Introduction
Leadership is defined by one’s organization, business, or group position. Distinct from a person with managerial duties, a leader enters into a special relationship with others, who entrust their growth and performance and follow one individual when making and implementing decisions. Scholars have researched the theories surrounding leadership approaches well, and various models have been introduced over the last decades.
One recent framework often mentioned in the sphere of public service is servant leadership. It is a unique style of guiding people with many features that distinguish it from the rest. At the same time, servant leadership is also often linked to Christianity, with religious scholars adopting this model as the most appropriate for Faith leaders.
Here, the question arises whether servant leadership can be synonymous with Christian leadership. The review of different ethics models and spiritual-servant leadership shows that the latter has many similarities to Christian values and can be used by Christian leaders. However, they also have a higher moral obligation to follow the codes presented to them by Scripture.
Ethic Models
Ethics in leadership refer to how one can guide other people and what traits one must possess to build a trusting relationship with followers. The history of leadership styles demonstrates that the connection and hierarchy between followers and the leader have changed.
Historical Theories
The earliest theories depicted true leaders as charismatic persons whose character, strength, and charisma were innate, separating them from society and allowing them to rule over others (Benmira & Agboola, 2021). An example would be the Great Man theory, which states that leadership qualities are natural (Hunt & Fedynich, 2019). However, this framework had many flaws, as it had prejudices and believed in the heritability of leadership characteristics in certain families. Later, trait theories gained recognition, suggesting that leaders could be born with or acquire features supporting their ability to assume positions of power (Uslu, 2019). Like the older approaches, trait theories failed to account for many variables that led to people’s authority.
Modern Theories
The current theories are rooted in another belief—that behavior separates the leader from the followers and that one’s traits and beliefs are only a part of the whole. Depending on how the leader interacts with the team, transactional, transformational, servant, and other frameworks can be identified. In particular, a subset of these theories, ethics-based models, shifts the focus away from the leader’s identity onto their interaction with and treatment of the followers. In this case, people with power are people who possess integrity. Van Wart (2011) identifies five ethics theories – one general and four specific – to describe the approaches rooted in interpersonal trust.
Basic Integrity Framework
Transparency
The basic integrity framework states that leaders must display honesty, trustworthiness, and fairness in all actions and beliefs. First, one must be transparent when sharing information, helping, or talking to followers and other people (Van Wart, 2011). Lies of omission or incorrect statements are incompatible with ethical leadership (Van Wart, 2011). This attribute of a leader is consistent with the Christian view of honesty, for “the Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy” (NIV, 2022, Proverbs 12:22). Therefore, only honest people may be considered for leadership positions.
Trustworthiness and Credibility
The second element in the essential model of integrity is trustworthiness. While this quality is close to honesty, it also implies that a person is reliable and transparent in their values (Van Wart, 2011). A leader has to consistently display their position and follow the established principles to instill trust in the followers. Expected values may include a dedication to national and local laws and a commitment to serving the public. Furthermore, Van Wart (2011) highlights the role of credibility—the ability of a person to uphold agreements and promises. Leaders without credibility may not have the trust of the community if they are inconsistent in their commitments.
Fairness
Lastly, fairness is the last element in the basic ethical leadership model. Fair leaders follow the laws and ensure they are applied to everyone similarly. Van Wart (2011) emphasizes this trait because managers and executives often have a degree of discretion. They cannot share much information with followers or employees, which allows them to avoid discussing how they make decisions. As a result, the opportunity to be unfair exists, but ethical leadership is against unfair judgments and bias toward one follower over another.
Leadership Models
Moral Management
The four remaining frameworks are rooted in the beliefs of integrity described above. Although they differ in their approaches to communication, management, and inspiration, the models expect leaders to be honest, trustworthy, and fair. The first kind of ethical leader in this typology is a moral manager (Van Wart, 2011).
In this case, the main duties of a leader are to ensure that every follower knows and abides by the policies of the organization and the government. However, compliance with mandates goes beyond the laws and extends to moral principles. For example, a company or a department may have a code of conduct or a professional ethics policy. The moral manager must then regulate employees’ performance according to these standards.
Among business styles, this model is the closest to transactional leadership – an approach where employees are rewarded or punished based on their behavior. The main focus in these frameworks is adherence to rules, which leads to little intrinsic motivation and formal interpersonal relationships between the leader and followers (Benmira & Agboola, 2021). By centering on ethical compliance, the executive may neglect the needs of those who work at the organization. Additionally, the values of this leader are not linked to growth and change.
Authentic Leadership
The second model that builds on the principles of integrity is authentic leadership. According to Van Wart (2011), authentic leaders possess specific characteristics that allow them to lead: self-awareness, self-improvement, openness, and non-defensiveness. These traits distinguish one person from the others and shift the focus to one’s values as a guiding force behind the team. Thus, the leader’s self-regulation leads to success in this approach.
Similar to the previous model, authentic leadership does not focus on the needs of the followers – here, the leader’s principles take center stage (Nübold et al., 2020). One may compare this approach with some of the oldest business leadership styles, such as trait theory or great man theory (Benmira & Agboola, 2021; Harrison et al., 2020). In these frameworks, one’s superior moral qualities are believed to be a sign of a true leader. Similar to the critique surrounding these styles, authentic leadership is person-centered, which reduces its applicability in the modern world.
Servant Leadership
Spiritual (otherwise described as servant) leadership is the next type presented in the classification. This approach is starkly different from the previous two – the attention is shifted toward the followers and the community surrounding the organization. The leader must serve others – employees or subordinates – to encourage them to thrive and perform well (Van Wart, 2011). Believing that servant leaders should be passionate about their job, seeing it as their calling, is also common (Van Wart, 2011).
The servant leadership framework is also present in other discussions, and it is currently included in the main business and public service approaches. The research finds that spiritual leaders increase workers’ motivation and improve their performance by uplifting them and building trusting relationships (Sun & Shang, 2019). The ability to focus on what people need also challenges the organization to change itself and the environment.
Transformational Leadership
Finally, the last type of leadership among value-based theories is transforming leadership. In this case, the leader’s sole focus is to elicit “wholesome change” – create and implement a vision that improves the community or environment in which people live (Van Wart, 2011, p. 154). The difference between this model and the previous one is that the transforming leaders’ main goal changes.
In contrast, spiritual leaders are more invested in bringing change through servants. This approach emphasizes that the leader retains the authoritative position over followers and presents a path for change that they are inspired to follow. Modern scholarship usually describes this style as transformational and highlights its benefits, such as increased worker motivation and development (Kazim, 2019; Taraza & Anastasiadou, 2019). However, transforming leaders are not driven by empathy but by the potential for change in processes and outcomes.
It should be noted that this classification is not based on the idea that the leader must follow only one style to guide the organization. In contrast, Van Wart (2011) writes that a genuine ethical leader will show the signs of all approaches. One should control the followers’ compliance with the policies and adhere to their good moral character while establishing a connection with subordinates and inspiring change. However, depending on the person and the organization, one model may be more prevalent than others.
Spiritual-Servant Leadership in Public Service
From the classification description, it is apparent that spiritual-servant leadership is different from the other types due to its focus on the needs of other people. Locke (2019) argues that the core idea of this approach is that the leader is privileged to serve others and guide them. This dynamic vastly differs from others, placing the leader below and not above subordinates in the hierarchy, whose characteristics and actions are deemed the most important. This characteristic of the model has made it extremely popular in nonprofit organizations and public service.
However, it does not mean that all workers in these sectors are servant leaders – their work entails helping others. Still, it does not equate their duties to those of someone with authority. For example, while some public service employees help people – put out fires or clean streets – they do not exercise leadership. In contrast, a servant leader is a person who educates followers and gives them the necessary resources to thrive.
In public service, the idea of “followers” extends past employees to the whole community. Leaders in these organizations serve people, and their lives are also connected to those of the leader. Therefore, a senior leader in public service has to guide not only those under direct command but also all individuals on whom the organization’s decisions have an impact.
Codes of Ethics
The ethics of servant leadership emphasize the basic values of integrity (honesty, trustworthiness, and fairness) and those unique to the model – compassion, hope, and sustainability. These principles form the ethical codes for this approach and determine how a person should act in a position of authority. These tenets appear to be extremely close to those of the Christian faith, which also teaches people to be compassionate and fair to others. Nevertheless, Christian leadership cannot be equated with the spiritual-servant model, as the former is based on the Holy Bible rather than secular texts. Here, the ethical and moral obligation of the leader is to God, who then leads one to serve people.
The secular origins of servant leadership help one distinguish it from the Christian framework. Locke (2019) suggests that the two cannot be considered the same because the idea behind servant leadership was based on a mix of different religious practices. Thus, it is not enough for a Christian leader to adopt the values of servants without critical thought. The person of authority must realize the differences and uphold values beyond the secular leadership style, looking to God for guidance (Manning et al., 2017). Ethical codes may not be enough for the leader following Christianity, especially if they do not align with the Scripture.
Biblical Moral Obligation
Christian leaders must follow the Bible in their work due to the values of their faith. As biblical principles influence their moral compass, their ethics are rooted in Christianity and its beliefs. Biblical standards and the secular ideas presented in the servant leadership model are similar.
Still, they do not have the same importance to a Christian’s life. The former represents one’s faith in God, and the goal of these individuals is to promote the values of Christianity to the world. Thus, they must follow the Bible’s moral teachings and present their best selves according to their spiritual identity.
However, the idea that Christians should follow biblical teachings before other approaches to leadership does not mean that they cannot be flexible and adaptive to the situation or that they should oppose other models. Similar to the argument by Van Wart (2011), a leader should focus on more than one aspect of performance, including standards, goals, people’s needs, and self-improvement. The same concept can be applied to merging Christian and servant leadership. Guided by biblical teachings, leaders can help others and serve their community meaningfully, regardless of their followers’ beliefs. Here, humility and compassion unite the two frameworks and help the leader and society to thrive.
Biblical Passage
Many stories from the Bible align with the teachings about leadership, and they show the traits that a leader must have to succeed in guiding others. Some concentrate on specific qualities, while others give direct advice on how to behave in a position of authority. The chosen passage that highlights the ethics in this practice is:
Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (NIV, 2022, 1 Peter 5:2-3)
Reasons for Choosing the Passage and What It Means
I selected a passage from the First Epistle of Peter because it encapsulates the foundational beliefs of servant leadership and the Christian faith. The verses speak about submitting to one another, regardless of whether one person leads the group or is guided by someone. The first interesting aspect of verse 2 is that the leadership position is not brought upon the leader against their will.
A person should be “willing, as God wants you to be” to serve others and take on this role (NIV, 2022, 1 Peter 5:2). This quote fully aligns with the beliefs expressed about servant leadership ethics – people assuming power should believe it is their true calling (Sun & Shang, 2019). Here, the connection between Christianity and servant leadership is apparent.
Furthermore, the verses also express ethical values similar to the basic ethical model. One should not pursue “dishonest gain” and be “eager to serve” (NIV, 2022, 1 Peter 5:2). These descriptions can be compared to the concepts of integrity described by Van Wart (2011) and the ideas that underpin servant leadership as a whole. Trustworthiness and relationship building, which are the basis of this model, cannot be achieved if the leader is dishonest or unimpassioned about communicating. This passage demonstrates how Christian values align with the moral requirements for people in positions of authority expressed in most classifications.
The third verse also describes how a leader can act as a servant to the community. As one must not “[lord] it over those entrusted to you,” the leader is urged not to place oneself above others (NIV, 2022, 1 Peter 5:3). It is possible to argue that servant leadership is an approach that fits this requirement the best, at it places the leader below the followers instead of above.
“Being examples to the flock” also suggests that authority figures must lead by showing their virtuous qualities and making morally transparent decisions (NIV, 2022, 1 Peter 5:3). Here, one may argue that the Christian faith becomes more critical to the leader than secular values, as leading by example can mean following biblical teachings and encouraging others to do the same. This passage implies that Christians should be servant leaders who uphold the Bible as their primary source of ethics.
Conclusion
Research on leadership styles is common, and their classification demonstrates which ethical approaches have been considered the most popular throughout history. Ethics in leadership are foundational to every model as they determine how a person with authority views the followers, the organization, and the surrounding environment. The basis of all ethical models is a commitment to integrity that includes trustworthiness, honesty, and fairness. Servant leadership is a popular model in public service because it aligns with the professions and duties of this sector. However, this connection does not mean all public servants are effective leaders.
The links between Christianity and servant leadership are similarly strong and complex. Christians can be effective servants to the community, as the teachings of compassion and submission guide them. Nevertheless, the primary source of ethical guidance for Christian leaders is the Bible—the core of the faith and a record of valuable lessons for all people of faith to follow. The passages from the Bible show how close servant leadership and Christian thought are to one another. Still, the latter also establishes God’s unyielding place as the leader of all.
References
Benmira, S., & Agboola, M. (2021). Evolution of leadership theory. BMJ Leader, 5, 3-5. Web.
Harrison, C., Omeihe, I., Simba, A., & Omeihe, K. (2020). Leading the way: The entrepreneur or the leader?Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 1-17. Web.
Hunt, T., & Fedynich, L. (2019). Leadership: Past, present, and future: An evolution of an idea. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 8(2), 22-26. Web.
Kazim, F. A. (2019). Digital transformation and leadership style: A multiple case study. The ISM Journal of International Business, 3(1), 24-33.
Locke, L. G. (2019). The clay feet of servant leadership. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 22(1), 34-42.
Manning, P. (2017). Faith, leadership, and public life: Leadership lessons from Moses to Jesus. Castle Quay Books.
NIV Holy Bible Compact. (2022). Zondervan. (Original work published 1973)
Nübold, A., Van Quaquebeke, N., & Hülsheger, U. R. (2020). Be(com)ing real: A multi-source and an intervention study on mindfulness and authentic leadership. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35, 469-488. Web.
Sun, P., & Shang, S. (2019). Personality traits and personal values of servant leaders. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 40(2), 177-192. Web.
Taraza, E. I., & Anastasiadou, S. D. (2019). Personality traits in the light of the effectiveness of transformational vocational school leadership and leaders. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 184-191. Web.
Uslu, O. (2019). A general overview of leadership theories from a critical perspective. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 161-172. Web.
Van Wart, M. (2011). Dynamics of leadership in public service: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis Group.