As I contemplate leadership as both a concept and in terms of how I seek to embody it, the extensive history of it gives me pause. More precisely, I am struck by the various stages of evolution which have occurred regarding leadership, and I think it important to assess how these shifting models have reflected cultural and societal viewpoints and expectations.

Not long ago, the word “leader” conjured in the average mind a rather specific template, and one which has enjoyed an extraordinarily lengthy existence. Variations necessarily exist in this paradigm, in place for reasons equally varied, and culturally and circumstantially dependent; nonetheless, the common model was, and greatly remains, the heroic. In the United States, most certainly, the European/Western model of heroic leadership is still dominant (Feldman, 2002, p. 205). This is the time-honored role by which others may abnegate responsibility to a single authority eager to take it on. The heroic leader has much to recommend him, or certainly render him attractive. Historically and typically, he is commanding, confident, aggressive, and imbued with an implacable sense of entitlement. It is, essentially, leadership defined by trait; as the external and recognizable attributes of what comprises effective leadership are evident, it is assumed, and often eagerly, that the person possesses a foundation of being worthy of the traits.

I am inclined to part company with this model, as I most definitely do not aspire to become such a leader. If long in place due to popular need and/or ignorance, and notwithstanding valuable components within the framework, the model is to me inherently flawed because it seeks to identify an essence based upon characteristics which may well indicate less than desirable ambitions. I move away from the heroic, then, as I consider transformational models. Ultimately, again, the evolution presents itself to me in a demonstrable fashion, and I think it best to take advantage of it. As leadership concepts have transformed, I look to what I perceive to be the most enlightened “edition” of them, and servant leadership appeals most strongly to me. Through this paradigm, I believe there can be an harmonious blending of pragmatic efficacy and an adherence to all ethical considerations.

Skills and Models in Leadership Practice.

Typically, traditional leadership models rely upon four key elements, emphasized to varying degrees by virtue of the specific models: integrity, intelligence, maturity of outlook, and intent to achieve (Hellriegel, Slocum, 2007, p. 217). What is most interesting about this quartet of virtues is what has so long enabled them to establish their owners as leaders; that is to say, they are typically accepted as internal qualities based only upon external evidence of them. They present, in fact, an illustration of sorts, and one which invariably culminates in a truly commanding, confident presence. The leader, then and often now, is assigned the role because everything appears correct.

Absences of actual substance in individual cases notwithstanding, there is nothing intrinsically incorrect in regard to any of these traits as being evident in the leader. Each is undeniably valid. Each represents a quality others should wish to emulate, or at least be guided by. Regrettably, again, each is as well easily counterfeited. Ironically, perhaps the least praiseworthy element within the traditional, or heroic, leader is the one which has the greatest essential value: the desire to lead. This component is, of course, by no means ethically motivated or trustworthy of itself, but it is not feigned, as the other qualities may be. It is usually what it appears to be because there is no reason for it to dissemble.

This has not been, however, sufficient, and new approaches have been generated by changing perceptions, as well as by many unfortunate instances wherein the leader’s drive has not compensated for absent, core elements. The road to servant leadership begins here, developing as variations on traditional forms have been proposed. From the earliest models of trait theory, to the behavioral paradigms of leadership which began to emerge in the 1950s and evolve into integrative ideologies, it seems that the templates alter to reflect changing values and needs within the culture (Lussier, Achua, 2009, p. 17). When the heroic could not be relied upon, the transformational and reflective were born. In my estimation, these models have an intermediate aspect to them; departing somewhat from the traditional roles and stressing a greater necessity for sympathy and empathy, the transformational models have served as a gestation period for servant leadership.

Transformational leadership has been repeatedly noted as overlapping with servant leadership models, and for relatively obvious reasons; both models move away from the authoritative approach of traditional and/or dynamic leadership paradigms and require far more in the way of interaction between leader and followers (Vadell, 2009, p. 40). Then, the word “reflective” strongly implies a less overtly commanding, and consequently independently-minded, leadership. It is crucial, however, to understand that servant leadership, as will be explained, cannot exist as a diffused model. It wholly depends upon a core approach, which then shapes its being as a paradigm. Moreover, it is a mistake to view reflective leadership as utterly contrary to the aggressiveness of heroic leadership, for reflective models are rarely passive (Genovese, 2010, p. 236). The “reflection” goes more to a phase in the leadership process, and does not by any means subvert traditional modes of leadership authority.

…