nurturing servant leaders in religious education - Scholarly ...

definitions to shape a consistent framework for their ongoing discussions on
leadership. We should not be using definitions of these critical terms haphazardly
or carelessly. Our definitions should shape our dialogue around these themes and
provide the basis for ongoing inquiry to create a solid and credible research base
for servant leadership. When we do so we will begin to see a greater acceptance of
an understanding and practice of leadership that truly is world-changing (p. 9).
Many authors, including Laub (1999), have made attempts to define servant
leadership, being careful to make the definitions as broadly applicable as possible.
Examples from the literature include,
servant leadership emphasizes increased service to others, a holistic approach to
work, promoting a sense of community, and the sharing of power in decision
making (Spears, 1998, p. 3).
Servant leadership is an understanding and practice of leadership that places the
good of those led over the self-interest of the leader. Servant leadership promotes
the valuing and development of people, the building of community, the practice of
authenticity, the providing of leadership for the good of those led and the sharing
of power and status for the common good of each individual, the total
organization, and those served by the organization (Laub, 1999, p. 83).
leadership that puts the needs of others and the organisation first, is characterized
by openness, vision and stewardship, and results in building community within
organisations (Reinke, 2004 ¶ 35).
to honor the personal dignity and worth of all who are led and to evoke as much as
possible their own innate creative power for leadership (Sims, 1997, pp. 10-11).
you take the self out of self-serving leadership (Lee, 2002, p. 21).
Each of these definitions, in varying degrees defines servant leadership as either
giving to others or a taking away from the self in order to focus on others. In this way,
they all touch upon Greenleaf’s core definition, that the “servant-leader is servant-
first” (Greenleaf, 2002, p. 22). However, there has not yet emerged a definition which
has been widely used, nor tested through scholarly debate, which has served to
replace or eclipse Greenleaf’s simple definition. There may be numerous reasons for
this lack of solid definition.
For example, the majority of servant-leadership literature remains qualitative, a
methodology in which historically, Bryman (2004) suggests, researchers have not
31