SOCCLEAD 703 Assignment 3 Chathumi Lelwala

Introduction

Greenleaf (1978) in their seminal literature discussing the urgent need for a leadership
model gounded in ensuring an ethical impact of their actions to the community they are to
serve, coined “Servant Leadership” (SL). While many agree that leadership is often gounded
in values (Doyle et al, 2020), Greenleaf envisioned Servant Leaders to encompass the ability
to set aside personal ego with remarkable cultural competency so as to best serve
communities according to their specific needs, as a defining feature Meyer et al (2003). In
this literature review I wanted to explore whether the SL model, particularly in the context
of indigenous leadership may help mitigate the inequitable health outcomes in Aoteroa,
New Zealand (Brown and Bryder, 2021) that still persists to this day. This is seen to be an
indirect result ensued from the dispoession of Māori land from early colonial settlers,
driving poor housing, an important health determinants such as housing. For Māori,
Rangatira (Leaders) are informed by their Mātaurnaga Māori (Māori Knowledge systems),
Whakapapa (ancestral knowledge) and Tikanaga (Māori Values) (Woflgramm & Henry, 2018;
Were 2021). Understanding leadership models and its efficiacy paves way to better
educational competencies instilled in health care professionals (Doyle et al, 2020) that
would in turn empowers the promotion of kaupapa (intiatives) to better serve the tanagata
whenua (first peoples).

Review of Literature and Discuss

In response to the disproprotionate health outcomes in Māori (Panesar et al, 2021; Brown
and Bryder, 2022; Came and Griffith, 2007) the Ministry of Health in Aoteroa (New Zealand)
proposed a Māori Health Action plan that highights the need for Māori leadership and
governance to achieve improved health outcomes, with a keen focus on shifting cultural
norms, ensuring accountability and reducing inequity. As such, they disbanded the 20
District Health Boards (DHBs) which were implemented Te Whatu Ora (Health) and Te Aka
Whai Ora (Authority) tasked with incorperating inclusive health policies that is informed by
Mātauranga Māori which as Pensar et al (2021) supports is “paramount in undoing effects of
colonisation”. I believe this is particularly true in addressing wicked problems - where the
narrative of the constructing the “problem” (Grffith, 2005) can be doctored to favour leader’
agenda. An example may be the “obesity as an epidemic” as Robyn Toomath (2022)
discussed how terminology such as “fat” can often be can give rise to stigma within
healthcare. With eurocentric metrics such as Body Mass Index (BMI) failing to account for
epigenetics of other gene pools, there is an urgent need for more research, kaupapa driven
through Māori leadership that focuses on serving Māori communities appropriately. One
such example demonstrating the success of adopting Haura Māori (hollistic wellbeing) can
be seen in the Kaupapa undertaken by government body Accident Compensation
Corporation (ACC) to increase access to Rongoā Māori (“Rongoā Māori services”, 2022).

Brown and Bryer (2018) in critically evaluting 1975 – 2000 Universal Health Care model
underlined how in favouring Pākeha health needs, Māori and Pasifika are disenfranchised
and marginalsed by this model. Thus they conclude that “equality of of access did not mean
equality of outcome”. In brief wānanga with friends and family working in the DHBs, they
both recalled the unified DHB in the 80s and how as if through full circle, the new kaupapa
Whatu Ora feels similar. Given enough time has yet to pass to form an informed conclusion
SOCCLEAD 703 Assignment 3 Chathumi Lelwala

on Whatu Ora, most agreed that there has yet been little apparent changes thus far.
Whether the increased access in this new kaupapa would meaningfully increase better
health outcomes is more likely to be driven by adressing and promoting dialogue of the
specifc needs of Māori.

Along with servant leadership, Panesar et al asserts that there can often be elements of
collective leadership incorperated whereby leaders act as moderators than “heroes”. The
traditional medical profession governance Brown and Bryder (2021) states favours a top
down hegemonic approach to leadership that is not condusive to Utu (reciprocacy) and
Manaakitanga (nurturing relationships) and thus disenfranchised Hauroa Māori (Holistic
Health). The reciprocical nature of SL can therefore allow for more Māori self-
deterimination (Brown and Bryer, 2018) which Woflgramm and Henry (2018) reported to be
an integral component to enacting Māori leadership. Unlike neighboruing Australia, Aoteroa
to our credit exercises the need to remove barriers to higher education for Māori and
Pasifika to which I can attest to first hand, through my current role as admissions advisor at
the University of Auckland. Thus, Katene (2010) infers that contemproary Māori leaders are
often tertiary educated with strong network in the political sphere and the ability to
influence others. Given that University is a space of collobrative learning, Doyle et al (2020)
argues the need for Inclusive Praxis in training future Health professionals, equipped to
address and tackle deeply entrenched wicked problems such as instituionalised racism
(Came and Griffith, 2007).

Mayer et al (2003) recognises that there overlapping many aspects of SL with other
Transformational and Relative Leadership models, however the SL model uniquely assess
the needs of those being served by Leaders to be the first and most important priority. With
whakawhanaungatanga (building relationships) and humour (Holmes,2007; Woflgramm &
Henry, 2018; Ruru, 2016) being core components of Māori leadership, I believe it is
culturally harmonious with SL. Holmes (2007) speaks of self-deprecation being the Māori
way, from emperical interview findings of professionals in Māori workplace Kiwi Production.
The ability to be self-critical therefore, is seen as an important characteristic of a Māori
leaders, enabling for better reciprocracy and collobration. Furthermore, there was notable
differences Homles highlighted such as the silence during Hui (meetings) being the indicator
of attentivness in Pākeha (people of European decent) dominant organisations, whereas a
consistent buzz of murmour in Māori workplace Hui conveys collobrative and creative
engagement. While the relational and empathetic nature of SL is widely studied in
organisational applications that supports it’s ability to increase job individual job satification
(Shwartz et al 2002; Wong and Page, 2003), SL can have far reaching impact on community
services (Came and Griffith, 2007; Shwarts and Tumblin, 2002; Brown and Bryder, 2021;
Mayer et al. 2008; Woflgramm & Henry, 2018; Koea, 2022), as Koea (2022) observed more
recently required to improve COVID-19 vaccination rates in Māori.

In this regard, if a Rangatira are seen as individuals achieving personal success, humility
paves way to “tall poppy syndrome” that Doyle et al (2020) noted to be seen in indigenous
communities in Australia, lending to contention of SL. While this was seldom noted in Māori
leaders given that the empowerment against the opression and deprevasion of colonisation
was a collective goal of Rangatira (Katene, 2008), this remains a common concern for
SOCCLEAD 703 Assignment 3 Chathumi Lelwala

leaders (Wong and Page, 2003). The term SL in itself carries some dissonance as Wong and
Page (2003) noted leaders have questioned the seeming “oxymoron that one can be a
humble servant and at the same time wield a big stick”. Leaders who wish to yield power
may in their insecuirty exercise an authoritative command leadership model (Wong and
Page, 2003; Griffith, 2007) which in turns loses their capcity to influence others, leaving little
room for creative colloboration which in turn can foster corruption (Hale et al, 2007).

Conclusion

With ongoing War across the globe, corruption, poltical unrests and the resulting desents
from the exasperate civillians who now, coupled with utilising the internet as a vehicle of
knowledge demand accountability from their leaders. This shift I believe can be primarily
attributed to shedding the notion of idolising leaders as “heros” (Panesar et al, 2021)
whereby the ethical and colloborative nature of SL may well be a pre-requisite to eliviate
corruption. I believe that given the large scale impact of colonisation, servant leaders are a
necessity, now more than ever in order to shift hegemonic narrative that has exsited to
drive disparity among indigenous people in health and otherwise. Moreover, while the
application of SL against other cultures is not something I can conlusivley confirm to be
affective (Hale et al, 2007), I gained much affirmative appreciation for the disposition with
which Māori leadership exude aspects of SL. Even as prime of a nation to undo its impacts as
Aoteora (Panesar et al, 2021; Brown and Bryder 2021) have demonstrated, the changes
driven by equitable and ethical leadership takes decades if not longer at a time. Therefore
there is a strong argument to be made that the required cultural competences must be an
integral component of all those who serve the community; from inception of professionals’
and future Rangatira training and education. Permeating the voices of the marginalised is
fundamental in the way forward to nurturing a civilisation that is equitable and acommoding
to all. In my aspirations to become a Social Worker, I believe the embracing Servant
Leadership would be pivotal to ensure proper care for largely vulnerable communities I
expect to regularly encounter as my responsibility to serve.