 |
 |
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/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~