
acknowledged it.
Although I have acknowledged my personality challenges I have to note that I continue to
wrestle with calmness. It is during crisis that leaders proves themselves (Yukl, 2006). If I was
76
to be evaluated in performance during stress or crisis, I would be seen as someone who is driven
to succeed. I would not want the situation to defeat me so I would work to find whatever means
to accomplish the task. However, I believe a servant-leader must be servant first and settle the
debate about if fixing a situation helps if the people helped do not understand they are being
helped. Can I be so task oriented that I fail as a servant to be people oriented? Take, for
instance, what happened on July 6, 2007:
What a terrible day! I’m filling in as dispatcher today for Jerry while he takes a personal
day off. Just as I start the shift a medical technologist calls from chemistry to report that
specimen results are bad because the couriers did not deliver the specimen on time. The
challenge is to find out what really happened without causing the continual blame game. After
investigation I discovered that the courier delivered the specimen in a timely fashion to the lab.
The specimen can not be accounted for from 4:40 PM Thursday through 5:30 AM the next day.
The next challenge came trying to repair one hand held tracking device to get it working
for the day. It failed. Then a second handheld device failed. After speaking with technical
support I learned that I would have to mail the devices away. It will be two weeks before I get
them back. This means that we go back to paper and pencil to record all work. This increases
the workload and limits the ability to accurately track the courier work. This process took place
as couriers were coming into work and wanting me to fix their equipment, RIGHT NOW, so they
could go to work. This all took place with calls coming in that I had to address as a dispatcher.
Then I also had to address information coming to me from client services department
regarding courier calls. Unfortunately, the information was incomplete and inaccurate. It took a
while to sort through the information and make valid decisions for dispatch.
77
Then I had to address clients who failed to place their specimens out for courier pick up
at their offices. This is always a delicate process to not accuse them of making the mistake and
not suggesting that we made a mistake.
Medical reports had to be distributed to the couriers before they arrived. That particular
task was accomplished without additional stress.
All this took place with additional people coming into our office to discuss further issues
that we might assist them. Another group of people came in unannounced wanting supplies.
What a demanding and frustrating morning!
What I acknowledged about myself through this process was the perception of my
personality through this process. For the couriers who knew I was working for them to get the
tracking devices fixed, they expressed understanding. They observed that I was not relaxed as I
usually am. I was very focused on achieving many tasks in a short period of time. I was direct
and made very precise movements in a quick fashion. I requested for people to step back to give
me room to do my tasks. The room is very confining and it is easy for people to get in the way
of each other. Someone wondered out loud if I was upset. My comment was that I was not
upset, just very focused. I needed to accomplish tasks and I became aware that there was a
perception issue.
I do realize that part of the challenge of servant leadership is to lead without upsetting
those around. They need to feel comfortable. For those who understood my purposes, they
appreciated my efforts. They knew I was working hard for them. Others who just passed
through expected my normal, approachable self with the presumption that I did not have other
responsibilities. They did not realize my dispatcher duties, etc. They reacted in a way that I did
not like and I want to change that perception by focusing upon personal growth. In one sense I
78
did not do anything bad. In another sense, I need to be more aware of my surroundings and work
more sensitively with them.
I was exhausted from the intense challenges this morning. By the end of the work day I
had networked with enough of the surrounding staff to have finished all of my tasks. I was able
to successfully adapt to all of the challenges and included the team in understanding the need of
adapting to the challenges.
Supervisor Reviewed by Couriers
Larry Spears (1995), head of The Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership, identifies 10
critical characteristics of the servant-leader. The list is: Listening, Empathy, Healing,
Awareness, Persuasion, Conceptualization, Foresight, Stewardship, Commitment to the growth
of people, and Building community. The question addressed here is, does the courier team view
their supervisor as someone who exhibits these characteristics? Each courier and dispatcher was
asked a series of questions that address each category. The questions were designed by me as I
sought to translate the expanded definition that Spears wrote regarding his 10 characteristics.
The questions were:
1) My supervisor listens to my concerns. He may or may not be able to help me, but I feel
confident that he understands me. (Listening)
2) My supervisor accepts me as a person and believes in me. (Empathy)
3) I feel confident that I can approach my supervisor when I have a personal issue and he
will try to accommodate me. (Healing)
4) My supervisor knows his strengths and weaknesses and is willing to apologize when he is
wrong or has wronged someone. (Awareness)
5) My supervisor explains duties and requests my cooperation rather than telling me what to
do. (Persuasion)
6) My supervisor is able to explain the general purpose of my responsibilities as well as the
particular task. (Conceptualization)
7) My supervisor gives me guidance regarding my actions as he sees how things will turn
out. (Foresight)
8) My supervisor demonstrates responsibility in managing the areas assigned to him.
(Stewardship)
79
9) My supervisor wants to help me to be successful in performing my responsibilities and
advancing my personal goals. (Commitment to the growth of the staff)
10) My supervisor makes sure that I have time to enjoy other members of the team and
encourages my getting to know the clients. (Building community)
On a one to five scale, with one being lowest (strongly disagree) and five being highest (strongly
agree) the couriers made their perceptions known. The choice of undecided was given as three
on the five point scale. This choice was given because some of the staff have never evaluated a
boss before and as front line workers they don’t always watch the actions of others; therefore,
they might not easily discover an application of the question and would need to be coached. This
process could be seen as a learning tool for the staff as well as for me. The responses were all
provided anonymously.
The scores from the 15 employees are reflected in table one. They range from 4.13 to
4.60. To have an average between agree and strongly agree on every question is rewarding.
Two separate questions received a solitary two. The remaining questions were from undecided
to strongly agree. There were no (0) strongly disagree responses.
Table One
Courier Response to Servant Leadership
Question1
Question2
Question3
Question4
Question5
Question6
Question7
Question8
Question9
Question10
N
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Mean
4.60
4.53
4.60
4.33
4.13
4.33
4.13
4.33
4.60
4.33
Std.
Deviation
0.51
0.52
0.63
0.90
0.92
0.62
0.83
0.62
0.51
0.62
80
I am interested in displaying characteristics that would eliminate anything below a three
before doing another survey. However, my real sense of challenge comes from the number of
threes that I received by different staff. I intend to reflect how to communicate in a decisive way
so that those of whom I lead will discover decided answers to those questions through their own
journey as employees of Florida Hospital. Their individual worth and understanding of the value
of their role needs to be more clearly identified through the effort I put forth. A survey about me
is challenging when the purpose is to not make it about me but about the employee. I will seek
to implement more facilitation of enhancing the overall work experience of the courier staff. I
will also review my journal and determine where I can develop a stronger behavior trait of
representing servant leadership. Especially when a courier responds that they disagree that I am
willing to apologize when wrong or have wronged someone and that I do not request but tell
them what to do.
Critiques of Servant Leadership
Proponents of servant leadership argue strongly for the values of being a servant-leader.
But there are those who believe that it is a more idealistic concept than a practical theory
(McCrimmon, 2007; Russell & Stone, 2002). Although the critics laud the virtues of servant
leadership, they deny that a leader will succeed in practical terms when the focus is service and
not destiny. They believe in a clear vision where proponents of servant-leadership may espouse
varied visions (Senge, 1995). There is a foundational belief that a certain aspect of
authoritarianism is necessary in the definition of leadership. Some do not like any reference to
slavery and others feel it is sexist (Eicher-Catt, Spring 2005). There are those that believe that
servant leadership is a Judeo/Christian world view and will not effectively work in settings that
are Kantian, Buddhist, Hindu or Islamic (Wallace, 2007).
81
It is true that servant leadership is an abstract concept that is hard to measure. It is true
that there has not been enough research to establish servant leadership. However, it should be
noted the same can be said about all leadership theories (Yukl, 2006) as scholars continually
debate how to define the definition of leadership itself. Criticism does not negate theory. It only
challenges a person to be open about the biases held.
Reflection
Servant leadership is a model of leadership that fits well in the context of laboratory
couriers. Even though the primary emphasis in working with front line employees is task driven,
service is still the fundamental principle. Couriers want to believe they are trusted. Couriers
want to believe they are important. They are human beings with the same needs that are in
common with all of humanity. They want to be heard and understood; they want to know what
is going on. Although couriers function on the operational level, they can conceptualize the
importance of their role. And they can discover job security by marketing themselves as capable
of providing quality work which builds excellent foresight and stewardship. Providing the tools
and equipment for the courier’s success enables them to grow and self-manage. And allowing
the independent courier to have a time of social exchange and making myself available for
communication builds community.
As I reflect upon our team of couriers it is curious to note that many of the couriers are
content with their level of work, education and social status. Many have reached the plateau of
their pay grade yet choose to remain in their current occupation. They work for the satisfaction
and comfort they get in a job that they like. All they want is to do a good job each day, be
recognized for their contribution and be appreciated by those they associate. They have an inner
82
peace that servant-leaders should discover for themselves. If I do nothing more than continue
that contentment, I should be recognized as a supervisor of worth.
I have noted that a servant-leader adds a human dimension into the working relationship.
In the past year I have attended the wedding of one our couriers. I have also attended the funeral
of a sister of another courier. I have listened to and not over reacted when one of the couriers
threatened to get into a fight with me and claims it is a reaction to his medication when, in
actuality, it was because he was going through a divorce in his personal life. When the latter
courier moved out of state he announced that the hardest part about moving is that leaving his
job was like leaving a true family. He announced that of all the jobs in the past that he had, this
was the first time he could say such a thing.
I am not discouraged regarding my admitted shortcomings in exhibiting the purest form
of servant leadership. I am in good company when I find encouragement from words written by
Isabel Lopez.
To develop the characteristics of a servant-leader is not easy – and not fast. For us to be
able to express unlimited liability for the other, to know ourselves well, to be holders of
liberating vision, to use persuasion wisely, to be builders of community, and to use power
ethically sets a high standard for us. We are required to be committed and can only take one step
at a time. (1995, p. 159)
I am not so much fearful of seeking to express a servant leadership style. I only worry
that my zealousness to achieve will not hurt, frustrate or stymie those of whom I serve. I fully
believe that the efforts put forth to help others succeed will return back for personal gratification.
If I can make another person happy, it becomes my joy.
83
Overall Summary
To demonstrate my competency in philosophical foundations I have submitted my
worldview paper. It expresses my ontological and epistemological perspective. I call my
worldview, theistic matterism. I have included an artifact in the portfolio that recognizes my
ordination into pastoral ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist Church where I served as a pastor
for over 16 years. Three separate papers are included in this paper that highlights my
understanding of leadership philosophies. Those three papers describe an inclusion of my
worldview for integrated practice. I would argue that all of my competencies would actually be
linked to my foundational worldview as the basis of my epistemology, or in other words, how I
see things.
84
References:
Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (June 2006). Scale development and construct clarification of
servant leadership. Group Organization Management, 31(3), 300-326.
Bass, B. M. (1989). The two faces of charisma. Leaders, 12(4), 44,45.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1988). Transformational leadership, charisma, and beyond. In J. G.
Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler & C. A. Shcrieshein (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas
(pp. 29-49). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier. (1998). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership.
Retrieved from http://cls.binghamton.edu/BassSteid.html
Bridges, W. (2003). Managing transitions: Making the most of change (2nd ed.). Cambridge,
MA: DaCampo Press.
Buchanan, L. (May 2007). In praise of selflessness: Why the best leaders are servants. Inc, 29(5),
33-35.
Covey, S. R. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York: Free Press.
Covey, S. R. (December 2006). Servant leadership. Leadership Excellence, 23(12), 5,6.
De Pree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Doubleday.
Dunn, W. N., & Swerczek, F. W. (1977). Planned organizational change: Toward grounded
theory. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 13(2), 135-157. Retrieved from
http://jab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/135
Eicher-Catt, D. (Spring 2005). The myth of servant-leadership: A feminst perspective. Women
and Language, 28(1), 17-25.
George, C. F. (1992). Prepare your church for the future. Grand Rapids, MI: Fleming H. Revell.
85
Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model of leadership in formal organizations:
A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers.
Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power &
greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Hendry, C. (1996). Understanding and creating whole organizational change through learning
theory. Human Relations, 49(5), 621-641. Retrieved from
http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/49/5/621
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1995). Situational Leadership. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leader's
companion: Insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 207-211). New York: Free
Press.
Jarvis, P. (1995). Adult and continuing education: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). London:
Routledge.
Jimmieson, N. L., Peach, M., & White, K. M. (2008). Utilizing the theory of planned behavior to
inform change management: An investigation of employee intentions to support
organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(2), 237-262.
Retrieved from http://jab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/44/2/237
Knight, G. R. (2006). Philosophy & education: An introduction in Christian perspective (4th
ed.). Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kolbe, K. (1990). The conative connection: Uncovering the link between who you are and how
you perform. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting
extraordinary things done in organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
86
Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflicts; and, Field theory in social science. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Lewis, C. S. (1952). Mere christianity. London: Macmillan.
Lopez, I. O. (1995). Becoming a servant-leader: The personal development path. In L. C. Spears
(Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of servant-leadership
influenced today's top management thinkers (pp. 149-160). New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
McCrimmon, M. (2007). Critique of servant leadership. Retrieved 12/31/07, from
http://www.leadersdirect.com/critique.html
McGavran, D. A., & Arn, W. C. (1977). Ten steps for church growth. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
Merriam, S. B., & Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Learning in adulthood (2nd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1995). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leadership and
organizational change. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leader's companion: Insights on
leadership through the ages (pp. 108-113). New York: Free Press.
Porter-O'Grady, T., & Malloch, K. (2007). Quantum leadership: A resource for health care
innovation (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Purser, R. E., & Petranker, J. (2005). Unfreezing the future: Exploring the dynamic of time in
organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(2), 182-203.
Retrieved from http://jab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/41/2/182
Russell, R. F., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing a
practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 145-157.
Schaeffer, F. A. (1972). He is there and he is not silent. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.
Schein, E. H. (1995). Defining organizational culture. In J. T. Wren (Ed.), The leader's
companion: Insights on leadership through the ages (pp. 271-281). New York: Free
Press.
87
Senge, P. M. (1995). Robert Greenleaf's legacy: A new foundation for twenty-first century
institutions. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's
theory of servant-leadership influenced today's top management thinkers (pp. 217-240).
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sire, J. W. (2004). Naming the elephant: Worldview as a concept. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press.
Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant
leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, 10(4), 80-91.
Spears, L. C. (Ed.). (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of
servant-leadership influenced today's top management thinkers. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Stevenson, L., & Haberman, D. L. (2004). Ten theories of human nature (4th ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Towns, E. L. (1990). 10 of today's most innovative churches: What they're doing, how they're
doing it & how you can apply their ideas in your church. Ventura, CA: Regal Books.
Wagner, C. P. (1976). Your church can grow: Seven vital signs of a healthy church. Glendale,
CA: Regal Books.
Wallace, J. R. (2007). Servant leadership: A worldview perspective. International Journal of
Leadership Studies, 2(2), 114-132.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 50, 361-386.
Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world
(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA.
Wikipedia. Servant-leadership. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ServantLeadership
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
88
89