Moral character and virtue play a significant role in leadership. Current research is growing more and more convinced of the vital role that spirituality and ethics play in leadership. One theory that gives more attention to this than most any other is servant leadership1. Servant leadership comes from moral love (agape) and is expressed in selfless service to others. Servant leadership is rooted in a leadership theory known as transformational leadership2. Transformational leaders:
- Stimulate followers to view their work from new perspectives
- Create enthusiasm for and awareness of the organization’s mission and goals
- Encourage and facilitate followers to develop to higher levels of ability and potential
- Motivate followers to look past their own interests to those of the group
To do this, transformational leaders model the way, focus on individual relationships and the needs of each individual, encourage and inspire, create opportunities to learn and grow, and earn respect by participating in risk-taking and serving others. The “transformation” dimension of this view is that leaders help followers become something greater than they would have otherwise been. The organization and its members are “transformed” into a highly productive, cohesive unit.
Ironically, very little of the transformational dimension of this theory relates to the leader. It is obvious that all these things must be true in the leader in order for him to aid in the transformation of the organization, but how does the leader get to this place to begin with? What evidence suggests that a leader can be a model, serve others, or wield power in the right way? In the face of so many historical and contemporary examples of leaders who behave just the opposite, no matter the stated intent, how can we think transformational or servant leadership is even a possibility?
Christian theology contends that human nature is inherently self-interested and operates contrary to the virtues of love and other-interest. Can imperfect, self-interested leaders become moral, other-interested leaders? How do we account for the fact that some leaders are morally good and others are not? How is good character developed? How do we account for changes in moral character? This dilemma of self-interested human nature attempting to lead through moral love can only be adequately resolved through the experience of divine transformation.
Unfortunately, in much of the leadership material, both Christian and secular, the link between moral character as a necessary ideal and moral character as an actualized reality is virtually nonexistent. Contemporary discussions of servant leadership need to account for how divine transformation enables, deepens, and superintends the process of servant leadership in both leaders and followers. The Wesleyan understanding of holiness as the divine transformation of a person’s heart in love and service to others and God speaks directly to what many see as a leadership crisis in today’s world and churches.
———
1 – Robert Greenleaf first talked about Servant Leadership in the late 1970s. Numerous theories and researchers have built on it of late, two of the most notable being Bruce Winston and Kathleen Patterson, who have introduced distinctly moral categories into the theory.
2 – Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio are the two primary researchers who developed Transformational Leadership.