Servant Leadership and The Christian Worldview

In any organization, several things need to be undertaken. The operations and the running of the organization require leadership. The team members of the organization must know what to do. Leaders show different leadership styles in striving to accomplish the organization’s objectives and vision (Specchia et al., 2021). While leadership pertains to influencing others to change them, the leaders exhibit differentiated features of types. The purpose of this discussion is to differentiate servant and transformational leadership styles and how personal worldview influences leadership styles. Moreover, it will describe strategies for effectively leading diverse teams and encouraging collaboration between disciplines.

Servant Leadership and Transformational Leadership

Servant leadership is a leadership style where an individual interacts with others in a management or fellow employee’s capacity to achieve authority rather than power. The leadership style embodies a decentralized organizational structure. On the other hand, transformational leadership is a leadership style that affects change in people and social systems. Similarly, it creates a valuable and positive difference in the followers to develop followers into leaders (Xie, 2020).

In addition, servant leadership seeks to foster diversity of thought and create a trusting culture. The leaders exhibit an unselfish mindset. They believe leading or power is not about them but the followers; hence they strive to encourage leadership in those they lead. Moreover, they listen intently to their followers and comprehend what they say. They also put themselves in the p

lace of others by supporting them both physically and mentally (Xie, 2020).

Similarly, servant leaders are known to be persuasive and are self-conscious about how their emotions and behaviors can affect individuals; hence they try to align to the followers’ values to accommodate them. However, a transformational leader possesses the capacity to inspire participation and show trust in team members, and tolerance for intelligent risks. Further, they are open to new thinking and ideas hence accustomed to active listening (Xie, 2020).

Servant leaders can manage organization dynamics and lead change to ensure that the continued success of the stakeholders will be served through their culture of involvement with team members and interaction with other people to realize authority rather than power. Similarly, in encouraging diversity of thought, the stakeholders have their ideas accommodated and feel trusted; hence they will feel better served. There will be a reciprocal outcome service by the stakeholders. Moreover, empathy, respect, listening, and honoring people, an interactive approach to working for and with others to develop them, will ensure continuous strengthening of resources and enhance the team’s performances by promoting organizational learning and better institutional practices of strategic result-oriented management (Mansaray, 2019).

In ensuring the continued success of the stakeholders, managing the organization dynamics, and leading change, both the leadership styles – servant and transformational leadership are critical. Thus, a leader with amalgamated leadership styles is well placed to manage organization dynamics and lead change that will see the stakeholders’ success (Mansaray, 2019).

Conclusion

In conclusion, while leadership concerns influence people tend to impose over others to change them, the l

Servant Leadership and The Christian Worldview

eaders exhibit differentiated leadership influence styles in achieving the task. Moreover, personal worldview affects leadership styles so that it reciprocally reinforces strategies for the effective leading of diverse teams and fosters collaboration between disciplines. The worldview influences servant leaders to be able to interact with others either in management or followers to realize authority. Besides, transformational leaders change followers and social systems by creating fundamental transformations to make leaders.

References

Mansaray, H. E. (2019). The role of leadership style in organizational change management: A Literature Review. Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(1), 18-31.

https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jhrm.20190701.13

Specchia, M. L., Cozzolino, M. R., Carini, E., Di Pilla, A., Galletti, C., Ricciardi, W., & Damiani, G. (2021). Leadership styles and nurses’ job satisfaction. Results of a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1552. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/1552#

Xie, L. (2020). The impact of servant leadership and transformational leadership on learning organization: a comparative analysis. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2019-0148

Grid View

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Main Posting	45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.	0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible sources. Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness	10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3.	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3.
First Response	17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Second Response	16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Participation	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100