Power and Servant Leadership
Yukl (1998) defines power as "an agent’s potential influence over the attitudes and behavior of one or more designated target persons." Others define power as influence, and that being the effect of one party on another.
Generally, the person (agent) trying to influence others (target) is trying to deal with one of the outcomes of the influence process:
- commitment—the target person agrees with a decision and makes a great effort to carry it out.
- compliance—the target is willing to do what the agent asks but is apathetic about the request.
- resistance—the target person is opposed to the request and actively tries to avoid carrying it out. The target can respond in several ways but ultimately will be against accomplishing the request.
Yukl (1998) provides a table summarizing the general categories of power researchers use to understand how power impacts leadership. They are:
1.Positional power
- formal authority
- control over reward
- control over punishments
- control over information
- environment control
2. Personal power
- expertise
- friendship
- charisma
3. Political power
- control over decisions
- coalitions
- co-optation
Essentially, since followers tend to relate to leaders as parents through symbolic status, in the relationship between leader and follower, one can think of positional power as a parent-child relationship, and personal power as a parent-adult child relationship (Hawthorne and Martin,1993. p.657; Hirschhorn, 1988, p.154).
Positional Power Corrupts
We also have Yukl's (1998, p.195) warning, "The notion that power corrupts is especially relevant for position power." In an experiment by Kipnis (1972) where leaders are given high positional power, related by Yukl (1998, p.195), the dangers of excessive position power were borne out. As a result of using high positional power, these leaders:
1. Perceived followers as objects of manipulation
2. Devalued the worth of subordinates
3. Attributed subordinate efforts to their own power use
4. Maintained more social distance from subordinates
5. Used rewards more often to influence subordinates
These are not the attributes desirable in leaders among the saints, nor are they descriptive of biblical leadership practices. Paul (I Thess. 2:7,8) told the Thessalonian church: "But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children: So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us."
In studies to consider whether effective and ineffective leaders have and use the same types of power, Yukl (1998, p.188) concludes, "Overall, the results suggest that effective leaders rely more on expert and referent (personal) power to influence subordinates." Yukl (1998, p.188) relates that studies by Warren (1968), Thambain and Gemmill (1974), and Yukl and Falbe (1991), indicate that the use of positional power usually produces compliance. Since the church is a transformational organization seeking to induce high levels of commitment among members, this outcome of positional power is undesirable. Personal power, however, is summed up by Yukl (1998, p.188) as having results that "positively correlated with subordinate satisfaction and performance."
Servant leadership/Lateral leadership
Robert Greenleaf (1970, p.7) coined the term, "servant leadership" in describing a model very similar to what Jesus proposes. Greenleaf (1970, pp.22, 32) similarly sees positional power as at best producing compliance (at worst, resistance), and recognizes the superiority of personal power, "Leadership by persuasion has the virtue of change by convincement rather than coercion. Its advantages are obvious."
Biblical Servant Leadership
Jesus gave in Luke 22 what on the surface seems to be an impractical command about leadership in the church:
“The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.”
This statement rips from the arsenal of leadership the use of positional authority to influence other believers. The Apostle Peter (I Peter 5:1-3) reiterated this relinquishing of positional power for leaders with, "Neither as being lords over God's heritage (positional power), but being ensamples to the flock (personal power)." Current leadership research has provided a good amount of support for Jesus' servant-leader proposition. Leaders in Jesus' servant leadership model are left with what Jay Conger (1998, p.vii) calls "Lateral Leadership," calling it a "revolution in how we manage others," a model based purely on personal power.
Jesus' most profound example and encouragement of this style of leadership occurred on the night He last shared the Passover with His disciples. The disciples that day had been arguing who among them would be the greatest. In a household, the least of the servants was tasked with washing the feet of visitors. None of the disciples had been willing to do that. At the end of the passover meal, Jesus rises from the table, removes his outer clothes, wraps a towel around His waist, and picks up a basin from the corner. So, Jesus becomes the least servant among them, and washes their feet, one disciple at a time, and drying them with the towel. Finished, He explained (John 13:12-15):
“Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.” In John 13:1, just before the passover meal, we are told concerning the servant Jesus, regarding His disciples, "he loved them unto the end."
This example was not only about servant leadership, but about loving those we lead. That is then true secret of servants.
Conger, Jay (1998) Winning 'Em Over.
Greenleaf, Robert (1970) The servant as leader.
Hawthorne & Martin (1993) Dictionary of paul and his letters.
Hirschhorn, Larry (1988) The workplace within.
Kouzes & Posner (1995). The leadership challenge.
Yukl, Gary (1998) Leadership in organizations.
(article by Art Mealer)
----------
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
|
Dayspring
Fellowship 
