Leadership Philosophy

Crystal M. Cartwright

Leadership and Change Portfolio Competency Project

Azusa Pacific University

October 15, 2021

 1

Introduction

As a Christian, Black woman from a collectivist ethnic culture with dominant

interpersonal traits, as identified on the CliftonStrengths assessment, my worldview and sense of

purpose begin with my faith, which is connected to and sets the tone for my leadership

philosophy. The foundation of my leadership philosophy is guided by Christian theology and

Jesus's New Testament admonishment, "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39 (NIV),

2011). Moreover, my foundation emphasizes literal and figurative servanthood, also following

Jesus's reminder, "So the last will be first, and the first will be last" (Matthew 20:16 (NIV),

2011).

In addition to the scriptural foundation that informs my leadership philosophy, my ethnic

identity, collectivist beliefs, and gender play a central role in determining my professional

positionality. Several phrases capture the essence of my collectivist identity as a Black woman

and contribute to my leadership philosophy: "I did not get here on my own." "The world does not

revolve around me." "I am building upon the work of others." I do not view my leadership as

only a means of professional advancement; instead, I see it as a way to contribute to the world

and assist in developing others in my chosen profession. For me, Leadership means serving as a

change agent and inspiring, motivating, and developing those I work with to become leaders in

their own right. Finally, there is a synergistic relationship between my faith, intersectional

identities, and personal strengths. The majority of my strengths are rooted in relational

connections. For example, of the 34 different CliftonStrengths (Gallup, 2021), my top five are

empathy, connectedness, positivity, developer, and context. My culture, my spirituality, and my

strengths provide insight into the development of my leadership philosophy.

 2

Whether I'm collaborating with staff or students at Wheaton College, where I work, my

self-awareness of these factors is one of the first things I share about myself as a leader. As

Director of the Student Involvement Office, I believe my physical presence as a Black woman in

a White, male-dominated institution represents marginalized communities. Furthermore, my

leadership transparency and approachability humanize me and allows those I supervise, whether

staff or students, to relate to me beyond my professional title. My initial goal as a leader is

always to make those with whom I work feel welcomed. My personality, foundational beliefs,

and leadership approach, which emphasizes collaboration, not dictation, and encourages a

multiplicity of voices, sets the tone for implementing the leadership theories that guide my

philosophy. That philosophy is consistent in my commitment to understand and interact with

each professional situation and individual appropriately for the context. The leadership theories

that I align and assist in framing my leadership philosophy represent my faith, values, culture,

and professional skillset and collectively provide a barometer for my leadership effectiveness.

Influential Leadership Theories

The three leadership theories that align with my core principles are servant leadership

theory, relational leadership theory, and transformational leadership theory. I seek to embody

these theories' values and belief systems in my leadership philosophy and style. In this essay, I

will examine the main currents of these three theories, along with their attendant criticisms, and

illustrate how they connect and accentuate the predominant aspects of my personhood.

Servant Leadership Theory

Scholars consider Robert Keifner Greenleaf, the founder of servant leadership theory

(Russell & Stone, 2002; Smith, 2005). Greenleaf coined the phrase "servant leadership" in his
 3

1970 essay, "The Servant as a Leader," but the tenets of this theory are rooted in spiritual and

leadership practices such as the 1950's human relations movement (Biberman & Whitty, 1997;

Smith, 2005). The human relations movement emphasized humane and spiritual guidelines and

principles to produce shared governance in organizations (Biberman & Whitty, 1997; Smith,

2005). In his foundational essay, Greenleaf built upon these guidelines and principles and

theorized that greatness in leadership began with a leader being a servant first (Greenleaf, 1970,

as cited in Smith, 2005). As a theoretical framework, servant leadership theory centers the needs

of employees at the forefront of the organization. Greenleaf (1970, as cited in Smith, 2005)

identified ten functional leadership attributes and ten more accompanying traits that servant

leaders must outwardly display as their core personal motivations and belief systems (Frick &

Spears, 1996; Smith 2005). These functional attributes include vision, honesty, integrity, trust,

service, modeling, pioneering, appreciation, empowerment (Greenleaf, 1970, as cited in Smith,

2005). The accompanying traits include communication, credibility, competence, stewardship,

visibility, influence, persuasion, listening, encouragement, teaching, and delegation (Greenleaf,

1970, as cited in Smith, 2005). Servant leaders should employ these characteristics as mentors

and developers rather than focus on self-promotion and power (Frick & Spears, 1996; Greenleaf,

1970, as cited in Smith, 2005).

Servant leadership distinguishes itself from other leadership theories through its non-

hierarchical structure and its primary purpose of providing service to followers. Servant

leadership approaches organizational success by emphasizing the individual and holistic

development of all people within the company (Greenleaf, 1970, as cited in Smith, 2005).

Servant leadership theory stipulates that service should motivate leaders to focus on the needs of

others over self-promotion (Russell & Stone, 2002). Despite the democratic benefits of servant
 4

leadership theory, the model is not without detractors. Critics claim that servant leadership

theory is more of a lifestyle approach than a systematically defined technique (Russell & Stone,

2002 as cited in Smith, 2005). Others criticize the fact that the theory has not been studied

empirically for very long (Sendjaya & Sarros 2002; Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004).

Moreover, critics claim that the methods of servant leadership theory are difficult to empirically

validate using scientific methods, which hamper the ability to reliably apply the theory (Russell

& Stone, 2002; Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2003; Smith, 2005). Finally, opponents of the theory

assert that the bulk servant leadership's responsibility ironically rests on the leader, who can

sabotage the theory's efficacy through immoral or unethical behavior, which would undermine

the motivation of all employees (Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2003; Smith, 2005).

Perhaps the best response to these criticisms is that several prominent corporations in the

United States utilize servant leadership models, including Google, Starbucks, and Marriott (He,

2013; Percy, 2020; Smith, 2005; Tait, 2021). Studies have shown (Cable, 2018; He, 2013;

Percy, 2020; Smith, 2005) that multinational companies that implement a servant leadership

approach experience collaborative company culture, higher productivity, and increased employee

retention. Servant leadership benefits employee management development and creates an

environment that fosters employee investment, engagement, and growth (Cable, 2018, He, 2013;

Percy, 2020; Smith, 2005; Tait, 2021). Most importantly, this management model represents a

fundamental philosophical transformation in the relationship between power and leadership. In

his book A Higher Standard of Leadership: Lessons from the Life of Gandhi (1996), Keshavan

Nair identifies the ideal relationship between power and leadership:

 5

As long as power dominates our thinking about leadership, we cannot move toward a

higher standard of leadership. We must place service at the core, for even though power

will always be associated with leadership, it has only one legitimate use: service (p.59)

Service is at the core of my leadership philosophy. My faith, collectivist worldview, and

relational CliftonStrengths align with many aspects of the servant leadership model. As an

advisor to three student leadership organizations and as a Director in the Student Development

division at Wheaton College, my leadership effectiveness is based on prioritizing the needs of

my staff team and student leaders and creating an engaging leadership culture. Because I work at

a Christian college, I can openly connect the tenants of the Christian faith with my leadership

ethos and curriculum. Service is central to Christianity and influences my alignment with servant

leadership theory. Christ's example of service, righteous justice, and personal sacrifice for the

highest good of others is the model I strive to emulate. In addition, I seek to embody a posture of

service that allows me to act on my relational strengths by prioritizing the advancement of those

I lead and contributing to their professional, educational, and identity development journeys.

Choosing to align with servant leadership is not synonymous with pursuing a leadership path that

will necessarily accelerate my career progression or popularity. Instead, I view servant

leadership as a vocational challenge to act as a change agent, advocate, resource, and mentor. My

goal is to develop leader-follower relationships that positively impact the present experiences

and careers of those I lead and influence their future leadership endeavors.

Relational Leadership Theory

My leadership philosophy also aligns with and draws from parts of Edwin P. Hollander's

(1964, as cited in Uhl-Bien, 2006) Relational Leadership Theory. One of the earliest scholars to
 6

approach leadership from a relational standpoint, Hollander advocated for a mutually beneficial

exchange of ideas and social influence between leaders and followers (Hollander, 1978 as cited

in Uhl-Bien, 2006). Hollander viewed relational leadership as a social process between

individuals; his leadership model required participants to establish a bi-directional relationship

regardless of rank or title (Hollander, 1964, 1978, as cited in Uhl-Bien, 2006). In contrast to

other leadership theories that equate leadership with hierarchy, relational leadership theory

emphasizes the interpersonal processes and practices of people who lead via their influence and

credibility and inspire the creation of new goals, ideas, and organizational cultures ((Hollander,

1964, 1978, as cited in Uhl-Bien, 2006). Hollander defines leadership as an interpersonal process

that produces a consensus leader based on the perception of individuals in the group (Hollander,

1964, 1978, as cited in Uhl-Bien, 2006). Hollander believes that leadership is a collective

process. A vital part of this leader-follower dynamic is the leader's perception of self relative to

those they lead, coupled with the ways their followers perceive them (Hollander & Julian, 1969;

Hollander, 1995; Uhl-Bien, 2006). One of the benefits of this leadership model is an increased

sense of camaraderie and inspiration from followers because they feel invested in, and cared for

by, the organization. In this model, followers are aligned with the leader's philosophy because

they have a voice in constructing the organizational mission and culture.

In a perfect world, relational leadership theory appears to solve the problems of hierarchy

and inequity in the workplace because its emphasis on collective influence produces inspiration,

collaboration, and motivation (Fletcher, 2004; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2006; White et al., 2016).

However, relational leadership theory is not devoid of an organizational pecking order; instead, it

determines the leadership pyramid from the followers' interpersonal viewpoints and the leader's

perceived impact (Hollander, 1978 as cited in Uhl-Bien, 2006). Moreover, because this
 7

leadership style emphasizes relationship building, the leader must possess a specific

interpersonal skill set that not all leaders can employ. Another variable in this equation is how

followers perceive the leader. If this perception is not favorable, the followers' motivation may

be hampered (Hogg et al., 2001, 2005; Hollander, 1978 as cited in, Uhl-Bien, 2006). Despite

these critiques, relational leadership theory is well-suited for individuals with strong

interpersonal skills who emphasize motivation and mentorship in their collective dealings with

those they lead.

As director of Wheaton College's Student Involvement Office, I am the designated leader

by virtue of my title. However, for my management style to be effective, I must incorporate

aspects of relational leadership theory. The main components from this theory that I use in my

leadership style are trust, transparency, and a willingness to teach and learn from those I work

with simultaneously. I strive to establish a genuine rapport with those I lead and understand that

our interactions must be mutually beneficial. A result of this approach is a sense of solidarity and

shared responsibility. In this environment, I spend less time asserting my authority and more

time helping individuals utilize their strengths, resulting in improved competency and increased

initiative.

Transformational Leadership Theory

The final leadership theory that aligns with my personal approach to management is

transformational leadership theory. Sociologist James V. Downtown coined the term

transformational leadership in his book Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in the

Revolutionary Process (1973). James MacGregor Burns expanded on Downtown's ideas in his
 8

book Leadership (1978), and then Bernard M. Bass contributed a third significant discourse on

the topic with his article "Leadership: Good, Better, Best" (1985).

Transformational leadership theory tethers individual motivation to the achievement of

collective organizational goals (Bass, 1997 as cited by Hay, 2006). Hay (2006) noted that

"transformational leaders elevate people from low levels of need, focused on survival (following

Maslow's hierarchy) to higher levels" (p. 4). This theory also emphasizes personal and

professional development for the overall sake of the institution (Bass, 1997 as cited by Hay,

2006; Smith, 2005). The traits generally associated with transformational leaders include

trustworthiness, lifelong learner, role model, visionary, change agent, strategic, engaging, loyal,

and persuasive (Bass, 1990a; Hay, 2006;).

Transformational leaders intentionally holistically engage with their followers. These

leaders seek a comprehensive relationship with their followers that challenges both parties to be

self-reflective and push beyond both internal and external limitations ((Bass & Steidlmeier,

1999; Bouchard, 2021; Hay, 2006). Four dimensions of transformational leadership define this

theory. These elements are formally known as the Four Common I's, and they are: 1) Idealized

Influence, 2) Inspirational Motivation, 3) Intellectual Stimulation, and 4) Individualized

Consideration. These four dimensions are interrelated and comprise essential components for

followers who seek to improve their performance and reach their fullest potential (Kelly, 2003;

as cited in Hay, 2006).

On the surface, transformational leadership theory may appear to be the solution to a lack

of employee motivation because it emphasizes follower development and incentivizes self-

sacrifice. However, critics question the theory's potential for abuse by powerful, dominant, or

charismatic leaders (Hay, 2006; Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2003). Because this theory
 9

encourages followers to consider significant changes in the way they think about themselves and

their work, transformational leaders are at risk for narcissism, manipulation, oversized egos, and

an inappropriate dependency on their followers (Bouchard, 2021; Hay, 2006; Stone, Russell, &

Patterson, 2003).

As a Black woman leader, transformational leadership's emphasis on leaders embodying

humble yet influential and bold leadership traits and goals has aided me in transcending

organizational racist and sexist limitations designed to relegate my voice, influence, and

leadership style. Of the three leadership theories discussed in this essay, transformational

leadership is the one that allows all parts of me to show up fully in my leadership. Nevertheless,

as I noted in the previous paragraph, it must be deployed carefully. To guard against the

problematic traits associated with leadership in this theory, I regularly ask my mentors to hold

my leadership accountable, and I frequently seek public and anonymous feedback from the staff

and students I lead. Because of these self-imposed checks and balances, I feel free to actively

encourage those I lead to act toward potentialities beyond their personal limitations and

collectively achieve our office goals. Finally, I strive to balance my transformational leadership

style with my servant and relational leadership approaches to focus on how best to be of service

and manage my professional relationships in the most fruitful way.

Conclusion

As a Christian, Black, female leader, the confluence of these three leadership theories

best allows my unique voice to be heard. I am empathic. I am goal-oriented. And I am a

motivator. These theories provide a roadmap for a comprehensive leadership style that

emphasizes the Christian prioritization of serving others. This spiritual investment in leading and
 10

helping others requires my commitment to service, continued personal leadership development,

and a vision for greater possibilities.

 11

References

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics.

Bass, B.M. (1990a). Bass & Stodgill's Handbook of Leadership. Theory, Research and

Managerial Applications (3rd ed.). The Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational

leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(99)00016-8

Biberman, J., & Whitty, M. (1997). A postmodern spiritual future for work. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 10(2), 130–138.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09534819710160790

Bouchard, J. (2021). A Pragmatic Approach: Using Transactional Leadership to Effect

Transformational Change. Academia Letters. Published. https://doi.org/10.20935/al1807

Burns; J. M. (2021). Leadership by James MacGregor Burns (1978–01-01). Harper Torchbooks;

1st edition (1978–01-01).

Cable, D. (2018, April 30). How Humble Leadership Really Works. Harvard Business Review.

https://hbr.org/2018/04/how-humble-leadership-really-works

Downton, J. V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in the revolutionary

process. Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Rebel-Leadership-Commitment-Charisma-

Revolutionary/dp/0029075602.

Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and

transformational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 647–661.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.07.004
 12

Frick, D. M., & Spears, L. C. (1996). On Becoming a Servant Leader: The Private Writings of

Robert K. Greenleaf (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Gregory Stone, A., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant

leadership: a difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 25(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730410538671

He, L. (2013, April 1). Google's Secrets Of Innovation: Empowering Its Employees. Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurahe/2013/03/29/googles-secrets-of-innovation-

empowering-its-employees/?sh=5c6a16e557e7

Hogg, M. A. (2001). A Social Identity Theory of Leadership. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 5(3), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0503_1

Hogg, M. A., Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Mankad, A., Svensson, A., & Weeden, K. (2005).

Effective Leadership in Salient Groups: Revisiting Leader-Member Exchange Theory

From the Perspective of the Social Identity Theory of Leadership. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 31(7), 991–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204273098

Hollander, E. P. (1995). Ethical Challenges in the Leader-Follower Relationship. Business Ethics

Quarterly, 5(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857272

Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership

processes. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027347

Jackson, M. (2021). Transformational Leadership. Academia Letters. Published.

https://doi.org/10.20935/al2745

Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership

Quarterly, 12(4), 389–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(01)00092-3

 13

Matthew 20:16 (NIV). (2011). Bible Gateway.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+20%3A16&version=NIV

Matthew 22:39 (NIV). (2011). Bible Gateway.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A39&version=NIV

Nair, K. (1996). A Higher Standard of Leadership: Lessons from the Life of Gandhi (First

Paperback ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Percy, S. (2020, July 15). How Servant Leaders Boost Profits And Employee Morale. Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypercy/2020/07/15/how-servant-leaders-boost-profits-

and-employee-morale/?sh=6b8fdc2b4b05

Russell, R. F., & Gregory Stone, A. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: developing

a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 145–157.

https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730210424

Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant Leadership: Its Origin, Development, and

Application in Organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(2), 57–

64. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900205

Smith, C. (2005, December 4).Servant Leadership: The Leadership Theory of Robert K.

Greenleaf. Boyden Media. https://www.boyden.com/media/just-what-the-doctor-ordered-

15763495/Leadership%20%20Theory_Greenleaf%20Servant%20Leadership.pdf

Spears, L. (1996). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant‐leadership. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 17(7), 33–35.

https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739610148367
 14

Tait, B. (2020, March 11). Council post: Traditional leadership vs. servant leadership. Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2020/03/11/traditional-leadership-vs-

servant-leadership/?sh=221709d6451e.

White, L., Currie, G., & Lockett, A. (2016). Pluralized leadership in complex organizations:

Exploring the cross network effects between formal and informal leadership relations.

The Leadership Quarterly, 27(2), 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.004

15
16