SERVANT LEADERSHIP Servant leadership is a philosophy and practice of leadership, coined and defined by Robert Greenleaf and supported

by many leadership and management writers such as James Autry, Ken Blanchard, Stephen Covey, Peter Block, Peter Senge, Max DePree, Scott Greenberg, Larry Spears, Margaret Wheatley, James C. Hunter, Kent Keith, Ken Jennings, Don Frick and others. In servant leadership, the leader takes care of the needs of his followers first before they take care of their own. Instead of acting like a king to their subordinates, leaders act as servants. The leader feels that they need to serve their followers rather than force upon them what they want. Famous examples of servant leaders include George Washington, Gandhi and Cesar Chavez. Robert K. Greenleaf (1904-1990) - born in Terre Haute, Indiana in 1904 - was the founder of the modern Servant leadership movement grandfather of servant leadership, - a pioneer, prophet, pathfinder, teacher, and a practitioner of its precepts - coined the phrases servant leadership and the servant as leader - As a Quaker, Greenleaf also made a life-long discipline of reflection on and contribution to The Religious Society of Friends. An emphasis on HISTORY OF SERVANT LEADERSHIP - The general concept is ancient. Chanakya wrote, in the 4th century B.C., in his book Arthashastra: the king [leader] shall consider as good, not what pleases himself but what pleases his subjects [followers] the king [leader] is a paid servant and enjoys the resources of the state together with the people. - There are passages that relate to servant leadership in the Tao Te

the human spirit was greatly influenced by this Quaker alliance. Many of his lasting contributions were to churches and nonprofit organizations. SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN THE CONTEXT OF LEADERSHIP STYLES - Servant Leadership can be most likely associated with the participative management style. - The highest priority of a servant leader is to encourage, support and enable subordinates to unfold their full potential and abilities. This leads to an obligation to delegate responsibility and participative decision-making. - In the managerial grid model of Blake and Mouton, the participative style of leadership is presented as the approach with the greatest possible performance and employee satisfaction. It is here, however, the question whether a management style can be declared as universal and universally applicable. - The servant leadership approach goes beyond employee-related behavior and calls for a rethinking of the hierarchical characterized relationship between leader and subordinates. This does not mean that the ideal of a participative style in any situation is to be enforced, but that a focus of management responsibilities to the promotion of performance and satisfaction of employees is set. Ching, attributed to Lao-Tzu, who is believed to have lived in China sometime between 570 B.C. and 490 B.C.: - The highest type of ruler is one of whose existence the people are barely aware. Next comes one whom they love and praise. Next comes one whom they fear. Next comes one whom they despise and defy. When you are lacking in faith, Others will be unfaithful to you. The Sage is self-effacing and scanty of words. When his task is

accomplished and things have been completed, All the people say, We ourselves have achieved it! Greenleaf, in his classic essay, The Servant as Leader (1970), described the servant-leader in this manner: 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 possessionsThe 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 peoples highest priority needs are being served.

treatment of customers by employees of the company and a high loyalty of the customers. There is a high employee identification with the enterprise An excellent corporate culture is developed Leaders of a company define themselves by their significance to the people.

CHARACTERISTICS OF BEING A SERVANT LEADER Larry C. Spears, who has served as President and CEO of the Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership since 1990, has extracted a set of 10 characteristics that are central to the development of a servant leader: LISTENING EMPATHY HEALING AWARENESS PERSUASION CONCEPTUALIZATION FORESIGHT STEWARDSHIP COMMITMENT TO PEOPLES GROWTH BUILDING COMMUNITY ADVANTAGES This concept is seen as a long-term concept to live and work and therefore has the potential to influence the society in a positive way. The exemplary treatment of employees leads to an excellent

DISADVANTAGES Servant Leadership should not be applied in companies outside of the service sector. The main concept of the idea consists of the following idea: Being exemplary in treating employees have excellent effects on the treatment of the customers, because employees pass the way they are treated to them. But this concept does not work if employees are not in constant, direct contact to the customers. Servant Leadership is deeply influenced by Christian values and used especially by American managers and companies. Therefore it is questionable whether such a principle is also applicable in other non-Christian cultures or even in different kinds of Christian cultures. The characteristics of a servant leader seem too excessive and partly too grotesque. There are only a few leaders who can fulfill these attributes. Servant Leadership is seen as a longterm application and therefore needs time for applying. Shared Leadership Theory Leadership can be explored as a social process - something that happens between people. It is not so much what leaders do, as something that arises out of social relationships. As such it does not depend on one person, but on how people act together to make sense of the situations that face them. It is happening all the time. Michele Erina Doyle and Mark K. Smith explore the theory and practice of shared leadership and the significance of ethical practice.

Michele Erina Doyle has worked as a sports worker, youth and community worker, and lecturer in informal and community education. She is currently researching and writing a book on Christian youth work. Amongst her published work is Born and Bred? (1999) (with Mark K. Smith) And Mark K. Smith specializes in the field of informal education and community learning. He is the Rank Research Fellow and Tutor at YMCA George Williams College, London and has been a Visiting Professor in Community Education, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. Among his books are Creators not Consumers (1982), Developing Youth Work (1988), Local Education(1994), Informal Education (1996, 1999, 2005 with Tony Jeffs), The Art of Helping Others (2008, withHeather Smith), Youth Work Practice (2010, edited with Tony Jeffs) and Journeying Together (2010, edited with Alan Rogers). He writes for, and edits, infed. The group took over. There was a whole group leadership thing. I don't think leadership's necessarily about one person sometimes - everyone has the qualities of being a leader or taking some form of responsibility in their lives, and sometimes that's a whole group ethos. I want to work in a situation where people can take on roles and responsibilities, tasks, whatever they want to do. As long as I can assist in this, rather than being the forerunning force taking it over, then that's what I'm aiming for. Everyday leadership If we look at everyday life - the situations and groups we are involved in - then we soon find leadership. Friends deciding how they are going to spend an evening, families negotiating over housework each involve influence and decision. However, such leadership often does not reside in a person. It may be shared and can move. In one situation an individual may be influential because of their expertise or position, in another it can be someone completely different. What these people may be able to

do is to offer an idea or an action that helps to focus or restructure the situation and the way in which others see things. Sometimes there may not even be one person we can readily label as leader just a group working together to achieve what is wanted. Rather than people leading, it is ideals and ideas. We dont follow an individual; we follow the conversation. Through listening and contributing, thoughts and feelings emerge and develop. It is not the force of personality that leads us on, but the rightness of what is said. Other factors may also operate. From this we can see that it is not our position that is necessarily important, but our behaviour. The question is whether or not our actions help groups and relationships to work and achieve. Actions that do this could be called leadership and can come from any group member. Many writers especially those looking at management tend to talk about leadership as a person having a clear vision and the ability to make it real. However, as we have begun to discover, leadership lies not so much in one person having a clear vision as in our capacity to work with others in creating one. We may also recognize the power of selfleadership, as one worker put it: me trying to get the most out of my own resources. Some people have talked of this as the influence we exert on ourselves to achieve the self-motivation and self-direction we need to perform (Mans and Sims 1989). Such self-motivation and self-direction can impact on others. The worker continued: [It] then moves onto staff, for them to discover the self-resources that they have within themselves and then look for anything that needs developing For young people, it's about getting them to realise their selfleadership, to realise their own potential. The leadership process is part of our daily experience. We may lead others, ourselves, or be led. We play our part in relationships and groups where it is always around. Sometimes there is an obvious leader, often there isnt. Nor are there always obvious followers. The world is not neatly divided in this respect. Part of our responsibility as

partners in the process is to work so that those who may label themselves as followers come to see that they, too, are leaders. What I understand of leadership is encouraging, or getting, people to realise their own resources, what they've got within them. As individuals we are part of the leadership process and, at times, receive the gift of being the leader from others. Classical leadership Displayed by a persons position in a group or hierarchy. Leadership evaluated by whether the leader solves problems. Leaders provide solutions and answers. Distinct differences between leaders and followers: character, skill, etc. Communication is often formal. Can often rely on secrecy, deception and payoffs. Shared leadership Identified by the quality of peoples interactions rather than their position. Leadership evaluated by how people are working together. All work to enhance the process and to make it more fulfilling. People are interdependent. All are active participants in the process of leadership. Communication is crucial with a stress on conversation. Values democratic processes, honesty and shared ethics. Seeks a common good.

Elevating - we become wiser and better people by being involved (Heifetz 1993).

We want to include these ethical qualities so that we can make proper judgements about leadership. For example, if we stay with a simple, technical definition such as that offered by Bass (1990) (leadership as the exercise of influence in a group context) then we can look at a figure like Hitler and say he was, in many respects, a great leader. He had a vision, was able to energize a large number of people around it, and develop the effectiveness of the organizations he was responsible for. However, as soon as we ask whether his actions were inclusive and elevating we come to a very different judgement. He was partly responsible for the death and exclusion of millions of people. He focused peoples attention on the actions of external enemies, internal scapegoats and false images of community while avoiding facing a deeper analysis of the countrys ills. Hitler wielded power, but he did not lead. He played to peoples basest needs and fears. If he inspired people toward the common good of Germany, it was the good of a truncated and exclusive society feeding off others. (Heifetz 1994: 24) We could go on. Hitlers failings werent just moral. Hopefully, the point is made. Leadership involves making ethical as well as technical judgements. CHAOS/QUANTUM THEORY What is Chaos? refers to a state lacking order or predictability Origins of Chaos Theory

Ethics We also want to take things a stage further. For something to qualify as leadership we must also make judgements about the quality of what happens. It should enrich the lives we all lead. Here we want to highlight two aspects. Leadership must be: Inclusive we all share in the process.

Henri Poincar(18541912), a latenineteenth century French mathematician who extensively studied topology and dynamic systems. Poincar explained, "It may happen that small differences in the initial conditions produce very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the latter. Prediction becomes impossible."

Edward Lorenz, a meteorologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), In the process of his experimentation he discovered one of chaos theory's fundamental principlesthe Butterfly Effect the Butterfly Effect means that what may appear to be insignificant changes to small parts of a system can have exponentially larger effects on that system. What is Chaos Theory? is a scientific principle describing the unpredictability of systems. Most fully explored and recognized during the midto-late 1980s, its premise is that systems sometimes reside in chaos, generating energy but without any predictability or direction. is dynamic systems theory, which is used to describe processes that constantly change over time (e.g., the ups and downs of the stock market). When systems become dislodged from a stable state, they go through a period of oscillation, swinging back and forth between order and chaos Steps in Chaos Theory. Process To control chaos, the system or process of chaos has to be controlled. To control system, what is needed is: A target, objective or goal which the system should reach. For a system with predictable behavior this may be particular state of the system. 2. A system capable of reaching the target or goal. 3. Some means of influencing the system behavior. These are the control inputs (decisions, decisions rules or initial states) Quantum Leadership Is about using curiosity to ask questions and discover the process. Leadership is about the journey and helping other deals with changes.

Leaders should plan for error, and managing risk and relationships. Leaders should notice changes through interacting with others. Activities of a Quantum Leaders: Ask questions Discover the process Have creativity, flexibility Help others deal with changes Plan for error Notice changes through interacting with others Anticipate the next step Help others understand Assumptions/Conclusion: Small actions produce rather than large consequences, creating a chaotic atmosphere. Every system has the potential to fall into chaos. Chaos is the final state in a system's movement away from order." When a system does reach that point, the parts of a system are manifest as turbulence, totally lacking in direction or meaning. That the universe is not orderly and that things do not progress in a linear fashion.