BUSI 345 Week 7 Personal Philosophy of Leadership Paper Example

Leading From the Towel: A Personal Philosophy of Servant Leadership

Abstract

This paper presents my personal philosophy of leadership: that leadership is first service to the people being led, and that organizational results follow from their growth. Drawing on servant leadership research and on comparisons with transformational, authentic and ethical leadership, it defines the philosophy and then examines it against five self-assessments from Northouse (2016). The assessments show strengths in relational behavior and integrity and weaknesses in conceptual skill and in confronting problems. The paper closes with commitments for growth grounded in research and in Jesus's example of washing the disciples' feet.

Introduction

On the night before his death, Jesus rose from supper, tied a towel around his waist and washed his disciples' feet, and then said he had shown them what they were to do (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, John 13:4-15). I have read that passage many times, but this course made me ask what it means for my work as an assistant operations manager at a distribution company, where I lead eleven people on the evening shift. My answer is my philosophy of leadership: leadership is first service to the people being led, and the results an organization needs come through their growth, not at its expense.

This paper explains that philosophy, tests it against five self-assessments, and names the changes I will make because of them.

The Philosophy Defined

Northouse (2016) defines leadership as a process of influence that moves a group toward a common goal. I accept that definition, but it leaves open the leader's motive. Servant leadership answers that question. In the synthesis by van Dierendonck (2011), servant leaders empower and develop people, act with humility and authenticity, accept others, give direction and practice stewardship. The order matters to me: the leader's first concern is whether followers are growing.

Servant leadership is not the only theory I find persuasive. Transformational leadership, with its emphasis on vision and inspiration, shows strong links to how satisfied and motivated followers are and how effective their leaders appear (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). But when Hoch et al. (2018) tested whether newer, values-based styles added anything beyond transformational leadership, servant leadership was the one that explained meaningful additional variance in outcomes. I read that result as a sign that putting followers first is a distinct idea, not a relabeled one. Eva et al. (2019), reviewing two decades of research, found servant leadership linked to follower performance, helping behavior and engagement, while cautioning that stronger research designs are needed. I hold my philosophy with that caution in mind.

Blanchard et al. (2016) add the dimension the research cannot measure: leadership begins in the heart, with the question of whether I am serving myself or others. They argue that the greatest obstacle to servant leadership is pride and fear, the edging God out that leads leaders to protect their position. That has been true of me, as the assessments showed.

My philosophy also includes followers as partners. Uhl-Bien et al. (2014) argue that leadership is co-produced, with followers shaping it as much as receiving it. Serving followers, then, includes developing their independent judgment, so the team can decide well without waiting for me. A follower who can spot a problem on the dock and fix it without waiting for me is a sign that I have served well; a team that freezes when I am out sick is a sign that I have served myself by staying indispensable. The authors also note that followers shape leaders, which means my team's feedback is part of how I will grow.

Ethics as Part of Service

This module/week's chapter on leadership ethics sharpened one part of my philosophy. Northouse (2016) describes ethical leadership in terms of respect, service, justice, honesty and community, and he notes that leaders carry special responsibility because their influence affects others' lives. Service, in other words, is not only a style but an ethical obligation. Brown et al. (2005) found that followers judge a leader as ethical when the leader is honest and fair, models ethical conduct and talks openly about ethics. On my shift, the ethical tests are small and constant: how overtime is assigned, whether credit for a good night goes to the team, whether I tell the truth to my own manager when a mistake was mine. A servant philosophy that ignored those tests would be sentiment rather than leadership.

What Five Self-Assessments Revealed

Leadership Trait Questionnaire

I completed this questionnaire myself and asked three coworkers to rate me. My highest averages were on trustworthy, dependable and sensitive, and my lowest were on self-assured and persistent. The coworkers rated my confidence higher than I did. This fits the trait research Northouse (2016) summarizes, which finds that traits matter but explain only part of who leads well. The result told me that my reputation for dependability is a foundation I can build on, and that my self-doubt may be more visible to me than to others. The low score on persistence was harder to dismiss. Two of the three coworkers marked me lower there than on any other trait, and when I asked one of them why, the answer was that I drop projects when they meet resistance. That is a trait that can be changed through habits, and it connects to the conflict avoidance the later assessments revealed.

Skills Inventory

The Skills Inventory measures technical, human and conceptual skills. My human skills score was high, my technical score moderate and my conceptual score the lowest of the three. In practice, I am good at working with people and less good at stepping back to see how the evening shift fits the company's larger plans. Northouse (2016) notes that conceptual skills become more important as leaders move up. If I want to serve my team well, I need to understand the decisions that affect them before they arrive as surprises. When the company moved our largest customer's orders to the morning shift last year, I learned about it the same week my team did and could not explain why.

Leadership Behavior Questionnaire

This questionnaire separates task behavior from relationship behavior. My relationship score was well above my task score. I build rapport easily, but I sometimes leave expectations vague. Judge et al. (2004) found that consideration, the relationship side, was strongly related to followers' satisfaction, while initiating structure, the task side, was more related to performance. My team likes working for me, but clearer structure would help them perform, and clear expectations are themselves a service.

Authentic Leadership Self-Assessment Questionnaire

This instrument, based on the components identified by Walumbwa et al. (2008), measures self-awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing and relational transparency. My scores were highest on internalized moral perspective and lowest on balanced processing. I hold firm values, but I tend to decide quickly and seek confirming views. Last spring I changed the break rotation after talking with only the two selectors who agreed with me, and the rest of the shift felt unheard for weeks. Brown et al. (2005) argue that followers learn ethics by watching leaders. If my team watches me ignore dissenting views, they will learn that disagreement is unwelcome.

Servant Leadership Questionnaire

My highest scores on the servant leadership questionnaire were on emotional healing and putting followers first, dimensions similar to those Liden et al. (2008) identified. My lowest were on conceptualizing and empowering. I am quick to care for people and slow to hand them real authority. That gap matters, because a servant leader who does not empower followers keeps them dependent, which contradicts the growth my philosophy promises. Liden et al. (2008) describe helping subordinates grow and succeed as a core dimension, and growth requires room to make decisions and occasionally to fail. Comforting people after problems is not the same as preparing them to solve problems themselves.

The Pattern and What It Means

Taken together, the assessments describe a leader who is caring, dependable and principled, but who avoids hard conversations, leaves expectations vague, decides too quickly and holds on to authority. The common root, I believe, is the fear Blanchard et al. (2016) describe. I avoid conflict because I fear damaging relationships, and I hold on to decisions because I fear losing control of outcomes. Both are forms of protecting myself rather than serving my team.

Commitments for Growth

First, I will set clear expectations. Each team member will have three written priorities for the quarter, reviewed monthly, so my relational strength is paired with structure.

Second, I will address problems early. When a performance issue appears, I will raise it privately within a week. Paul calls believers to tell one another the truth lovingly, and says the body matures that way (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Ephesians 4:15), and I have often withheld the truth in the name of love.

Third, I will slow decisions that affect the team and ask for at least one opposing view before deciding, to build the balanced processing my assessment found lacking.

Fourth, I will delegate real authority. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) argue that leaders should offer every follower the opportunity for a high-quality relationship, not only a favored few. I will give each of my two most experienced selectors responsibility for one area of the shift, such as scheduling breaks or training new hires, and I will not overrule their reasonable decisions.

Fifth, I will develop conceptual skill by meeting monthly with my operations manager to learn how the company's plans affect our shift, so I can explain decisions to my team rather than simply pass them along.

Conclusion

Jesus washed his disciples' feet knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, John 13:3). His service came from security, not from fear. That is the change I most need. My assessments show that I already care for people; what I lack is the security to confront, to listen to disagreement and to give away authority. A servant leader does all three. My philosophy, leadership as service to the people being led, will be tested not in how kind I am, but in whether the people on my shift grow.

References

Blanchard, K., Hodges, P., & Hendry, P. (2016). Lead like Jesus revisited: Lessons from the greatest leadership role model of all time. W Publishing Group.

Brown, M. E., Treviño, L. K., & Harrison, D. A. (2005). Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 97(2), 117-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.002

English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)

Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004

Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5

Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501-529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316665461

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Ilies, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(2), 161-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007

van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228-1261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462

Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913