Servant Leadership: A Biblical Study for Becoming a Christlike Leader (A Womans Guide)

Winston used these virtues as a basis for building an interactive model of servant leadership. Stone and Patterson revisited it when placing servant leadership within a historical continuum of leadership development. However, Aristotelian ethics have been criticized for gender bias; impracticality in application; and the observation that virtues divorced from theology are the product of socially constructed agreements and, therefore, schemes of virtue may include diametric opposites in different cultures Hauptli, Whetstone stated that an Aristotelian approach to ethics is inadequate to stand on its own.

MacIntyre stated that since the enlightenment, there has been no agreement among modern philosophers as to what specific virtues exist. This inability to agree upon what constitutes virtues opens any list of virtues to criticism. Table 1 lists a comparison of the virtues identified by Aristotle and what are recognized as traditional Christian virtues and those outlined by Patterson Aristotle valued pride, while Patterson listed humility as a virtue.

His ethic was rooted in his religious tradition, providing the ethic with a means for determining how humans ought to live or what is sometimes called a teleology. Virtues are moral in nature Whetstone, , , , If virtues have no grounding philosophically, are they merely another form of relativism? Whetstone , originally raised the same sentiment by demonstrating that servant leaders operate out of a moral concern for others. I believe the absence of a philosophic foundation for servant leadership, which conceptually anchors ethics or morality in a specific philosophic system, causes one to be unable to answer clearly the question: Or, is it a philosophic orientation, linked to a cohesive worldview which gives meaning to values and attributes in servant leadership and functions as an orientation that governs perceptions, understanding, and praxis in the world?

I will first examine the concept of worldview, defining and clarifying its role in the selection and organization of values. Thirdly, the question of whether or not philosophy can offer a foundation for servant leadership is answered. Having argued that there is a necessity to link worldviews to religion, the paper then examines extant leadership literature linking religion to leadership studies and specifically whether or not the five major world religions Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism have any serious incompatibility with servant leadership.

The next section presents a specific worldview drawn from broad principles of a Judeo-Christian perspective as a potential foundation for servant leadership. This worldview is then examined as to how well it aligns with leadership theory in general and servant leadership in particular, comparing worldview components with servant leadership attributes, followed by a concluding section.

Nash stated that the writings of philosophers identify assumptions about the make-up of reality or how the world works, conceptual schemes, or patterns of ideas or values and organizes them to form a worldview. In the same manner, religions offer a scheme for interpreting the world and, therefore, are recognized as worldviews as well Nash, A worldview is used to interpret and make sense of the world.

Perceptions of the world and reality can greatly differ between people or cultures since their assumptions of what is important and true differ. There are many types of worldviews vying for supremacy. These include religious systems formal philosophic systems such as modernism or postmodernism , less formal systems including large group perspectives such as a particular culture, or personal systems.

A history of challenge, debate, and theorizing within the philosophic community demonstrates how worldviews may have inherent weaknesses, inconsistencies, or inabilities to account for various beliefs or practices. This is consistent with Kuhn who; in explaining the history of scientific advancement; identified the challenges, shifts, and transformations associated with comparing belief systems and selecting the most stable or cohesive.

Schaeffer , and later Pearcey argued that modern Western worldview suffers from a fragmentation of false dichotomies which affect every aspect of life, particularly morality. Beginning with Plato and his dichotomy of form and matter, the authors examined western philosophic thought, showing how this false dichotomy confuses morality and ethics in particular. The dichotomy is currently expressed as a juxtaposition of values and ethics against science and facts. This placing of ethics in the realm of relativism spurred Murphy and Ellis to look at the problem of ethics in the fragmented scientific paradigm and whether or not there is a rationale which would unite the current fragmented philosophic reality into a unified worldview.

If one agreed with Pearcey , Schaeffer , , and Murphy and Ellis that the fragmentation of modern worldviews has created an unsure foundation for ethics or morality, are there implications for leadership? It is not difficult to find the effects of this fragmentation within companies and individuals as they go about daily life and business.

The most glaring effect is that values or morality are cast as a purely individual or relative matter. In its most extreme form, it could be called hyperrelativistic. This is relativism that goes beyond cultural norms, mores, and folkways into a type of anarchism in which companies and individuals recognize no law but themselves. This is exemplified in the excesses and questionable practices of leaders and businesses. As business expands globally, authors such as Greider document labor and manufacturing practices of business in the developing world that rival egregious activities associated with Europe and the United States in the 19th century.

The more common effects of a fragmented worldview in business relates to dichotomies that often breed conflict between competing values. One such occurrence relates to the conflict between shareholder and stakeholder focus found in arguments of social responsibility in business.

The shareholder perspective promotes profit alone as the major consideration in business decisions while the stakeholder perspective promotes human and social impact as the major considerations in business decisions. Another effect would be the dichotomy between task and people orientation in leadership. Fragmentation of worldview affects every level of science as well. In science in general, this fragmentation is exhibited when scientists defend certain inquiries as value free.

The pursuit of knowledge is held as the highest value, and the collateral damage done by a logical application of certain findings is seen as the broken eggs necessary to make an omelet. Can philosophy provide a foundation for servant leadership? The ultimate question is why should one practice servant leadership? The values of servant leadership lean heavily toward human consideration and morality Whetstone, If the only reason we use the servant leadership approach is that it causes people to work harder to obtain organizational goals, then we undermine the very theory itself.

If we take a purely situational approach, stating servant leadership can only work in certain settings and contexts, we again undermine some of the key values described in the theory.

In the situational approach, humans are only to be valued if their culture or personal beliefs align with the theory. Pragmatism and situational ethics both fail as reasons for practicing servant leadership. This brings up the question of whether or not modern philosophy is a suitable base for servant leadership. Kantian philosophy and humanism have been used as potential foundations for leadership.

Bowie argued for a Kantian form of leadership which is highly egalitarian. To Kant, a servant leader allows himself or herself to be used as a means to others attaining their goals. The idea of one agent using another, even if it is voluntary, is unacceptable. Their response uncovers how a fragmented worldview has shaped our concept of capitalism, framing its goals as diametrically opposed to individual development. In addition, humanism itself seems to be on the decline as it appears to be forsaking its original commitment to human interests as the center of civilization.

Veith outlined how one prominent scientist equated humans to bacteria who need to be cleansed from the planet. Merriam argued that population growth has cheapened our concept of the value of humans to the point that there is greater outcry over the torture of an animal as opposed to a human. Although an examination of Kantian philosophy or humanism hardly represents an overview of all aspects of modern thought, they do illustrate how Western philosophy as it now stands cannot be used to justify servant leadership.

Customers who bought this item also bought

MacIntyre , , in seeking to provide a firm foundation for ethics and virtues, argued that if ethics are divorced from a religious tradition, they are robbed of a high view of humans. The whole concept of how people ought to live has been the focus of philosophers for centuries. However, MacIntyre feels that it cannot be convincingly argued outside of a religious tradition. According to MacIntyre , how humans ought to be treated becomes entirely relativistic and essentially meaningless when divorced from some religious tradition.

With this understanding, Murphy and Ellis addressed how fragmentation in worldview creates a scientific paradigm void of ethics. Once Murphy and Ellis completed the hierarchy, they noted that there is no scientific sphere for ethics or morality. The authors explained how unacceptable this is by demonstrating that values and assumptions of morality and ethics are embedded in each scientific field and in how science is conducted as a discipline.

What then could serve as a foundation for servant leadership? According to MacIntyre , one of the first places to look is religion. They compared the worldviews of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism in relation to factors such as the nature and exemplars of leadership, core vision, basis for moral leadership, source of wisdom for leaders, levels of being, and the role of community. The explanations of worldview were not exhaustive or critical in their appraisal of each religion.

In fact, they stated that their primary focus was upon Buddhism and Islam, followed by Hinduism, with sparse reference to Judaism and Christianity. They concluded that leadership in the five religions corresponds more closely to charismatic leadership theories since each tradition provides a series of individuals as role models who exemplify leadership behavior as well as acceptable life patterns, not to mention their inclusion of heroes and heroines who arise in times of crises to provide guidance and inspiration.

They stated that these values were also found within each of the five religions. How well did each of the religions embody these values? As pointed out earlier, Russell identified key support for servant leadership within the Judeo-Christian tradition. Sendjaya and Sarros along with Wong and Page made a strong case for linking it to Christianity in particular. However, the components of a Judeo-Christian worldview were not explained in any detail by any of these authors.

It is therefore necessary to present, in broad terms, essential elements of the Judeo-Christian worldview in order to understand its compatibility with servant leadership theory.

10 Places the Church Needs Female Leaders

This exploration of a broad worldview of the Judeo-Christian tradition will not be a theological treatise encompassing all the details and complexity associated with theology or praxis. Rather, it is an exploration of broad concepts associated with practical theology as evidenced in how individual and community roles and values are explained. Eight different components of worldview are defined. These eight components consist of human dignity, personal responsibility, character, community, the use of power, compassion, stewardship, and justice.

These components have been reduced to broad topics from an examination of the Old and New Testament teachings related to how individuals are to be treated and the essential values associated with what the Scriptures teach a healthy society should embody. Many find their roots in Old Testament instructions from God to the nation of Israel regarding the structure of the Hebrew society.

Individuals are important and are to be treated in a manner that makes them ends, not means. This is because God has created each person in His image. Each person is worthy of respect because of their potential life with God. Each person, no matter how damaged or hopeless they may seem, has worth.

People have value that exists apart from any sense of utility.

Servant Leadership

Individuals have rights to specific types of treatment, and leaders have an obligation to ensure that individuals are treated in a manner that affirms the image of God in their lives. Each person, consciously or unconsciously, feels this dignity that God has placed inherently in them. Cahill pointed out that one of the gifts of Judaism to the world was the idea that the individual is important.

Prior to this, the emphasis was upon the group or tribe. The emphasis on the individual is a key aspect of personal dignity. Whenever this dignity is injured, the individual suffers loss; and, ultimately, the community of which the person is a part suffers. Human dignity assumes that leaders affirm the ideas, visions, goals, and aspirations of followers. People have the right and responsibility to shape their own destinies.

• Об этом товаре.
• El diario de mi hijo (Esquizofrenia y Parkinson: las dos caras de la Dopamina) (Spanish Edition)?
• Assault on the Empress (Surgical Strike Book 2).
• Cine con historia (eBook-ePub) (GP Actualidad) (Spanish Edition).
• The Whiskey Sour Stumper: A Sammy the Cat Mystery;

People have certain rights that exist apart from socially constructed law. We express this dignity through a sense of personal integrity. When a person has a strong sense of dignity or self-respect; he or she strives to live in a manner that affirms that dignity, giving honor to the image of God within him or her. Dignity produces a sense of personal responsibility.

Individuals take responsibility for their actions. Peterson, Maier, and Seligman outlined extreme cases that result in a sense of helplessness or what is currently called a victim mentality. The person embracing this victimhood places responsibility for his or her life and actions on others. Steele and McWhorter , outlined how this loss of dignity and victim mentality can permeate not only the psyche of a people but how it can influence leaders to formulate solutions to problems that perpetuate this sense of helplessness and lack of responsibility.

Central to the idea of personal responsibility is the concept of character. Character focuses on the necessity to not only do good, but to be good. Specific character traits are isolated in Scripture as not only being pleasing to God; but beneficial to the self, the family, and the greater community.

Some of these include wisdom, teachability, loving kindness, joyfulness, peace making, humility, meekness, longsuffering, gentleness, patience, self-control, courage, self-sacrifice, trustworthiness, truthfulness, empathy, and foresight. The presence of these attributes is expected to be seen in how one lives and conducts business within the world. In the Old Testament, the idea of community embraced extended family, village location, tribal affiliation, and national identity.

Most people were members of small groups of friends, family, and business associates with whom they had interaction on almost a daily basis. The emphasis on the individual is tempered by emphasizing the need for individuals to be aware of the common good of the community. This tension between individual needs and wants and community needs and wants permeates all of Scripture.

There are expectations related to how communities were to relate to individuals; with special emphasis on the marginalized, disenfranchised, or unfortunate. There were also expectations related to the responsibilities individuals had to ensure that communities were peaceful, prosperous, and just places to live. How leaders use power is a key area of interest in the Scriptures.

The recurring theme is one of sharing power; not amassing power, misleading or manipulating people, or using them as pawns in some grand vision or scheme of the leader Berkhof, ; Christian, Each person should have the opportunity to participate in shaping their individual destiny. The use of power must affirm and strengthen human dignity. Power usage must involve the average person having the means to act upon their dreams and desires.

Of particular note is the attention given to those who are marginalized, disenfranchised, and downtrodden in society in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. This concern is a dual concern. On the one hand, it reveals the value God places on an individual regardless of whether that individual is rich or poor, a member of the community or not, useful or not.

It emphasizes that communities have a responsibility to care for these marginalized people. Is the community a just community? Mott and Sider pointed out that this theme is captured by the prophets and enriches the concept of justice found in the Scriptures beyond what was common apart from Scripture.

The concept of justice found within Scripture includes a procedural justice, which specifies fair legal process for rich and poor alike; b commutative justice, which defines the fair exchange of goods and the conducting of business e. Specific admonitions exist in the Old and New Testaments relating to the marginalized in society and the responsibility of leaders to care for them.

God declares that the earth and all that is in it is His: People have the opportunity to use resources placed in their care as stewards, one who manages resources according to the wishes of another Block, Stewardship includes the development of personal skills and abilities, stewardship of community, management of personal and social resources, management of social systems, care for the marginalized, and care for the environment, among other things.

Young argued that stewardship involves a redefinition of capital to include physical, social, financial, reputational, and human capital. It is interesting that throughout Scripture are economic principles of capital redistribution, part of distributive and restorative justice. This is justice coupled with love. It makes leaders responsible for removing oppression that causes members of a community to be excluded, devalued, or merely forgotten. God was so committed to caring for the marginalized and to economic parity that He declares that to fail to do these things reveals a heart that does not know Him.

He explains to a leader that commitment to these principles is of paramount importance: Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar? Did not your father have food and drink? He did what was right and just, so all went well with him. Is that not what it means to know me? Leaders were judged by how they revealed compassion.

Whetstone used the five themes of personalism as a potential basis for practicing servant leadership. Although personalism does not exist as a formal field of philosophy and is not clearly defined, its five themes are very similar to the broad aspects of a biblical worldview. The themes in personalism are a the centrality of the person, people are of value apart from utility; b subjectivity and autonomy, the necessity for autonomy and self mastery; c human dignity; d the person within the community; and e participation and solidarity, the requirement to love others and avoid alienation.

By focusing on the list of values or attributes associated with servant leadership, Sarayrah outlined how Bedouin Arabic culture exhibits values that seem compatible with servant leadership. Kriger and Seng also isolated similar values based upon the admonition that followers in Islam bestow power upon the leader and give them the right to lead. The authors assumed that any worldview anchored in a traditional religion will be compatible with servant leadership. Is that the case?

Buddhism is technically a nontheistic religion and poses virtues which guide the follower. These virtues relate to inner states and external practices of the leader. Of particular interest are the four immeasurable states of mind: Although this represents a strong contingency theory approach to leadership, the values outlined by Kriger and Seng seem consistent with servant leadership values. Would these religions serve as a philosophic foundation for servant leadership? Values flow from a philosophic position or worldview. When only values are considered, each religion reveals some level of agreement with servant leadership.

These hot buttons are part of the greater worldview associated with each religion and raise questions about whether or not a specific values comparison alone is sufficient. For instance, no mention is made of the dual system of justice existing in Islam regarding Muslims and non-Muslims that incorporates the concept of jihad and challenges the broad worldview concept of the dignity of all humans. Sarayrah drew parallels between Bedouin-Arab tribal leaders and the values they embrace and servant leadership. However, no mention was made of how non-Muslims are treated.

In Islam, non-Muslims are divided into two basic categories: The harsh treatment of these groups has been catalogued historically from the inception of Islam until present day Bostom, ; Ye'or, For instance, dhimmis are not allowed to present evidence against a Muslim in a court of law governed by the Koran; their oath is considered invalid Ye'or, p. They are required to pay a submission tax that is determined entirely by the whim of Muslim leaders, are not permitted to build nor repair centers of worship not related to Islam, and are prohibited from holding any position that places them in authority over a Muslim Bostom, ; Ye'or, In addition to the tiered Islamic social structure in which dhimmis are second class citizens, Muslim women also suffer under a dual standard and experience second class status Creevey, ; Mostafa, ; Nicolai, ; Sidani, Is it possible for a tradition that adheres to these positions to be regarded as a possible philosophic foundation for servant leadership?

In Hinduism, the hot buttons relate to the caste system and karma. The Hindu doctrine of caste divides people into Brahman, kshatriyas, vaishyas, shudra, and untouchables or dalits. Brahmans embody the highest, most respected level; while dalits represent the lowest and least respected level. This division denies the value of the individual, forcing a solidarity in which all are expected to conform to caste in behavior and self-image and in which individuals are not to be judged apart from caste Saha, Caste determines job allocation as well as access to resources and services Borooah, Both these doctrines seem to conflict with concepts of essential human dignity.

Compared to the two previous religious traditions, Buddhism seems more compatible with servant leadership since it has an emphasis on the interrelatedness of all creation and humanity. Like Hinduism, it too has a strong emphasis on karma and how previous lives create the current reality in which individuals find themselves. Current suffering can be traced to errors in previous lives or incarnations needing correction in the current life. Although there is an embracing of suffering, there seems to be little mention of offering a helping hand in the present or a transformation of society to reduce poverty, disease, or disabling environments Miles, Buddhists feel humans have no inalienable rights as defined by western thinking.

This follows logically from their teaching that the self is an illusion. To place value on any one thing, such as the self, is to ignore the interdependence of all things. This is described in an article examining the failure of privacy rights in Thai culture Kitiyadisai, In spite of this, it appears that distinctions are made by Buddhists in relation to the value of individuals.

In examining the traditions of giving in religions of India, it is found that Buddhist monks discriminate between donors based upon ideas of merit and impurity, thus creating a type of caste system within Buddhism, denying certain individuals or groups the ability to earn merit toward nirvana Brekke, Judaism and Christianity hold similar positions related to issues since they share a portion of the Scriptures, the Old Testament.

This worldview has come under criticism for an apparent gender bias that discriminates against women Cohen, ; Eicher-Catt, It could be argued that the case is not as strong for Christianity when one includes the protestant denominations that endorse the ordination of women and promote women having access to all levels of leadership. Both Judaism and Christianity still suffer from practical issues related to gender discrimination, yet they tend to have a better track record in their treatment of women than the three religions previously examined.

The criticism is valid but not critical enough in scope to warrant setting aside the broad Judeo-Christian worldview outlined earlier, particularly when the definitions are applied equally to both genders. Ultimately, all five religions suffer, to a greater or lesser degree, from inconsistencies or teachings that seem incompatible with the values of servant leadership. However, as worldviews, three of the five have serious contradictions with servant leadership. Does this mean that one has to abandon all religion as a basis for servant leadership because of conflict with specific values?

I believe that the answer is no. Two of the traditions reveal only minor conflict with overall values, and current social trends associated with those religions show much movement toward reconciliation. Consequently, it is possible to use a broad Judeo-Christian or biblical worldview as a foundation which would be compatible with servant leadership. When viewed in broad, sweeping language such as presented in this paper; the broad biblical worldview is compatible with personalism, servant leadership as well as many other leadership styles expressed in leadership literature.

Rather than linking a theory like servant leadership to a specific teaching, linking it to a comprehensive worldview provides a stronger philosophic base. Pearcey and Murphy and Ellis have shown how the inclusion of worldview provides cohesiveness and unity as well as a rationale for determining ethical choices. Nomological nets outline the essential structures of theories by linking other theoretical constructs to a particular theory. Kuhn pointed out that since each new theory introduced into a paradigm is measured by existing theories in the paradigm, a circular logic is constructed.

It is possible to construct a theory or paradigm that is internally logical, supported by an extensive nomological net, and morally repugnant. An example of this is represented in the field of bioethics. Some ethicists in this field have asked how one can support the destruction of life in order to protect life Gushee, Ultimately, this decision is made not based on science but on worldview. Fragmented modern worldviews may support this type of reasoning. However, it still remains that the issue is a moral issue and, ultimately, a moral decision.

When that decision is made purely upon relativistic frameworks, not only varying but frightening decisions can arise. Although nomological nets provide rational support for what is the arena in which science thrives , they provide no support for what ought to be in an ideal sense the realm of worldview since it deals with teleology. Guidance regarding how to live or what constitutes good or bad behavior is ultimately rooted in worldview even though we often experience it through the lens of culture.

Culture and worldviews are intertwined to a very great degree. Although leadership theory to this point has not been explained in terms of worldview and no specific worldview inquiries have been a part of studies such as the GLOBE project; worldview lurks in the background, shaping cultural values which in turn shape implicit ideas of leadership.

With more examination of culture, we may find that our understanding of leadership theories and their fungibility can be traced to worldview. So, Jesus was certainly a leader from whom lessons can be learned and applied in today's world. Here four timeless, powerful leadership lessons. Great leaders lead from the inside out. Jesus focused on personal leadership first--matters of character. At the core of these matters of character is integrity. Without integrity, no one will follow you, and if no one is following you, you are not leading. Leadership is truly an inside job. Your leadership skills will only take you as far as your character will allow.

Jesus had a pure heart and unfailing character. The more you work on your heart and your character, the more others will want to follow you. Great leaders are great storytellers. Jesus' stories have certainly withstood the test of time. His preferred storytelling style was the parable.

Stories are richer, more powerful and longer-lasting than directives or instructions. Look at your own life for stories that have relevant messages for your team