Socail Justice and Servant Leadership!..(?

) 1

Janelle Martin

ELPS 222

Corey Winchester

04/24/2017

Social Justice and Servant Leadership!..(?)

When it comes to deconstructing something (i.e. a leadership theory) it is typically easier

to work with one that has many notable flaws, something not very well put together or one a

person disagrees with. However, I chose to go a little bit on the unbeaten path for this assignment

and decided to deconstruct and reconstruct a leadership theory that I not only agree with and like

but one that I also had a difficult time deconstructing, though when I got down to it, it was not so

bad when I applied ideological critique and looking at the flow of power. This class has taught

me that in order to really learn and work with something a person has to understand all parts of

it, not just the parts that they agree with or want to see. That is what I am doing with my

deconstruction and reconstruction of our Week 9 topic relating to Servant Leadership and Social

Justice with a focus on the social change model.

Servant leadership is the theory that is the paradox between service and influence. A

person who would be considered a ‘servant leader’ is one that wants to serve others and serve

others first. By choosing to serve first one is performing and influential act that others see which

becomes the action of leading, “leading by example,” whether this is their intention or not.

Typically these two things, servant and leader, are not thought of as a combination and

intertwining of each other due to the seemingly rigid notion that a servant is usually a ‘follower’

doing as they are instructed and somebody who is influential, a leader, takes more of a spoken or
 Socail Justice and Servant Leadership!..(?) 2

‘bold action’ route, something other (bigger) than serving based off of other’s needs. Servant

leadership takes this paradox and twists it into its own form, this is usually done using the

previously mentioned social justice, or social change model, route. The Social Change Model

(SCM) is a model that was originally created specifically for college students wanting to learn

how to not only make a change but do so effectively and work with others efficiently with a

conscious focus on values. This model consists of the 7 C’s of Change: consciousness of self,

congruence, commitment, collaboration, common purpose, controversy with civility, and

citizenship. These C’s are broken up into three different sections based on values, the self, the

group and the society/community. The SCM relates to Servant Leadership (and vice versa)

because in order to become a servant leader one must acknowledge their values, then take the 7

C’s, which are not in any specific order but are interchangeable, and implement them into ones

values/actions. These theories are interrelated and often work together because one cannot be a

servant leader without set values and when one uses the SCM they end up becoming a servant

leader. “Moreover, the process of leadership cannot be described simply in terms of the behavior

of an individual; rather, leadership involves collaborative relationships that lead to collective

action grounded in the shared values of people who work together to effect positive change,”

(Cilente, 45). What this quote is saying is that there is a flow of power used in leadership and this

is shown through the SCM. A flow of power, specifically in the SCM, is not only used but is

necessary. For change to happen it takes multiple people/groups and one person is not “in

charge” but everyone works together, a flow of power, through the group.

The 7 C’s lays out a set of values to keep in mind when working in and with leadership.

Values are a subcategory of morals which are socially constructed based on ethics. Both theories,

Servant Leadership and the Social Change Model, are significantly based on these values, morals
 Socail Justice and Servant Leadership!..(?) 3

and ethics. What I mean by this is they both focus on doing good for the good of it and not for

the glory or praise. A servant leader is a servant because they are focused on the action and

what/how that action is benefiting the person that it is being done for, the same can be said for

the social change model. The idea of the social change model, as previously stated, is to make a

change in society that is for the benefit of the majority of people in a positive and reforming

fashion. They also take and use a person’s social location, where they are/what is around them,

and stocks of knowledge, what this person knows and has been taught throughout their lifetime,

to challenge ideology, the desired state of things, and hegemony, the accepted state of things,

which allows a person to really unpack and use the SCM. By doing putting these into action a

leader is able to take a look not only at the community surrounding them that they are wanting to

work with and change, but they are also able to take a look at themselves and see how where

they grew up/where they are and what they know has had an effect on them and what their values

are. These tools mentioned, stocks of knowledge, social location, ideology and hegemony are

tools I will use to deconstruct some of the aspects of Social Change Model and Servant

Leadership Theory.

As I had mentioned at the beginning, I did not choose Social Change Model and Servant

Leadership Theory because I did not like them, it is the fact that I do like them and want to

understand them better that is driving my desire to dig deeper into what makes each of them tick.

These two theories/models that I am working with can be categorized as overall Social Justice

framed themes. The first and most prominent thing that I look at in these models is the concept

of serving and causing change. Though this is the main idea of both models it has one flaw that

can go in separate ways depending on who is using them and what is happening. The idea of

servant leadership is for a person to go and serve and serve first, the thing that is not clarified is
 Socail Justice and Servant Leadership!..(?) 4

who/what they are serving. When I think of this part my mind flashes to the idea of mission trips.

These trips could be labeled and seen to be apart of the servant leadership. The entire idea of

mission trips is to go and serve others. What is thought about when these trips are being

organized is what the ‘servants’ will go and do, rarely is it thought about what the people being

served really need done. Though there are values and ethics that are used during these trips, they

are of that social construction and not necessarily following the values/morals of the place that is

going to be worked in. My mind also wanders to two other places when thinking of these ideas,

first is the idea of the “white savior complex.” The white savior complex is when a person/group,

typically white, go and serve others claiming that they are making the lives of those they are

serving better. What this complex or this mission trip idea does not take into account is the fore

mentioned thing, what the people who are being served really need.

The second place my mind wanders to is if these concepts being used are posed as

positive but end up negatively. This comes to mind when thinking about events such as Hitler’s

taking control of Germany and all the horrific things that followed. This comes to my mind

because I was once at a conference about social change and the speaker claimed he had found the

perfect solution that could be used for social change and no matter what, his theory would lead to

only positive outcomes. His theory started with identifying a problem, posing a solution and

going with it as well as having many following steps. I had challenged the speaker by using the

Hitler example. I explained that he, Hitler, had seen a problem, found a solution, and went with it

claiming that it was for the betterment of his people. I continued to follow the rest of the

speaker’s steps of his theory until the very end which ended in, what Hitler saw, as a positive

social change. I am using/relating this to what I am critiquing on Servant Leadership and SCM

because they are using roughly the same model. Though there is a moral/values part to the SCM,
 Socail Justice and Servant Leadership!..(?) 5

these morals and values are socially constructed. There is a difference between morals/values

and ethics/something being ethical and the SCM is more based on morals/values. Since

morals/values are socially constructed they can technically be changed to whatever will most

benefit society, and this is not always done for the better.

What is most important about both of these models is how and why they are being used.

This part of serving is not always thought of due to the servant’s ideology, stocks of knowledge,

and social location. A servant who may have grown up in an area where “serving” is the norm

but not asking what can be done will have that stock of knowledge that that is what they are

supposed to do and how they are supposed act and go about serving, it becomes their hegemony,

their acceptance of what is “normal.” If servant leadership and the social change model are really

there to make a difference the first step in both should be to ask what is needed or wanted to be

done and not assume or do what they see needs to be done, interest conversion, as well as

thinking about why they are really there. Is the purpose of this ‘servant leadership’ that is being

done really to go and serve others or is so that the people doing the serving can get something

out of it? They have the right idea and beginning to a great concept but would have a more stable

feel if they were set in the idea of ethics and not just morals or values. The main thing a person

who is following these models needs to keep in mind is the fore mentioned issues. It is important

to collaborate with others to make sure that what is being done is actually being done for the

betterment of others as well as taking into account what they want to have done for them.

This critique of both models also leads into another aspect that I have had trouble

working with and that is the focus on the service being done and not always what the an end goal

is. Though, in many ways, I think and agree with the idea that the journey (the service in this

aspect) is the most important part most of the time, it is also very helpful to have an end goal or
 Socail Justice and Servant Leadership!..(?) 6

something the serving is working towards. What I mean by this is that even if all this service is

being done and all the values going into the work is in the right place, if there is no set goal or

idea as to what it is all supposed to up lead to, the service may not turn out to actually be socially

changing or beneficial. This is usually due to ideology, the desired change. A person/group could

have this grand idea that they will do all this great work but not have a final product to go with it.

That final product is very important because it is that which guides the work that could/should be

done. One way to think about this, going back to mission trips and other work groups of sorts, is

a group going out to begin working on some kind of project, let’s say a town restorative on. This

group goes, asks what needs to be done by the people in the town, begin working and are doing

all kinds of great service but do not have an end plan. This group could have a couple of different

things happen. One thing that might happen is they leave before anything is finished. This is a

problem for the community they were working with because now it is left on their shoulders to

finish a project they did not start and there is the possibility that they are left with a bigger mess

than before as well as the community not being able to do any of the work (lack of resources,

injuries, etc.). Another thing that could happen if there is not a set end goal is that the group

could be doing a lot of great service that the community may need done but it might not really be

making the change that is needed. Servant Leadership and the SCM are great for allowing work

and service to be done but they need to specify that there needs to be an end that is to happen.

The final critique that I wanted to work with is the theme of putting others first and being

completely moralistic. These parts are ones that not only boggle my mind, as well as something I

personally have had to work on, but also boggles the minds of some critics who have already

deconstructed this theory. Putting others first and always having a moralistic view can at times

come into conflict with the concept of production. For me, the biggest issue is that always
 Socail Justice and Servant Leadership!..(?) 7

putting others before yourself is not only exhausting but can cause great personal damage. When

doing some kind of work and focusing on the project at hand it is easy to forget or disregard

personal care like taking a break to decompress or other things related. The moralistic part can be

problematic because sometimes things, though they may be morally proper, are not always

realistic or ethical. This is something, as an ethics minor, I have issues with on both ends. In an

ideal world we as people would help others and as well as take care of ourselves and all ending

with a positive end goal that is morally and ethically based. In reality it tends that we end up

focusing on either ourselves too much or others too much and the ends typically are based off of

what is beneficial for a specific person or group. Depending on how a person grew up and how

they were taught really decides which side of the coin they will be on. Their social location and

stocks of knowledge are very important in determining this critique. Though these social justice

models would like to have an equal balance of both it is not always likely based off of location

and knowledge. Taking both of those things into account when beginning to pursue either model

is important though. Having an idea of where a person is coming from allows work to be built

around that as well as helping give them knowledge on something they would have not known

otherwise.

One of the things I like most about these two models is that they admit their flaws.

Neither is a panacea. They both have aspects, like the ones mentioned, that leave room for

question. It is these questions and critiques that allow them to be more useful and grow which

allows the critics to become better followers of these models. As I have stated repeatedly through

this paper, I really like these models for what they are. It is these deconstructions that have

allowed me to delve deeper into what really makes each of them what they are and my critiques
 Socail Justice and Servant Leadership!..(?) 8

that have allowed me to not only see where I can work with the models but where I as a person

need work and where I as a person have strengths.