Servant Leader Human Resource Management

A Moral and Spiritual Perspective

G. Roberts

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137428363
• eBook ISBN: 9781137428370
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business Strategy
• Index: Business

Servant Leader Human Resource Management provides a comprehensive conceptual framework based on a dignity enhancing stewardship model that integrates and balances mission achievement with motive, means and ends integrity from both a line manager and human resource department perspective.

Chapter 1

Principles of Servant Leader Human Resource Management (SLHRM)

Introduction to Servant Leadership

Human resource (HR) management is one of the foundational “windows on the heart” reflecting the individual and collective values and beliefs of leaders, managers and employees regarding the “theology of work” and its relationship to human nature. Does the HR system honor servant leader principles through shaping the values and incentives to serve, work, lead, and manage in truly a moral and ethical fashion? Are we “hearers and doers” recognizing the great personal responsibility and accountability related to the exercise of power in organizations? This book assists pre-service students and current leaders and managers in assuming the mantle of servant leadership in human resource management (SLHRM), the ethical and moral means for achieving organizational missions.

Hence, this book promotes an explicitly normative and prescriptive framework for HR management setting very high standards of human motivation and conduct. As such, SLHRM is an idealized approach never fully realized in practice given the inherent flaws and limits to human nature. However, the more that organizations and individuals commit to the high ideals of SLHRM, the greater the individual and corporate growth facilitating mission achievement and organizational wellbeing. Hence, it is an ongoing process of gaining wisdom, solving problems, and learning on all levels, moral, intellectual, and spiritual. From the author’s personal perspective, progress and growth in achieving SLHRM principles requires a greater authority than self-effort, in this case my Christian religious faith. For readers with other worldviews the sources of power may be different, but individual effort alone is not sufficient.

Why is servant leadership the foundation for this book? There are many approaches to leadership, but only servant leadership emphasizes the necessary balance between morality, mission achievement, and promoting the best interests and wellbeing of the key stakeholders (employees, clients, customers, and the community) (Northouse, 2013). Like yeast infusing bread, servant leadership influences the entire culture of an organization, promoting favorable outcomes on all levels. In essence, it is the Golden Rule in practice. The dual foundation of servant leadership is stewardship, which is achieving the mission by using moral motives, means and ends, and servanthood, which is promoting the best interests and needs of the key stakeholders. Servant leadership manifests both religious and secular roots (Bekker, 2010; Sendjaya, 2010). It is the foundational leadership principle of Christianity as exemplified in the Old and New Testaments with the culmination in the ministry of Jesus as elaborated in the works of Wilkes (2008), Blanchard and Hodges (2005), and from a more secular perspective in the works of Greenleaf (1977). From an ethical standpoint, servant leadership is founded upon the integration of the three key ethical domains, that of deontological principles (moral laws), aretaic or virtue elements imbedded in moral character, and teleological or utilitarian principles that assess consequences (promote the greater good). There is no single agreed-upon conceptual or operational definition of servant leadership with a fixed and narrowly defined set of attributes. A review by Roberts and Hess-Hernandez (2012/2013) identified thirty-nine attributes of servant leadership that include a combination of character attributes (love, humility, and forgiveness), leadership practices (empowerment and active listening), and cognitive attributes (foresight and conceptualization). Research, however, has demonstrated servant leadership is a distinct and unique leadership approach differentiated from the related domains of transformational leadership and leader-member exchange theories (Liden et al., 2008; Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011). A more detailed analysis appears in table 1.1 with six global dimensions, the love-based servanthood elements, servant leader stewardship in completing the mission, servant leader character, servant leader behavior, servant leader reasoning abilities, and servant leader spiritual elements. Servanthood is the foundational element and includes the related attributes of altruism, serving others first, facilitating the success and growth of others, promoting healing, egalitarianism, and agapao (to love dearly in the Greek) love. Stewardship elements entail accomplishing the organizational mission using virtuous means, building community, and providing an inspiring vision. Key servant leader character attributes include moral integrity, empathy, humility, authenticity, trust, hope, courage, and forgiveness. Foundational servant leader behaviors include empowerment, active listening, goal setting, and relationship building. The reasoning ability elements center on the presence of foresight and conceptualization skills. The final dimension provides transcendental spirituality and transformational influence. The absence of a tightly defined set of attributes is both a strength and weakness. It is a strength in that servant leadership by conceptual definition is holistic, organic, evolving and dynamic combination of heart, intellect, emotions, and spirit. By definition it cannot be distilled into a reductionist and mechanical conceptualization. Conversely, the broad and variable conceptual elements impede uniform measurement and methodological rigor to support reliable and valid measures. However, as empirical research expands in scope, a greater degree of methodological consistency will follow.

Table 1.1 Servant leader attribute literature summary

Clearly defining the elements of servant leadership is important. The adoption of servant leadership is fully justified on a deontological and aretaic (virtue) basis. However, demonstrating its empirical influence helps buttress its adoption from a utilitarian orientation. In essence, this research is essential in demonstrating that servant leader love and character virtue generates favorable organizational outcomes in terms of employee and community wellbeing and individual and organizational performance (Showkeir, 2002). In essence, is there an increase in the good from the practice of servant leadership?

There is a burgeoning body of literature demonstrating the positive influence of servant leadership on a host of attitudinal, behavioral and performance outcomes (Parris & Peachey, 2013). A review of the empirical literature demonstrates robust, consistent, and compelling evidence on the favorable influence of servant leadership on job attitudes, leadership effectiveness, work behaviors, performance, character formation, desirable personality attributes, and quality of life outcomes. Mayer (2010) proposes that servant leadership attributes increase follower need satisfaction in the key elements that comprise self-determination-theory (SDT), that of autonomy, relatedness and competence (Deci & Ryan, 1985), thereby generating favorable attitudinal, behavioral and performance outcomes.

The table 1.2 provides a detailed summary of the published literature that supports Mayer (2010) and the other servant leader models. Servant leadership is associated with higher levels of organizational commitment, job trust, job satisfaction, procedural justice, and engagement levels, among others. In terms of the leadership outcomes, servant leadership is associated with higher levels of leadership competence, commitment to supervisor, and leader trust. In terms of behaviors, servant leadership promotes higher levels of organizational citizenship, employee creativity and helping behavior, and lower levels of organizational turnover. The favorable influence on productivity is equally impressive with multiple studies indicating higher levels of team effectiveness, team potency, goal and process clarity, and firm performance. Servant leadership enhances essential character attributes such as hope, integrity, and loyalty. Finally, servant leadership promotes a positive work climate, enhances quality of work life, leads to employee wellbeing, and reduces burnout and work family conflict. Only one study demonstrated no consistent influence of servant leadership on organizational performance (de Waal & Sivro, 2012). In conclusion, the conceptual and empirical evidence for the positive influence of servant leadership on a whole host of outcomes is very consistent and positive. However, there are several important caveats. The number of studies is small and their methodological scope and breadth limited, especially when contrasted with other areas of leadership research. There is also potential publication bias for servant leadership.

Studies in closely related domains are consistent with positive servant leader empirical findings. For example, a meta-analysis of emotional intelligence (EI), which incorporates many of the behavioral elements of servant leadership such as empathy, found that EI was a significant and major predictor of job performance (O’Boyle et al., 2011). Another interesting study on companionate love in a long-term care facility found a favorable influence on employee outcomes including job satisfaction, teamwork, absenteeism, and emotional exhaustion as well as beneficial patient effects related to mood, quality of life, satisfaction, and fewer emergency room visits (Barsade & O’Neill, in press).

Table 1.2 Servant leader empirical literature summary

Limitations and Critiques of Servant Leadership

One key element of the discussion is to rebut the varied and conflictual stereotypes and misinformation regarding servant leadership. Three of the most common are that servant leadership is “soft” management with lower degrees of leadership influence and direction, a reduced emphasis on employee discipline, and that servant leaders possess a martyr complex. Servant leadership is love-based, but entails a 360-degree version of love that incorporates grace and accountability, forgiveness and discipline, autonomy and clear boundaries. One cannot be a servant leader and not achieve the mission and discipline the workforce. In effect, servant leaders cultivate a culture of performance excellence that increases demands on employees (Reinke, 2004; Irving & Longbotham, 2007; Prosser, 2010; Sendjaya, 2010). Servant leaders facilitate the meeting of true employee needs, but do not cater to their desires and wants that are contrary to their wellbeing and mission integrity. Finally, servant leaders are not martyrs. They actively promote self-care and work-life harmony and balance. In the pages to come, we will more fully define servant leadership in its full balance and harmony.

From a methodological standpoint, there is an absence of agreement on the specific elements and core dimensions of servant leadership (Northouse, 2013). However, this reflects the inherent complexity of servant leadership and its holistic and unique combination of leadership motivation, character, behavior, and reasoning abilities. Hence, it will take many years of sustained study to confirm the basic attributes and the many moderator and mediating relationships.

The explicit prescriptive, normative, and moral emphasis of servant leadership is another source of conflict (Northouse, 2013). It is utopian in essence. However, all theories and approaches of leadership promote a worldview of values, norms, and moral principles. They range from the secular to the religious and spiritual. Hence, there is no neutral or values-free form of management; therefore, they are all similar in this regard. For many who embrace servant leadership, it is a deontological moral imperative, hence the absence of motivation for empirical research. However, a full understanding of servant leadership recognizes the elements of stewardship and mission achievement, hence the need for promoting excellence of performance and character. Empirical research on servant leadership is moving forward and becoming more robust.

Another issue relates to the interface between contextual and cultural elements, leader and follower attributes, and follower receptivity (Northhouse, 2013; Liden et al., 2008; van Dierendonck, 2011). In other words, do employees manifest a universal desire and/or receptivity to servant leadership? Given the contingent nature of leadership (Northhouse, 2013), differing goals due to mutually exclusive truth claims, and inherent human variability, clearly the answer is no. There is limited empirical evidence on the subject, but Meuser et al. (2011) found higher levels of performance and organizational citizenship when subordinates desired servant leadership and lower levels when subordinates lacked interest. For both leaders and followers, the underlying motivational element is critical given the obstacles and challenges associated with servant leadership. Ng and Koh (2010) provide a “motivation-to-serve” model incorporating personality traits such as agreeableness and conscientiousness, which are positively associated with servant leader motivation, while neuroticism is negatively correlated with servant leader motivation. The second element of the model is the value orientation with self-transcendence (benevolence, equality) promoting the motivation-to-serve while self-enhancement (power, achievement, hedonism) attenuates the altruistic motives associated with servant leadership.

Clearly, the receptivity and effectiveness of servant leadership is maximized by a compatible organizational culture fully integrated into the HR system through its mission, vision, and values. In essence, the HR system’s decision making process links personnel decision making to servant leader mission, motivation, character, and behavior. Laub (2005) and Herman (2008) assessed the organizational culture of one hundred organizations, classifying them into autocratic, paternalistic, and servant leader (Laub, 2010). Only 14 percent of the studied organizations received classification as servant leader oriented, as most were a mixture of paternalistic (55%) and autocratic (31%) (Laub, 2010). However, even in those situations in which the culture and employee attributes conflict with servant leadership, the astute servant leader adjusts his or her leadership approach to honor and accommodate subordinate preferences, while not violating key principles such as promoting the best interests of employees. Hence, the leader maintains the core elements of servant leadership while patiently adjusting to organizational climate. Over time, servant leadership can increase trust and build relationships, thereby changing subordinate attitudes, as the vast majority of employees desire dignified and fair treatment. In essence, an organizational microclimate of receptivity to servant leadership organically develops.

One final question relates to the international comparative scope of servant leadership. Servant leadership practice is global in scope, finding support in a variety or religious and philosophical worldviews (Bekker, 2010). The research indicates cultural differences related to power distance, but a high level of consensus on the “Gol...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1 Principles of Servant Leader Human Resource Management (SLHRM)
• 2 Servant Leader Human Resource Management Organizational Integrity
• 3 The SLHRM Change Management Process and the Barriers to Effective Change
• 4 Employee Empowerment and Discipleship Making Principles
• 5 Employee Fair Treatment Principles
• 6 Employee Work/Life Balance and Margin Principles
• 7 Employee Performance Management Principles
• 8 Employee Staffing Principles
• 9 Employee Training and Development Principles
• 10 Employee Compensation Management Principles
• 11 Final Reflections
• References
• Index