Running head: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 1

Theoretical Analysis of Leadership Practice

Christian Hightower

Loyola University Chicago

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 2

There are as many conceptions of leadership as there are individuals who engage in the

leadership process. Leadership is a highly complex phenomenon that evades a singular

definition because leadership is value-based, socially constructed, paradigmatically derived,

interdisciplinary, and requires us to situate ourselves within the various theories that address its

practice (Dugan, 2017). During his interview, Dr. K. C. Mmeje, Assistant Vice President and

Dean of Students at Loyola University Chicago, affirmed this understanding of leadership within

the context of higher education. Dr. Mmeje expressed that his conceptualization of leadership is

ever-evolving, derived from formal and informal theories, and deeply influenced by his salient

identities and lived experiences. He views leadership as the ability to inspire, motivate, and

unlock the full potential of individuals in collective, collaborative pursuit of a common goal (K.

Mmeje, personal communication, October 14, 2016). He believes that everyone has leadership

qualities and capacities, as well as the opportunity to refine their leadership skills over time. Dr.

Mmeje was the focus of this interpretative interview due to an admiration for his leadership

within the Loyola community, an interest in how his social location influences his

conceptualization of leadership, and a desire to understand how he has learned to navigate

institutions of higher education as a Black male of color.

While there are multiple theories interwoven within Dr. Mmejes leadership philosophy,

the nature and characteristics of his core beliefs align closely with theories of transformation.

This group of theories emphasizes the importance of examining the role of people in shaping

leadership processes targeting a specific purpose of transformation (Dugan, 2017, p. 9). Dr.

Mmeje reflects this theoretical cluster in his layered approach, expressing concern for the

individual, an awareness of social, cultural, and organizational context, and the overall purpose

of leadership within a group. He explicitly named servant leadership and the social change
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 3

model (SCM) as theories that have directly influenced his understanding and enactment of

leadership, but he also places significant value on how lived experiences shape our perspectives.

This theoretical analysis will examine Dr. Mmejes understanding of servant leadership and the

SCM utilizing critical perspectives and offer reconstructed approaches to leadership within

higher education.

Stocks of Knowledge

Deconstruction

Prior to analyzing the theories that influence Dr. Mmejes practice, it is important to

further explore his understanding of lived experiences and their relationship to how individuals

view and practice leadership. He views informal theories and lessons learned through personal

experiences as more impactful than formal theoretical models, which he stated also have their

own value (K. Mmeje, personal communication, October 14, 2016). Informal theories represent

individuals often subconscious thinking about the way the world or particular phenomena

operate (Dugan, 2017, p. 7). Dugan (2017) continued to argue that this realization positions

our understanding of, experiences with, and enactment of leadership as necessarily delimited by

the perspectives we hold (p.11). Our perspectives are grounded in stocks of knowledge or

common assumptions that govern how we view, interpret, and experience the world. Those

subconscious paradigms are oftentimes directly connected to ideologies that shape our basic

assumptions of leadership. Ideological assumptions have the power to dictate what individuals

define as normative, and unquestioned core beliefs that shape paradigms can become

problematic when they promote a singular narrative or are derived from systems that perpetuate

inequality and oppression.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 4

There are significant consequences that can occur when operating from informal theories

without disrupting normativity and recognizing the diverse perspectives that contribute to how

leadership is enacted. The relationship between ideology and informal theories has the potential

to elevate privileged perspectives of leadership at the expense of marginalizing underrepresented

perspectives that diverge from the dominant narrative. In a practical sense, individuals could be

elevated in leadership roles because they fit the mold of what is deemed acceptable, and those

who do not adhere to traditional forms of leadership may not advance or be relegated to the

margins due to these subconscious standards and expectations. Dr. Mmejes acknowledgement

of the impact of informal theories on individuals conceptualizations of leadership is valid, but

passively accepting its influences without interrogating its underlying assumptions can create

pre-conceived understandings of what they [individuals] should do and be rather than

[acknowledge] their unique properties (Dugan, Chapter 2, p.4). On the contrary, lived

experiences can certainly serve as an asset, but informal theories derived from lived experiences

should not be void of critique.

Reconstruction

In the absence of critical reflection, those utilizing informal theories will seek leadership

traits and theories that validate their assumptions and devalue characterizations of leadership that

run counter to their expectations. We have to acknowledge the identities and experiences that

shape our perspectives to challenge stocks of knowledge and disrupt a narrative that hinders our

ability to see beyond the context of our socialization. A reconstructed approach places a critical

lens on normative assumptions. It provides leaders with the opportunity to name and engage their

assumptions as opposed to viewing them as absolute, broadly accepted truths. By naming our
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 5

assumptions, we can begin to engage them and address hegemony and power as it relates to

leadership. Preskill and Brookfield (2009) stated that:

Where the investigation of hegemony is concerned, critical reflections emphasis

is on leaders understanding how they, and those they serve, internalize ideas,

beliefs, and values they regard as commonsense, good for their interests, and

broadly supported and then realize how these ideas beliefs, and values are

subtly destroying them. (p.42)

The ability to engage in this reflective exercise empowers leaders and group members to bring

subconscious scripts to awareness. This ultimately increases agency to challenge ideologies and

become inclusive of divergent approaches to leadership.

Dr. Mmeje alluded to critical reflection as a form of reconstruction. He recognizes that

lived experiences contribute tremendously to how we understand leadership, and due to this

personal nature, its definition and enactment change from person to person. He stated that,

everyone comes to a space with different conceptualizations and values of what leadership is

(K. Mmeje, personal communication, October 14, 2016). This realization is grounded in an

appreciation for a diverse set of approaches to leadership as opposed to placing value on one

perspective or forcing his approach on those he has the privilege to lead. There are core tenets

that he considers good practice, but his reconstructed approach infuses critical awareness and

inclusivity into a realm of subconscious presumptions of leadership.

An awareness of power and hegemony liberates leaders, allowing them to move from

unwritten scripts of leadership strategies enforced through hegemony to informed leadership

action. Without the ability to see how power and hegemony inscribe themselves in our daily

actions and decisions and to challenge how they suppress democracy we are at the mercy of
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 6

seemingly random forces (Preskill & Brookfield, 2009, p. 44). The acknowledgement of power

helps to preserve a sense of democracy because it not only considers the varied perspectives of

the group, but it begins to center these perspective and aid the leader in developing an approach

that aligns with the needs of the group.

Servant Leadership

Dr. Mmeje views his leadership role as a responsibility to lead a group of highly talented

individuals in service of Loyola students and the broader community. He focuses on his ability

to create conditions that will allow those he leads to effectively utilize their unique skills to meet

the needs of their constituents. This requires a heightened attentiveness to the growth and

development of his team members. His emphasis on empathy, empowerment, and service

towards the group and collective mission is grounded in his philosophy of servant leadership.

Greenleaf (1970) provided an extensive definition of servant leadership:

[Servant leadership] begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to

serve first. Then conscious choice to bring one to aspire to lead The difference

manifests itself is in the care taken by the servant first to make sure that other

peoples highest priority needs are being served. The best test is: do those

served grow as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser,

freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is

the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefefit, or, at least, will

they not be further developed? (As cited in Northouse, 2016)

Servant leadership addresses issues of power in an effort to pursue alternatives to

coercive power grounded in positional authority. This style of leadership refutes a leader-

centric approach and grants autonomy and agency to the followers through
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 7

communication and collaboration. According to Northouse (2016), servant leadership is

grounded in the philosophical assumption that leaders are altruistic, humanistic, and

concerned with benefiting the disadvantaged.

Deconstruction

Servant leadership engages power in an unconventional manner compared to the majority

of leadership theories, which place the locus of control and influence on the leader. It dismantles

the leader-follower dichotomy and places the leader in service of the follower. This approach

ultimately redistributes power within the group. A direct acknowledgement of power is highly

important, but shifting power does not address the flow of power through and across

organizations. Power is not reserved for leadership. It flows throughout teams. It is not simply

top to bottom, but attention must also be paid to the flow of power laterally among group

members, especially in a model that places power in the control of the group.

Servant leadership restructures authority, but power is multifaceted and extends beyond

authority relationships. An attempt to shift power without a thorough examination of its flow

and influence seems unproductive. The model focuses on leadership behaviors while subtly

addressing power with a lack of complexity that lends itself to willful blindness. There is no true

difference in how power shows up from conventional theoretical models of leadership because

an attempt to give followers more autonomy and agency without critically analyzing power is

null and void. This leadership style simply perpetuates ill-structured problems for the

convenience of simplicity (Dugan, 2017, p.11). Due to its simplistic nod to power, the model

also fails to recognize the influence of social location. Leaders that neglect the influence of

social location can contribute to further stratification within the group. It gives no consideration

to how the leader will be perceived enacting the model given their social location. Will those
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 8

with target identities be considered incompetent or not confident in their abilities because they

are investing in the group and giving away power as opposed to being authoritative? How will

power manifest itself when distributed throughout the group? These are questions that the model

does not take into account, and there is a danger in repackaging power without critical analysis.

Reconstruction

Servant leadership repositions power, but it does not critically attend to the flow of it

amongst team members. This leadership styles consideration of power needs to be expanded

beyond coercion and authority. It is clear that a leadership approach that shifts power to the

group needs to name its presence and understand how it flows and operates within the group.

This will empower the leader to distribute power justly and equitably as opposed to not

acknowledging it because it has been redistributed. Power will always be present and still has

significant impact whether it is addressed or not, so this model needs to attend to its presence.

The consideration of power could be included in the antecedent conditions section of the model

with context and culture or provided its own categorization.

The model of servant leadership is vastly different than person-centered and trait-based

approaches, but it still identifies specific behaviors that need to be enacted by the leader.

Northouse (2016) stated that, the qualities and disposition of the leader influence the servant

leadership process these dispositions shape how individuals demonstrate servant leadership

(p.232). The different qualities leaders bring to the table are tied to moral development,

emotional intelligence, and motivation to lead. These characteristics need to be considered, but

identity also plays a critical role in how leadership is enacted and perceived. Dr. Mmejes

perspective on servant leadership was closely tied to his identities as a Black male of color,

which greatly influenced his association with and understanding of the model. Social location
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 9

needs to be addressed throughout the model because it influences how both leaders and followers

will conceptualize, enact, and respond to servant leadership.

Social Change Model

Servant leadership altered the conventional approach to leadership and opened doors for

theoretical frameworks that investigated the way in which leaders and followers transform each

other through the leadership process (Cilente, 2009). This provided space for models to delve

into the collaborative, relational aspects of the leadership process. The SCM for leadership

emphasizes collective action that is value-based and grounded in our ability to effect positive

change for the betterment of others (Cilente, 2009, p. 45). It provides everyone with access to

leadership and promotes the development of social change agents. SCM presents seven core

values consciousness of self, congruence, commitment, collaboration, common purpose,

controversy of civility, and citizenship - across three dimensions, individual, group, and society,

which are necessary in the pursuit of positive social change.

Collective action and social change sits at the core of Dr. Mmejes philosophy of

leadership. As a Black male of color from an inner city, low-income community, he developed

an increased empathy and awareness of the need to eradicate systems of oppression. This

perspective intertwined with his commitment to servant leadership created a conceptualization of

leadership that focuses on empowerment and understanding followers needs while engaging in

collective action towards positive change. Dr. Mmeje presented various ways in which he

reconstructs the SCM for practical use.

Deconstruction

The SCM for leadership highlights collaboration in effecting social change, but it does

not take into account who has the power to define positive change within a group. This
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 10

theoretical model presumes that leadership is enacted in a democratic context, and everyone has

the ability to authentically and respectfully articulate their perspectives. This raises concerns for

its enactment when individual values and commitments run counter to the collective mission. It

does not consider how individuals exercise their personal values and remain committed to the

organizational mission and goals.

Dr. Mmeje reflected on his continual struggle to navigate institutional barriers. As a

leader within his institution, he has a personal vision of how to empower people and center their

marginalized perspectives in spaces that lack representation, but his personal views do not

always align with the organizational stance on what is deemed acceptable. This presents tension

that is not addressed within the SCM for leadership. What informs the definition of social

change in a given context? Who has the power to define change and the means to evoke change

within institutions? Dr. Mmeje is constantly learning how to navigate this tension and enact

leadership in way that reflects his values and conforms to the broader constructs in which he

operates. The tension creates a personal need to identify boundaries and understand where to

push against institutional barriers and when its necessary to push against his personal values.

He has learned to build interest convergence in order to achieve his conception of social change

within the university.

Reconstruction

As a tool of reconstruction, building interest convergence directly acknowledges the

difficulty of engaging others in the work of leadership for social change (Dugan, 2017). The

model assumes that everyone will be on board with social change and have a unified perspective

on the goal of this pursuit. It incorporates the value of controversy with civility, which alludes to

navigating differences of opinion, but this lacks recognition of institutional power and its
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 11

influence on individuals ability to articulate viewpoints that do not align with the dominant

perspective. There could be significant consequences for those who have a stronger commitment

to their personal values than the institutional approach or lack thereof to social change.

It is important to identify shared interest and benefits in the pursuit of positive change,

especially when institutional commitments may stagnate social change efforts. This was evident

in Dr. Mmeje response to the Black Lives Matter protest in the previous year. He was deeply

tied to the students cause and had an internal commitment to empower their voice and move on

their behalf, but he also had a commitment to the institution to ensure they were reflected in a

positive light. This was a highly contentious issue with competing interests. The students

identified the institution as the barrier in their pursuit of social change, and Dr. Mmeje needed to

determine ways to empathize with their demands and work within the institution to address their

needs. He was able to remain committed to his values and preserve his status within the

institution through interest convergence. He successfully represented both perspectives and

helped them come to an agreement through mutual interest and shared benefits. Interest

convergence is a necessary tool for leaders and organizations as they navigate leadership for

social change within institutions.

Practical Applications for Leadership in Higher Education

As evinced in this theoretical analysis, the practice of leadership is multifaceted,

informed by formal and informal theories, and requires us to engage in meaning making. Heifetz

and Linsky (2002) shared that leadership is a way of giving meaning to your life by contributing

to the lives of others. At its best, leadership is a labor of love (As cited by Dugan, 2017). A

single definition of leadership would oppose my argument that its fluid and varies from person to

person, but as Heifets and Linksy suggested, the core of leadership is selfless and dedicated to
THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 12

something outside of yourself. That sacrifice and commitment requires tools that will help

individuals effectively lead a diverse team towards a common goal. Critical reflection that

promotes inclusion is important to the practice of leadership. A hallmark of critically reflective

leaders is their ability to alter their practice in light of new information regarding the dynamics of

power and presence of hegemony (Preskill & Brookfield, 2009, p.44). Critical reflection helps

teams attend to power and critically analyze their assumptions, and it empowers individuals to

lead from an informed stance and acknowledge the groups diverse needs. Preskill and

Brookfield (2009) continued to state that leaders need to find some way of getting inside

members minds to understand what it is to be a subordinate in the setting and to appreciate what

followers most want from their leaders and from the organization (Preskill & Brookfield, 2009,

p.43). In an effort to encourage inclusion, those in leadership positions should regularly

administer climate surveys to understand their teams perspective on group dynamics with an

emphasis on leadership. Leaders should work with teams to develop environments that will

support their engagement and productivity. We need to encourage conversations that allow

authentic articulation of expectations and needs as it relates to leadership. This will allow leaders

and followers to co-construct their experience. Critical reflection, inclusion, and the co-

construction of leadership needs to engrained in the culture and prioritized in the effective

practice of leadership within higher education.

THEORETICAL ANALYSIS 13

References

Cilente, K. (2009). An overview of the social change model of leadership development. In S. R.

Komives, W. Wagner, & Associates (Eds.), Leadership for a better world: Understanding

the social change model of leadership development (pp.43-78). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Dugan, J. P. (in press). Leadership theory: Cultivating critical perspectives. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass. [Due February 2017]

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Preskill, S., & Brookfield, S. D. (2009). Learning as a way of leading: Lessons from the struggle

for social justice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.