Social Work Leadership Theories and Their Application

Introduction to Servant Leadership

The philosophy and collection of practices constituting the servant leadership style enrich people's lives, improve organizations, and eventually foster a kinder and fairer world. While the concept is ageless, the coining of the term "servant leadership" is attributed to Robert K. Greenleaf, who introduced it in his 1970 essay, The Servant as Leader. In that essay, Greenleaf states that servant-leaders are, first and foremost, servants. Leadership starts with one's inherent wish to serve, and only subsequently does a conscious choice generate the aspiration to lead. Such an individual sharply differs from the person who is, first, a leader — perhaps because of the latter's desire to procure material wealth or satisfy an abnormal drive for power.

Servant-first and leader-first types are therefore positioned at two extremities of the continuum of leadership styles, with an endless assortment of variations between them, reflecting human nature's infinite variety. The difference manifests in the focus of servant-first individuals on ensuring that others' highest-priority needs are met. The primary emphasis of servant-leaders is on individuals' welfare and growth, as well as the welfare of their respective communities. Traditional leadership typically entails the exertion and accumulation of power by those at the peak of the hierarchy, but servant leadership diverges from this model. Servant-leaders prefer sharing power, prioritize others' needs, and aid others in developing and performing to their highest possible capacity (Greenleaf.org, 2015).

Key Leadership Approaches in Social Work

The first key leadership model is generally denoted as the trait leadership approach, since it deals with a set of mental, personality, or physical traits unique to effective leaders and absent in weak leaders or non-leaders. This approach warrants early discussion primarily because it represents one of the oldest major leadership theories and continues to prevail in modern-day organizations (212 Books, 2012). Trait leaders in the field of social work appear to be enthusiastic, sociable, sensitive to others, emotionally intelligent, and possessed of drive and good interpersonal skills — all of which are considered innate attributes. However, this leadership style is greatly challenged as a comprehensive model.

Transformational leadership represents a superior form of leadership characterized by encouraging subordinates to broaden and stimulate their interest levels. A transformational leader creates among subordinates recognition and approval of the group's mission and aims, and urges them to look beyond personal interests toward the collective good. By contrast, transactional leadership focuses on leader-subordinate transactions, by which leaders maintain compliance using reward and punishment — incorporating both positive (contingent reward) and negative (management-by-exception) concepts. Laissez-faire leadership, on the other hand, is defined as non-leadership, typified by an absence of transactions altogether.

The transformational leadership model is rooted in charismatic leadership studies; charismatic leaders' authority hinges on subordinates perceiving them to possess exceptional traits that make them unique and superior. A positive link has been observed between transformational leadership and social workers' commitment as well as role clarity. Leader continuity has been shown to facilitate the impact of transformational leadership on both commitment and role clarity (Tafvelin, 2013).

The effect on role clarity and commitment grew with the length of time workers reported to an organizational leader whom they perceived as transformational. Peer support moderated the link between commitment and transformational leadership, but had no influence on role clarity. In other words, when an employee perceives that he or she is receiving social support from colleagues, the impact of transformational leadership on commitment is amplified. The moderating effect of leader continuity underscores the importance of retaining leaders within a particular work group and in the same role for an extended period in order to achieve optimal effects on role clarity and commitment. The moderating effect of colleague support highlights the role that subordinates themselves play in enhancing transformational leadership's impact (Tafvelin, 2013). This leadership style also offers a familiar reference point consistent with social work ideals and self-perception — such as social justice, respect, and egalitarianism (Fronek, Fowler, & Clarke, 2011).

Servant Leadership for Children and Families

Servant leadership is not merely an approach to leadership, but a type of attitude toward a leader's responsibilities. It is typically presented in contrast to hierarchical or autocratic leadership styles, which are viewed as increasingly inadequate for inspiring modern-day subordinates. Servant-leaders may be described as leaders whose fundamental goal is serving people — investing in their welfare and growth in order to achieve objectives and complete tasks for the collective good. Becoming a true servant leader, however, requires more than simply being service-oriented in the conventional sense (Page & Wong, n.d.).

The servant leadership approach is, perhaps, the best example of a leadership style that exemplifies social work's entire purpose. Servant leaders place themselves in the position of those they serve, thereby gaining a first-hand experience of how those individuals feel. This approach also entails delegating decision-making authority to subordinates. Wong and Page (n.d.) caution against the mistake of viewing servant-leaders as ineffectual or weak. In difficult circumstances, or when faced with tough decisions — as every leader must ultimately encounter — servant leaders must exhibit the same resilience and tough-mindedness required of other leadership types. It is not the quality of decisions that sets servant-leaders apart; rather, it is the manner in which they exercise responsibility and the people they consult when making decisions.