nurturing servant leaders in religious education - Scholarly ...

Exploring paradox
Servant leadership has also been described as a paradox (Klenke, 2003). Some
scholars have found the term servant leadership offensive as it refers to the treatment
of especially women and minorities throughout the centuries. Eicher-Catt (2005),
taking a feminine stance argued that because “leader” is typically a male-oriented
concept, “servant” automatically became a “marked” term that projected a perceived
inferiority typically female identified. The author argued that rather than neutralising
the talk of a highly male-dominated organisational world, the rhetoric of servant
leadership actually accentuated gendered language by offering a mythological ideal
while perpetuating a continued patriarchal stance in organisational culture. She stated,
The term “servant” connotes a subjugation of an existential subject that is
dependent upon the presence of a “master” for his/her social location and
organizational life. The term “servant” thus represents a state of submission,
complete with various degrees of oppressive ramifications and power imbalances.
At its root, “to serve” means to be self-sacrificing. The act of serving thus makes
the organizational member subject to the whims and/or dictates of a higher order
of discursive structures (Eicher-Catt, 2005, ¶ 9).
Spears (2004) acknowledged Eicher-Catt’s stance, but argues that the term servant
leadership holds substantial merit upon closer analysis. He declared,
For some, the word servant may prompt an initial negative connotation, due to the
oppression that many people—especially women and people of colour—have
historically endured. However, upon closer analysis many come to appreciate the
inherent spiritual nature of what Greenleaf intended by the pairing of servant and
leader. The startling paradox of the term servant-leadership serves to prompt new
insights (Spears, 2004, p. 21).
What new insights might be gained by a re-examination of the paradox? Greenleaf
(2002) seemed acutely aware of the juxtaposition when he questioned if the roles of
servant and leader could “be fused in one real person, in all levels of status and
calling? If so, can that person live and be productive in the real world of the present?”
(p. 19). Greenleaf was confident the two could coexist. As it is argued, the paradox is:
how can one, a servant, often associated with lowly station and menial tasks, be at the
same time a leader, at the forefront and responsible for making decisions, for
34