In an earlier blog article entitled “Servant Leadership: Hired Hands or Hired Hearts” we began the exploration of the subject of servant leadership. We refer you to the article (scroll down to view earlier blog article) referencing Dr. Kathleen Patterson, Regent University, and her audio lesson on servant leadership. Particularly striking was her statement of viewing people more as “hired hearts” than “hired hands.” From that audio lesson, we began to explore the subject of servant leadership and this article will only continue this theme’s development. This article will include thoughts and comments of a scholarly nature, as well as a practical application example of servant leadership lived out in a business context.

James C. Sarros, (Servant Leadership, Its origin, development, and application in organizations, 2002), makes an interesting observation that “One reason for the scarcity of research on servant leadership is that the very notion of ‘servant as leader’ is an oxymoron,” (p.1). Sarros states, “It may be difficult to think and act both as leader and servant at the same time – a leader who serves and a servant who leads,” (p.1). Certainly, over the past eight years more articles, scholarly papers, and books written on the subject of servant leadership have made their to printed form. However, there still may exist in the minds of some that the words “servant” and “leader” are incompatible relative to leadership.

Perhaps part of the issue is we fail to distinguish between the word “servant” and the term “subservient.” Webster’s Dictionary (9th Ed., 1987) defines the word servant (noun) as the following:

One who serves others; especially, one that performs duties about the person or home of a master or personal employer, (p.1075).

Webster’s provides the following definition of the word subservient (adj.):

Serving to promote some end. Useful in an inferior capacity (p.1176).

Webster’s also provides the following definition of subserviently (adv.) and its synonyms subservient, servile, slavish, and obsequious:

As to mean showing or characterized by extreme compliance or abject obedience. SUBSERVIENT implies the cringing manner of one very conscious of a subordinate position (domestic help was expected to be properly subservient> SERVILE suggests the mean or fawning behavior of a slave<a political boss and his entourage of servile hangers-0n>SLAVISH suggest abject or debased servility<the slavish status of migrant farm workers>OBSEQUIOUS implies fawning or sycophantic compliance and exaggerated deference of manner (p.1176).

In examining the word definitions here closely, we note that it is indeed quite possible to be a servant leader, yet without being subservient in our demeanor, thus the term servant leader is NOT an oxymoronic term. The key here is not to allow our demeanor, our character, and personality to denote/exemplify an attitude of subservience in modeling the servant leader style or model.

Where Did the Term “Servant Leader” Come From, and What Does it Embody?

From the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, we learn that Robert K. Greenleaf first coined the phrase “Servant Leadership” in his book (The Servant Leader, 1970). This site quotes Greenleaf as saying in his book:

The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first; perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them, there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature.

Still quoting from Greenleaf’s book:

The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?

There are two points/concerns in the last paragraph that we will address, albeit simplistically for the sake of this article, and the first point deals with Greenleaf’s emphasis on “other people’s highest priority needs being served.” Dr. Bruce Winston, Ph.D., serves as both Associate Professor and Associate Dean at Regent University’s School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, and is both a friend and professional colleague of the aforementioned Dr. Kathleen Patterson. In his, book “Be A Leader for God’s Sake,” Dr. Winston proposes the Agapao Leadership Model.

He states that there are four Greek words for “love” used in the New Testament. The Greek word “agapao” means to love in a social or moral sense, embracing the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty, and propriety, (Matt. 5:44, 46; 6:24; 19:19; Mark 12:30-31, 33; Luke 6:27, 32, 35; 16:13; John 8:32; 11:3; 13:34; 14:15, 21, 23-24, 31). Dr. Winston goes on to comment, “Agapao, as a moral love, means that today’s leaders must consider the human and spiritual aspects of their employees/followers,” (2002, pp. 4-8). In fulfilling and implementing the Agapao Leadership Model, one will find themselves leading/serving from/with a servant’s heart. This book contains wonderful examples of the Agapao Leadership Model being implemented in the workplace, and is recommended as a must reader for anyone in a leadership/management capacity.

Authors (Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005) in their research paper “Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument” cite Dr. Patterson’s following definition of servant leadership:

Servant leaders are those who serve with a focus on the followers, whereby the followers are the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral. The servant leader constructs are virtues, which are defined as the good moral quality in a person, or the general quality of goodness, or moral excellence.

Dennis and Bocarnea continue to quote Patterson (2003) who states that the servant leader leads and serves with and exemplifies:

(1) Agapao love;
(2) Acts with humility;
(3) Is altruistic;
(4) Is visionary for the followers;
(5) Is trusting;
(6) Is serving; and
(7) Empowers followers (pp.600-615).

Conner Grooms (Perspectives on Servant Leadership, 2010), a Servant Leadership intern states:

There is a small faction moving toward a new type of leadership that is grounded in the ancient teaching of the servant leader model. This is based on the concept of serving for the sake of others. It is a community concept that empowers individuals towards a culture shift that rejects the authoritarian “power over” forms and fosters “power with” leadership.

Grooms also notes:

Christ, Buddha, Gandhi, and Moses are the four figures most well-known as quintessential Servant Leaders, but most of the great leaders of history have embodied some, if not all, of the principles of Servant Leadership, for these ideas are eternal and unchanging, based on the laws of life itself. Spiritual leadership is a way of living and being. The vehicles by which we learn it can be philosophical, intellectual, spiritual, and religious. Perhaps best of all, we learn Servant Leadership from the good example of others who are practicing it.

To Grooms list of the quintessential examples of servant leaders, we would add Mother Teresa.

Sarros (2002) states/cites:

Servant leaders view themselves as the servant first, as distinguished from leaders first “who later serves out of promptings of conscience or in conformity with normative expectations” (Greenleaf, 1977:14). Viewed this way, servant leaders are natural servants (Fading, Stone & Winston, 1999; Greenleaf 1977). To recapitulate, servant leadership is not only about ‘doing’ the acts of service but also ‘being’ a servant. It logically implies, therefore, that the leader-follower relationship is that of a client-server, not supervisor- subordinate or master-slave relationship (p.5).

The second point/concern Simon Greenleaf made in the quote above posited the question of what effect does the concept of servant leadership on the least privileged in society, and will the “least privileged,” the lower socioeconomic class of people benefit or become further deprived because of buying into the concept of servant leadership. Greenleaf’s second point/concern cannot be fully answered within the context of this paper relative to the least privileged of society becoming further deprived because of buying into the concept of servant leadership. However, here is an interesting finding/caveat relative to this issue.

In authors (McCuddy & Cavin) paper (The Demographic Context of Servant Leadership, 2009), they share their findings relative to their servant leadership hypothesis’s utilizing the Levene Test, the Tamhane T2 Test, and its results analyzed with the ANOVA (Oneway Analysis of Variance) statistical procedure.

Their findings indicate:

The propensity to exhibit servant leader behaviors is stronger in the middle socioeconomic status group than in the upper socioeconomic status group. Further, neither of these two groups is significantly different from the lower socioeconomic status group. Thus, there is partial support for research hypothesis that propensity to exhibit servant leadership is more prevalent among individuals of moderate socioeconomic status than among people of higher economic status but not significantly different from those of lower socioeconomic status (pp.7-9).

They also cite the Bonferroni Test which indicates that individuals holding a masters degree exhibit servant leadership significantly more frequently than those having less than a baccalaureate degree. In their findings, they also state that the propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will not differ between women and men (p.7).

McCuddy and Cavin state in conclusion that the results of their study indicate the following:

The first research indicates that the propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will be more prevalent among individuals of moderate socioeconomic status than among people of either lower or higher socioeconomic status. Indeed, the propensity toward servant leadership is strongest among those of moderate socioeconomic status, yet this propensity is statistically equivalent to the lower socioeconomic status group while being significantly stronger than the higher socioeconomic status group. This finding suggests that very affluent people are less inclined to engage in servant leadership than are those who are less well off. Perhaps the pursuit of high socioeconomic status diminishes the desire to serve others. Perhaps achieving such status is rendered difficult in one engages in servant leadership (p.9).

What is interesting in reading their findings is that their research posits that:

The propensity to exhibit servant leadership behaviors will be more prevalent among people residing in rural areas or in urban centers than among people residing towns or suburban areas. Their results show that the residents of urban centers exhibit servant leadership behaviors more so than do residents of towns or suburban areas. The reason for this finding may be that smaller communities, such as towns or suburban areas, present fewer opportunities to engage in servant leadership than do large urban centers (p.9). View their complete article for their hypothesis’s and findings.

In many respects the concern of Simon Greenleaf is yet to be answered completely both in McCuddy & Cavin’s findings and in this paper, yet we are encouraged by these findings here indicating that there is a not a large disparity between the middle and lower socioeconomic classes relative to becoming servant leaders. To better answer Greenleaf’s concerns, one hopes additional studies on this subject are forthcoming.

We have examined the beginnings of the term “servant leadership” and in a small way what servant leadership embodies, as well as findings relative to socioeconomic classes of people’s involvement in servant leadership. Perhaps the best way to conclude this article, further developing the concept of what servant leadership is all about, is to give a real life example from the modern business world. A summary of the Broetje enterprise history follows with a direct link to their website provided for the reader following the article summation.

Ralph and Cheryl Broetje are owners of First Fruits of Washington, a 5,700 acre primarily apple enterprise in Washington state. During harvest, 900 temporary employees join about 900 year round employees. Both Ralph and Cheryl are Christ followers who not only chose a biblical concept for their brand, but also apply biblical principles of servant leadership to their business operations.

The Broetje’ philosophy of servant leadership means putting people first, connecting their business goals and spiritual values. The owners state that servant leadership means leading by serving, with Jesus as the prototype. “It means that we serve our employees needs, so they will do their best, reach their dreams, live in community and find meaning in life,” said Cheryl. “Communities, in which people respect each other, listen and have compassion, make life richer.”

“We are a team on the farm. Everyone has a role. Everyone is important. No one is better,” Cheryl said. She goes on to say, “Too often, a business in the corporate sector, where the power and the money is, keeps their business and ministry separate.”

Cheryl has taught servant leadership in such places as Kenya, Mexico, India, the Philippines, and other countries through the Center for Sharing, a nonprofit she formed to help people discover their calling and create programs.

Broetje Orchards provides Hispanic workers in their orchards and packing plant with year-round jobs, affordable housing, child-care, a school, and scholarships. The community they developed in Prescott, called Vista Hermosa, meaning “beautiful view,” includes 125 affordable rental homes and apartment housing where about 22% of the employees and their families live in a community of 600 people.

In 1990, Ralph and Cheryl formed Vista Hermosa Foundation to distribute about 75% of their profits to local, domestic, and international programs. The fund Vista Hermosa’s child-care center for up to 90 children of employees; a Christian elementary school, a summer educational camp for grade school children, and scholarships for first-generation, low-income college students.

The international grants go for hunger alleviation, economic empowerment, education, leadership development and migration programs, such as the Catholic Relief Services/Mexico farmer’s project. When they decide to fund an international project, the Broetje’s do more than write checks, for example, Cheryl volunteered at Mother Teresa’s House of the Dying. To view this article and to learn more of the Broetje’s background and accomplishments, go to http://www.broetjeorchards.com/index.cfm?pageId=1709F9FE-B062-

References

Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal. Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 600-615. Retrieved August 13, 2010 from http://0-www.emeraldinsight.com.library.regent.edu

Grooms, C. (2010). Perspectives on Servant Leadership. Building Servant Leaders to Transform Organizations Blog site. Retrieved August 13, 2010 from http://www.forthesakeofothers.com/servant-leadershp/perspectives-on

Jones, L. (n.d.). What is Servant Leadership? Retrieved August 13, 2010 from http://www.greenleaf.org/whatissl/

McCuddy, M. K., & Cavin, M. C. (2009). The Demographic Context of Servant Leadership. Journal of Academy of Business and Economics. Retrieved August 13, 2010 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/20785832/The-Demographic-Context-of-Servant-Leadership

Mish, F. C. (Eds.). (1987). Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield: Merriam-Webster Inc.

Sarros, J. C. (2002). Servant leadership: its origin, development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership & OrganizationalStudies. Retrieved August 13, 2010 from http://www.allbusiness.com/buying_existing_businesses/3503533-1.html

Winston, B. (2002). Be A Leader for God’s Sake. Virginia Beach, VA: School of Leadership Studies. Regent University.

• Where you sit matters in the office or boardroom. When you find yourself seated in a circle, try sitting across from the leader for good eye contact. If you are in a theatre seating arrangement, chose the second row.
• How you gesture matters. From learning how simple body positioning and hand gestures communicate both positive and negative connotations to the people in your group. [Be especially careful when group members include those from different countries and cultures from around the world.]
• How and when you speak matters. Be careful not to speak in an overly dramatic or emotional manner. Know when to use “I” and “we” appropriately in the course of speaking. [Know what appropriate praise/commendation in different cultures is where we praise the group collectively versus singling out one individual within the group.]
• Keeping personal boundaries matters. Know your role in the group. Have your personal boundaries and at the same time be respectful of others. [Do not invade another person’s personal space but be aware that personal space varies from one culture to another.]
• Being prepared matters. Here are the author’s tips for bringing items to the table for consideration.

Attempt as much as possible to seek input from everyone affected by the change/proposal you are presenting. Get advice from others beforehand who may have experience or a level of expertise relative to your proposal. Try not to sound critical, judgmental, or attacking in your presentation/proposal. Come prepared (2008, pp. 169-179).

While just scratching the surface of these five strategies within the context of this article, this subject area of leading with our bodies, not just our voice and decisions, may go unnoticed in our personal development if we are not careful, leaving us with a leadership deficit. The issue of personal space, how we use and abuse it is important and our author deals with this subject from the perspective of a female with a Ph.D., while operating in a predominantly male leadership society. It is an insightful book for both men and women to read as we seek to enhance our leadership knowledge and expertise.

MaryKate closes her book with this final thought, “I honestly believe that learning how to use power is a core competency, second only to an authentic walk with God that will have a catalytic impact on how we lead” (p. 206).

What was striking in her talk was the fact that as leaders, if I/we are not careful I/we will look at those who work for us, under us, or around us, more as hired hands than as hired hearts. What about those of us in leadership who are responsible for leading volunteers who give graciously of their time and talent, many times with no recognizable or tangible compensation? Do we view them in the same way as we do the person gainfully employed underneath our supervision, a hired hand instead of a “volunteered heart?”

Dr. Patterson has made an excellent observation for those of us in leadership to consider. Perhaps it goes back to the Golden Rule found in Matthew 7:12, “So in everything, do to others what you would have done to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (TNIV).

One of the most beautiful, thought provoking, and striking biblical passages is in John 15:12-18. In this passage, Jesus is speaking to his circle of closest friends, his disciples, there in the Upper Room shortly before his betrayal in the Garden of Gethsemane by Judas Iscariot. Let us join this conversation and listen as Jesus says:

My command is this: Love each other as I have you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friend. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because servants do not know their master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatsoever you ask in my name the Father will give you. This is my command: Love each other, (TNIV).

Scott Wilson is the Senior Pastor of The Oaks Fellowship in Dallas, Texas. Oaks Fellowship is a multi-site church that Scott became the pastor of in 2002. He is also the CEO and founder of Scott Wilson Consulting, which is an organization designed to equip leaders in the church as well as in the marketplace. I am currently reading his book the Next Level (2009, Baxter Press) a message of hope for hard times which is a thirty-one day journey for a person’s continued spiritual growth supplementing my own daily time alone with God in the Bible.

A few days ago in my quiet time reading Scott’s chapter on Naaman: The Humility Test, he discusses the dilemma that Naaman faced when he when to Elisha’s house to be healed of leprosy. Instead of being met by the prophet of Israel, the prophet’s servant came out to greet him and to give him Elisha’s instructions for healing. Enraged, his first thoughts were to disregard Elisha’s commands. However, thanks to his brave servant’s suggestions, he decided to be obedient to the commands, and as a result, he was healed. Isn’t it interesting that Naaman, a general in the Syrian army, had to be willing to listen to his own servants encouraging him to listen and obey the directives of Elisha through his servant in order for him to arrive at his desired state that of being cleansed and healed of leprosy?

Had Naaman not been willing to listen to his servants, had he viewed them as hired hands instead of hired hearts, he would have died of leprosy. Had his servants not felt comfortable approaching Naaman and challenging him to swallow his pride and follow the directions of Elisha’s servant, he would have died of his leprosy. Instead, a win/win resulted in this story.

Scott goes on in this lesson to remind us “as leaders managing people that we must remember that while we hold them accountable to performance standards, they are not robots.” They are human beings who are doing life while working at their place of employment for a portion of their day. Some people come to work at times hurting, suffering, hopeful, and anxious. As their leader and especially from a Christian perspective, is it not our responsibility to be cognizant and sensitive to these people?

I know, I know, we all believe people need to leave their baggage at home when they come to work and not let what is going on in their lives affect their productivity. However, let us be real here, isn’t this an unrealistic expectation? As leaders, do we ever let what is going on in our after work private lives affect our own job performance? Is there a double standard with unrealistic expectations that cause us in the process to view our workforce, our volunteers, our staff, or church members, yes I said church members, “more as hired hands instead of hired or volunteered hearts?” If we are honest, transparent, the answer is yes, yes, and yes!

In the section that was part of today’s quiet time, Scott repeatedly encourages those of us in leadership positions to remain humble, to stoop, and to serve. The Apostle Paul wrote in Philippians 2:3-11:

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with another, have the same attitude of mind Christ Jesus had, Who, being in the very nature of God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a human being, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, (TNIV).

So what can we take away from Scott’s observations, our scripture passages, making sure to implement these observations into our current leadership/management style? Here are some thoughts from these passages, and I am sure you will be able to add many more to this list.

• Treat everyone with dignity and respect, just as you would want to be treated.• Realize that the world does not revolve around you or me and as much as is possible, put others needs first. Try to view the world from their perspective, not just ours.
• View those who work for or volunteer within our organization as friends, because it immediately elevates their self worth reminding us to see them as “hired or volunteered hearts” instead of “hired hands.”
• When we treat others with dignity, respect, as friends, then productivity (fruit) will increase because an environment has been created that fosters good will, and teamwork, thus enabling our organization to be successful. A win/win scenario is realized for management and workers, staff and laity.

Again, if you and I as leaders of our organization, company, or church fail to have a teachable spirit, over time a contentious spirit will begin to emerge that will not be conducive to productivity or much fruit being produced for our companies, churches or the kingdoms sake. Don’t you agree that Dr. Patterson has raised a valid point in observing that those of us in leadership need to view people as hired hearts instead of hired hands? Your comments and insights here will be greatly appreciated.

In John Burke’s “No Perfect People Allowed” (Zondervan, 2006), he devotes two chapters to the two “Tolerance Litmus Tests” that in his opinion are critically facing the 21st Century church. Since we are living in a postmodern and post Christian world, as a pastor/staff member/lay leader/person in the church, how do you respond to the following litmus tests as given to us by John in his book “No Perfect People Allowed”?

Litmus Test – Q1 – What about Other Religions?

• Don’t all religions say the same thing?
• To say there is only one way, isn’t this just religious pride and arrogance?

Litmus Test – Q2 – How do you feel about gays?

• Should the church open its doors to gays?
• Is being gay a sin?
• Is there an alternative alternative-lifestyle?

To intelligently and to articulately answer these questions one should first consider reading “No Perfect People Allowed”, as to get a sense of where the author is coming from and then answer appropriately to what you have read. We all have our opinions on this subject, yet we desire the answers/responses to be within the context of how these issues were presented to us in the book itself.

When dealing with Litmus Test Q2, and to further our understanding on this issue, please consider reading a book by Andrew Marin,”Love Is an Orientation – Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community”  (IVP, 2009), with a forward by Brian McLaren. In his book, Marin describes how he is “A straight, white, conservative, Bible-believing, evangelical male”, and was raised in a Christian home in a conservative suburb of Chicago and grew up in a large evangelical church. He wanted nothing to do with the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and trans-gender (GLBT) community, (p.16). After graduating high school, he enrolled in a university and during his time there, three of his closest friends from high school informed him that they were gay/lesbian within a couple of months of each other.

As Marin points out in his book, this both changed his world and challenged his perspective where his friends were concerned, and ultimately the GLBT community. Today, Andrew Marin and his wife live in Boystown, a predominately GLBT neighborhood in Chicago. His organization, The Marin Foundation, is conducting the largest-ever research study on religion in the gay community.

This is a great book to read for those in church leadership positions; those who are in or who are considering church planting. For those who do not consider themselves Christian but are interested in becoming a better leader, this book will still be of value to you and I would encourage you to read it. I will warn you ahead of time that if you are a control freak, suffer from poor or low self esteem and use your position or education in an attempt to cover this up; this concept of reverse mentoring will be a difficult one for you to implement successfully into your daily leadership or management style.

In many ways I am reminded of the concept taught in International Evangelism Association’s “Basic Christian Discipleship” material (Billy Beacham, 1982), that if we do not have a teachable spirit (a desire to learn), we are of little use to God or man. So it is with the concept of reverse mentoring. In Creps book “Reverse Mentoring”, Creps “Takes up the topic of how older ministry leaders can learn from younger peers (Christian and non-Christian alike) who are in closer touch with today’s culture, technology, and social climate. Throughout the book, Creps reveals the practical benefits of reverse mentoring and offers down-to-earth steps (through his experiences) for implementing it at the personal and the organizational level.”

In his book “Reverse Mentoring”, Creps “Offers a guide for leaders who want to experience personal formation by exercising the kind of humility that invites a younger person to become a tutor. The book invites older leaders to face uncomfortable truths—‘I am not cool’—in order for them to cultivate spiritual growth and ministry effectiveness. It also includes insight into the kind of spirituality from which reverse mentoring draws its strength and which distinguishes it from just another value-added business tactic. “

“Earl Creps details specific benefits of reverse mentoring in areas such as evangelism, communication, and leadership, clearly showing how to develop healthy reverse mentoring relationships that will garner positive results. “Reverse Mentoring” is a model for church leaders (secular as well) who understand the importance of learning from younger people to prevent functional obsolescence and to transform their leadership and mission,” (2008, inside cover flap).

Currently I am serving as an AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) tutor at Moyock Middle School in the Currituck, North Carolina school system. I (along with my fellow tutors) are in the classrooms on Monday-Thursday afternoons on a weekly basis, assisting in the 6-8th grade classrooms. Both classes have excellent and committed teachers, and great students making it an enjoyable experience.

However, I am not alone in these classrooms. One of my AVID tutorial partners is Amy who has recently graduated from Old Dominion University with her undergraduate degree in elementary teaching- K-6. Amy is currently working on her Master’s degree in teaching, subbing, working as a server, and God knows what else as well as being an AVID tutor. Amy is in her early twenties: attractive, intelligent, polite, poised, professional, industrious, and a delight to work with in the classroom. Thankfully, Amy is great in math and science, as I am so seriously not so, and so she makes up for my deficits or lack of strengths when we break down into groups and work with the students. I stay pretty much in the area of Social Studies, Science, and English, and try to do minimal math for the sake of the kids.

Several weeks ago, I asked Amy if she was the familiar with the concept of reverse mentoring. When she said she was not, I shared with her briefly about Earl Creps’ book and the concept behind it, asking her to feel free and serve as a reverse mentor with me in the AVID program. Amy is heading into teaching and is going to be more in tune with these students needs and can help me stay on target as an AVID tutor. My graduate work’s focus was on Leadership Education for the adult learner, and Amy is much more in tune with the age of these students and their needs. I trust Amy because she is mature beyond her years with a great classroom presence and there is much I can learn just by observing and listening to her, as well as giving her the freedom to tutor/mentor me.

Those of us who are “old dudes” or younger people cannot allow our egos to get in the way if we consider ourselves life-long learners. I want the Amy’s of this world, those students I tutor in class, or coach in sports to teach me things that I do not know that are relevant to their being and our world. It can only happen when we build relationships with them, empowering them with the freedom to mentor us even when it gets hard, tricky, uncomfortable, and yes, even embarrassing for them and us. However, isn’t this what being a life-long learner is all about? This is what true friendships and relationships are based on, the transparency and the ability to talk honestly and openly about everything. We have so much to learn from those who are younger than us and in return as Creps points out in his book; they in turn need the wisdom, insight, and maturity that only comes with age and having “been around the block a few times” as they liked to say “back in the day.”

Let me encourage you to read one of the most important books I have read over the past several years as a Christian leader, minister, pastor, student, and challenge you to consider incorporating reverse mentoring into your lifestyle until it becomes a part of your DNA. Much learning can take place; many benefits gained, and lives changed, when we allow our egos to be checked at the door. Isn’t this what servant leadership is all about anyway? Please share your thoughts and experiences on the subject of reverse mentoring.

Here is Amy’s response to this article:

“I like how you SPECIFICALLY refer to the book by Earl Creps. This is an effective way to draw a reader’s attention into this website, while having the reader want to learn more! I also like how you referred to me and our experience with AVID. It is very important to add life experiences, opinions, and scenarios. Yet again, the detailed observations, which have occurred (and continue to occur), help to portray your overall picture of “Developing 21st Century Glocal Servant Leadership.” Not only have you incorporated aspects of your work life (AVID) and social life (Church and work), but you have integrated them into an advanced system, with the use of technology. By using technology (your website/Internet), this allows people to be more involved in their own learning and leadership processes, which in turn is always in a high demand. Finally, I liked how you discussed our conversation about ‘Reverse Mentoring,’ since I did not know what it was. Therefore, by you explaining and expanding on our conversation, it put the reader in our shoes and feel as if they know what the author (you) is talking about and/or explaining.

I honestly, do not have one bad thing to say about “Developing 21st Century Glocal Servant Leadership” and cannot wait to see the final product. In today’s world, we need more positive, upbeat leadership attributes, especially when it is easily researched with technology (your website). Leadership is a quality, which is never ending and we can all learn new and endearing aspects for our life.” – Amy E. Schools, AVID Co-Worker, 2009-Currently

James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner

The word glocal is a combination of the words local and global. Manfred Lange, credited with using the term glocal in late 1989, used it during preparations for the Global Change exhibition, and presented a poster on local and global change.  From “Global Talk”, a blog of Timothy Tennent, President of Asbury Theological Seminary, Dr. Tennant states, “The word glocal was first coined with a distinctively Christian application by Roland Robertson in 1995, but was quickly picked up and used by others. It reflects the need for pastoral practice to be both local and global all at the same time, http://blogs.asburyseminary.edu/global-talk/being-a-glocal-preacher .”

So why is developing 21st century glocal leadership so different from developing leadership in the 20th century? Two main differences we will suggest in this short article between these two centuries are:

A large majority of the 20th century, referred to as the Modern Age by historians and others, contained a larger segment of society in general holding to a Christian worldview. This is no longer the case in the 21st century.

Today we live in a Postmodern Age with a Post-Christian worldview. When did this transition take place? Ed Stetzer points out in his book “Planting Churches in a Postmodern Age” that “Some historians identify 1968 as the transition point from modernity to post-modernity.” John Burke in his book “No Perfect People Allowed, Chapter Two: Cynical and Jaded: Results of the Postmodern Experiment” deals with the postmodern experiment in some detail and places its beginning in the 1960’s as well. Burke’s book in this author’s opinion is a must read for any pastor or church leader today on many levels, and this chapter is particularly interesting in gaining some basic historical perspective on how we transitioned from a modern to postmodern age.

The explosion of the Internet in the 1990’s bringing our world closer than ever before through technological advancements in the computer allowing us to access worldwide information  doubling every two years at the click of a mouse, or the touch of keypad.

The explosion of the Internet in the 1990’s bringing our world closer than ever before through technological advancements in the computer allowing us to access worldwide information  doubling every two years at the click of a mouse, or the touch of keypad. No longer does the world revolve our little corner of it. We can cross borders of countries electronically and communicate, investigate, and learn at the speed of light about nations; peoples, customs, social, economic, and governmental systems using search engines such as Google. We do business around the world, pursue higher education, and build relationships through social networks all because of the development of personal computers and worldwide access to the Internet. We live in a global world and as a result today’s Christian leaders need to be actively engaged glocally on many different levels.

We should be aware that as the world shrinks from an information perspective our local world is beginning to become smaller as more and more people of different ethnic backgrounds are beginning to live and work in our small corner of the world. This exposes us to different cultures, social morays, and religions, and at the same time raises issues of how to co-exist together in a healthy and peaceful way while respecting and valuing our differences, and acknowledging our shared commonalities. We are truly becoming a nation, a state, a city, and community influenced by what is happening around the world internationally, in fact, all we have to do is track other countries and their economics and then watch how it affects our stock market to feel the impact on a personal and local level.

Because of finding ourselves living today in communities of diverse races and religions, it becomes imperative that as Christian leaders within this community, we begin to think glocally. What are the implications from a glocal perspective for the Christian who finds himself or herself in a leadership position in a company or organization? What glocal impact does this have for a Christian leader in the church, the marketplace, and home, as we integrate a Christian worldview into our lives in the hopes of being a bridge of connectivity to assist others into crossing over into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord?

From a Christian, church, and business leader perspective, “How Should We Then Live” as the title of the book by the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer suggests. What are the implications as a pastor/leader/elder or layperson in the local church where the Great Commission is concerned when we begin to think glocally? In short, does thinking glocally carry with it greater implications for those of us in 21st century leadership positions from a biblical perspective than our twentieth century counterparts?

Is it possible that as 21st century leaders today that in order for us to not only think glocally, but also understand the proper Christian context for thinking glocally, we may need to reread or read for the first time the following 20th Century books? As a Christian or non-Christian leader, please share your thoughts and opinions on becoming a 21st century glocal leader and the implications for us today from a church and marketplace perspective as you see it.

Leadership is the process of persuasion or example by which an individual or leadership team induces a group to pursue objectives held by a leader or shared by the leader and his or her followers.

John W. Gardner, On Leadership

Leadership is influence, the ability of one person to influence others.

Oswald Sanders, Spiritual Leadership

A Christian leader is someone who is called by God to lead; leads with and through Christ like character; and demonstrates the functional competencies that permit effective leadership to take place.

George Barna, Leaders on Leadership

The central task of leadership is influencing God’s people toward God’s purposes.

Robert Clinton, The Making of a Leader

Henry and Richard Blackaby in their book “Spiritual Leadership” states that spiritual leadership is moving people on to God’s agenda.

The spiritual leader’s task is to move people from where they are to where God wants them to be.  Once spiritual leaders understand God’s will, they will make every effort to help their people change from following their own agendas to pursuing God’s purposes.

Spiritual leaders depend on the Holy Spirit.  Spiritual leaders work within a paradox, for God calls them to do something that, in fact, only God can do.

Spiritual leaders are accountable to God.  Spiritual leadership necessitates an acute sense of spiritual accountability.  True leadership is taking responsibility for moving people from where they are to where God wants them to be.

Spiritual leaders can influence all people, not just God’s people.  God is on mission at the local factory as well as at the local church.  His agenda applies to the marketplace as well as the meeting place.

Spiritual leaders work from God’s agenda.  The greatest obstacle to effective leadership is people pursuing their own plans rather than seeking God’s will.  God is working throughout the world to achieve his purposes and to advance his kingdom.  God’s concern is not to advance leaders’ dreams and goals or to build their kingdoms.  His purpose is to turn his people away from their self-centeredness and their sinful desire and to draw them into a relationship with him.

Henry T. & Richard Blackaby, “Spiritual Leadership” (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2006).