Dear Alan,
As you can tell, I am feeling my way to a real understanding of this concept and its application to AR. What makes sense for me is to make that clear distinction between the two types precisely in the same way that the dictionary does; there can't be two kinds of leader without two kinds of servant leader. The conflation of these two types can only lead to the kind of hypocrisy which you and I - and probably most people - shrink from. I think of the liberation priests persecuted by the religious hierarchy while they lived and taught in the barrios - not palaces - with the people whose lives they shared. The Catholic bishops who attacked them would have called themselves servant leaders too and from the sense of definition No. 1 they were telling the truth! I suspect, in fact, that servant leader No 1 is destined to come into opposition, as often as not, with servant - leader No. 2. Unless he or she manages to be both - which might be a distinction we are looking for here?
Of course this is a discussion about power. What has been going on in our schools and colleges for over a century has been about power and wielding it over others 'for their own good'. This shift that is happening in education, AR in particular, is creating a space where we can begin to see the 'colonization' for what it is. So we can question the nature of power and where it comes from. Good poem!
Best
Sara
P.S. Will be out of computer range for a few days while travelling.
________________________________________
From: Practitioner-Researcher [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan Rayner (BU) [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 4:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Brief thoughts on Servant Leadership
Dear Sara,
I do feel very much in accord with what you are saying here!
The qualities I think that are vital to the second kind of leadership
described below are humility and empathy, combined with a capacity for hard
work and lashings of sense and sensibility (not necessarily 'smartness' - cf
attached poem), as distinct from 'pride and prejudice'.
Like you, I am not very taken by leadership based on hierarchy, whether it
be servant-first (associated perhaps with an underlying collectivistic
philosophy) or 'leader-first' (associated perhaps with an underlying
individualistic philosophy). Such leadership is liable to be based covertly
or overtly on power and psychological projection.
I think it may be very important to question the philosophical assumptions
underlying any form of leadership.
Otherwise there is always the danger that:
Hypocrisy Will Rule.
Warmest
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Salyers, Sara M" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 3:15 AM
Subject: Re: Brief thoughts on Servant Leadership
Hi everyone,
I guess I ought to intriduce myself as I'm new to this e-seminar. I'm also
fairly new to education. I abandoned my education degree thirty years ago in
favor of straight English Lit., when my very first teaching practice exposed
the reality of schooling and the systematic demolition of spirit, creativity
and self expression over which I would have inevitably presided within that
system. After a career of more than fifteen years in television, I began
working, just a year ago, as an adjunct instructor in developmental writing
at Pellissippi Community College, in Tennessee. I began my first AR project
in my first semester and am now positioning myself to go back to university
and obtain my doctorate. I'm interested in the crossover between the kinds
of distinctions being made in developmental education and those being
recognized in AR. I'm especially 'gripped' by the evolution of the concept
of education from something mechanistic, coercive and in service to external
dogmas or agendas into something human, empowering and - most of all - in
service to the learner. So much is becoming possible.
It is more than a little daunting to be in such distinguished company here!
Furthermore, I can hardly assume that I have much to add to the articulation
of a paradigm I have only just met. So I offer these thoughts very
nervously!
In the course of any process of reflection and distinction, the reality -
the living thing we experience - becomes increasingly abstract. And the
longer and deeper the inquiry, it seems, the further removed from the
'reality' the terminology that develops. That may present a problem from a
latecomer to the investigation, such as myself!, and so I found myself
trying to envision the living thing being discussed. What would a servant
leader look like? How would I know one? Have there been examples of obvious
servant leaders, historically, that I could identify and from which I could
build a paradigm that would illuminate this discussion for me? I came up
with Jesus Christ, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Joan of Arc, Mohandas Ghandi, Martin
Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa. Then I looked for
more 'world changing' leaders on Wikipedia - which of course, has a list of
exactly one hundred! I found that I felt a visceral rejection of some of
the 'leaders' listed but embraced others. On further investigation, I found
that the distinction lay in Alan's quote, "The leader-first and the
servant-first are two extreme types."
A little linguistic deconstruction later, and it is clear that the word
'leader' itself is indistinct. It applies to two separate and dissimilar
conditions - the two "types" perhaps?
New Oxford American Dictionary
1. leader: chief, head, principal; commander, captain; superior, headman;
chairman, chairwoman, chairperson, chair; (managing) director, CEO, manager,
superintendent, supervisor, overseer, administrator, employer, master,
mistress; president, premier, governor; ruler, monarch, king, queen,
sovereign, emperor;
(My comment: By definition, then, this type of leader is one who is 'in
charge'; is one who is 'followed' in the sense that his or her orders,
strategies, decisions and are made to be followed. The essence of such
leadership, of course, is power - power *over others* which is usually
presented as being for the good of those over whom it is wielded.)
2. leader: pioneer, front runner, world leader, innovator, trailblazer,
groundbreaker, trendsetter, torchbearer, pathfinder.
(My comment: Biased I may be ,but it seems to me that this is, if not the
truest, at least the closest to the original meaning of the word. It implies
a showing of the way - by walking that way yourself; making a path where
there was none so that others may 'follow', much as explorers follow a map
or a safe trail. And as with all explorers, there is the expectation that
those who follow will push the boundaries of exploration and become trail
blazers themselves, in turn making a way for others.)
So I am aware that, as the word 'leader' embraces two disparate realities, I
have to address two distinct concepts towards which I have two distinct
responses. I don't see how it could or should be otherwise? So far as leader
(and thus servant-leader) no 1 is concerned, I'm not very interested in
hierarchical leadership and wholly unconvinced of authority over others as a
natural vehicle of service to others. In our present society, of course,
'being in charge', of others is an unavoidable occupation for some and
perhaps there truly *is* a way to mitigate an intrinsic evil by applying the
philosophies and practices of service. But this has nothing to do with the
kind of grace that identifies leader no 2, or so it seems to me. He or she
is, I think, intrinsically and by definition a servant leader and is
powerful precisely because of the power, the depth, clarity, beauty, the
offering, and the implications, of his or her service to others.
By the first I am somewhat repelled. There is no fire here. But the second
one shines. By this type of leader, by all those servant leaders who walked
the paths they made, I am transfixed... And all that this really means is
that *this* is what I want to undertake and so this is what I want to
inquire into so that I can become this more and more effectively.
Best to all here - and thank you to Jack for including me.
Sara Salyers
________________________________________
From: Practitioner-Researcher [[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Alan Markowitz [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 10:43 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Brief thoughts on Servant Leadership
What is Servant Leadership?
The phrase “Servant Leadership” was coined by Robert K. Greenleaf in The
Servant as Leader, an essay that he first published in 1970. In that essay,
he said:
"The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling
that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to
aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader
first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to
acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two
extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of
the infinite variety of human nature."
"The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to
make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The
best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons?
Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more
autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the
effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not
be further deprived?"
This is the context and measure we use in working toward becoming servant
lewaders within their organization. Action Research becomes a very valuable
strategy to "test" for Servant Leadership. I believe that a real dialogue
can foster this connection.
Regards,
Alan
Dr. Alan Markowitz
Director, Graduate Programs in Education
(973) 290-4328
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Margaret Riel
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
We also encourage students to think about the characteristics of
servant-leaders. I think what is most important is that an effective leader
is only as good as his or her organization. So the most effective every
member of the team is, the more effective the organization is. So a good
leader is the person who inspires, coaches, or otherwise helps others to be
more effective. The leader is not at the top pulling up the next rung who
are pulling up those behind them... but rather is working the group finding
out what each division needs to be more effective and to work at their
potential.
It is the difference between (a) sending out an order than every person
will work at their potential or be fired and each group will be tested each
period to determine their success.... vs (b) getting groups together to
determine what would improve their practice and then providing the resources
and rewards to stimulate this change and engage everyone in a process of
self evaluation to see if goals are being accomplished.
In a the leader is determining the problems and effecting a solution, in b
the leader is asking the community to find the problems and find the
solutions.
The tie I see to action research is that the servant leader tries to create
a workpace where everyone is engaged in action research.
Margaret
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Margaret Riel <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sr. Researcher, Center for Technology in Learning SRI-International
Co-Chair M. A in Learning Technologies Pepperdine University
Phone: (760) 618-1314
http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/mriel/office
BLOG: http://mindmaps.typepad.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
