Philosophy of Leadership – Essay from PaperDueNow

Find more essay examples at PaperDue now.


Being a leader in the modern-day management and administration scene requires personal input into deciding on what type of leader one wants to become. In defining the basic approach to personal leadership philosophy, both personal values and organizational principles apply in defining the extent to which one’s beliefs may apply to the work environment. Inasmuch as the context in which personal leadership principles apply may be limited to personal working space, most contemporary work environment involves worker-manager interaction that requires the implementation of such concepts. Primarily, my beliefs are founded on the aspects regarding leadership I consider most relevant to the role I perform. Approaching such leadership as a servant allows a manager to implement relevant solutions, plans, and decisions to the subjects, which defines the essence of my philosophy. 

Still, the definition of the style of leadership results from the combination of specific principles derived from observing and learning from existing models of leadership. Notably, the approach is inspired by the need for a servant-approach authentic sense to ethical methods that are geared towards a value-based result of the leader’s role. Inasmuch as these concepts do not define my personal philosophy of leadership, they guide the tactics, decision making processes, and problem-solving methods that I prefer in performing my duties. Since the philosophy is inspired by the existence of specific managerial systems, administrative policies, and structured communication systems, these aspects will also be included in the illustrations and discussion of the effectiveness of the philosophy in different situations.  

Personal leadership philosophy 

Leadership requires providing the direction that reflects the value of work, sharing of authority, and development of the capacity of the subordinates to function within the specific work environment. The practicality of servant leadership reflects mainly in its role in facilitating growth, transferring skills, and ensuring that the system gains autonomy and efficiency in its functionality (Sorenson et al. 41). Within the organizational setting, a leader may presume the role of an administrator or manager, and disregard the more holistic definition of leadership. However, a servant-based approach guarantees that the sharing of power promotes a more productive work environment, growth-oriented production, mutual gains for the institution and the workers, and a less administration-dependent workforce (Frunza 4). Overall, the philosophy on which the model of servant leadership is built upon allows the work environment to become functional with a reduced reliance on the central administrator. Its operations allow the leader to interact with subjects on a neutral platform and engage in conversation that exposes all aspects of the situation, consequently enabling decision making, planning, and problem-solving to ensue.  

Theoretically, the organizational environment is intended to sustain the functionality of servant leadership, specifically with regard to the engagement of personnel on improvement and value-based work methods (Andriukaitienė et al. 220). However, on a practical level, it is important to appreciate that the achievement of an interactive, growth-oriented workforce requires the alteration of leadership methods to feature authentic and ethical principles (Wilson np). Stewardship emerges as one of the most important principles of leadership from a servant’s perspective, from which the orientation of an entire team is dependent. Such stewardship, according to Herman, is dependent on the level of decision making that can be achieved by leaders, the engagement with which they interact with the rest of the workforce, and the workflow defined by the communication structure (182). Furthermore, the executive level of management bears the responsibility of structuring the organization, from which a servant leader can manipulate situations and systems to ensure that workflow is efficient. 

Foresight, supervision, and communication form the basis of the role of a servant leader, which defines the effectiveness of a working system without relying on an individual. Sorenson et al. theorize that the role of a leader is not to push the workforce to implement specific actions but rather to facilitate the communication and interaction amongst employees (38). From such assistance, a servant-leader empowers employees towards planning their work, participating in teamwork, and conceptualizing the entire processes. The underlying principle that the leader has to use in this context reflects the value of a servant model of administration. Ideally, the principle allows the workforce to conceptualize a problem, identify work processes, and design solutions without needing the direct contribution of the leadership. The autonomy and independence of a workforce due to the servant approach to leadership theoretically influence the direction with which subjects can change their work culture. 

Persuasion and charisma in leadership define the ability of an individual to relate with his or her work team, thereby defining their management policies. Andriukaitienė et al. et al. present the theoretical consideration that the management process relies on both the leader and the subjects as components of a functional system (223). Basically, the model of management under which servant leadership operates encourages interaction and communication between the executive and the workforce, effectively shortening the communication path (Russel et al. 77). Furthermore, the persuasion of the executive towards employees is better placed within servant leadership models since the subjects can relate to the interests of their administration. With the management and their employees working towards a common goal, the benefits of the persuasion and charisma of a servant leader emerge strongly. 

The moral actions of a servant leader should be geared towards the overall goals of the workforce and the organization. Gains made by an organization are only legitimate if the workforce participated in the delimitations of ethics and equality that are listed in labor laws (Bavik et al. 324). According to Liu et al., authentic leadership principles are defined by the actions of management (113). On a personal level, however, the authenticity of leadership practices depends on the actions that anyone in an executive role adopts to further the interests of the stakeholders. Such interests may not be balanced or fair, but their ethical basis is justifiable. On the other hand, Frunza demonstrates that the moral practice of management in an organizational setting is definitive of the authenticity of their intentions (5). While the role of the administration is restricted to planning, decision making, and supervision, the extended role of an authentic leader is seen in the effort invested towards increasing the value of the work, optimizing input, and increasing productivity through efficient methods. 

My personal beliefs regarding personnel management are based on the need for authentic leadership derived from servant principles. Serving the needs of others allows those in management positions to appreciate the context within which their team members are working (Hemingway and Starkey 882). As such, their perspective regarding expectations of productivity, delays, efficiency, and functionality remain practical without going below the standards of an organization (or becoming unfeasible). Liu et al. theorize that the role of a manager in optimizing the productivity of an organization may force them to overdo efficiency in a bid to meet targets while disregarding ethical limits for their employees (113). I believe that servant leadership eliminates this challenge, enabling the leader to appreciate the extent to which the work environment can be pushed. Additionally, such a leader can gauge the feasibility of the standards set by executive management, thereby attaining a balance between efficiency and ethical practice (Chughtai et al. 653). Such forms of authentic leadership are best attained by a manager who is in direct contact with his or her subjects.  

The role of personal leadership philosophy 

From the definition of servant leadership, the identification of principles that facilitate moral actions and authentic decision making underlay my personal philosophy. My implementation of the personal philosophy in different working and social environment has allowed me to check the practicality of the model of leadership, communication, decision making, and supervision of subjects. Based on the definitions given by Liu et al. and Russel et al. regarding authentic, value-based leadership, and servant management models, it is arguable that the validity of a personal approach to is dependent on the actions of the individual as opposed to the structure of an organization (110-13; 76-77). Therefore, my personal leadership philosophy is based on the concept of servant leadership implemented within a value-based organizational system that retains ethical standards. It attempts to engage all stakeholders on an ethical platform that serves all their interests without compromising productivity, losing feasibility, or becoming irrelevant as a management technique. 

Decision making, planning, and acting in the role of the leader are all defined by the interests of the individual towards respecting the strategic interests of the organization, preserving the interests of stakeholders, and remaining morally upright (Ciulla et al. 7). In each of these three factors, I believe that the simplified approach of servant leadership allows one to combine virtues of management. In a practical sense, however, the inclusion of all ethical requirements has to be within the interests of stakeholders, such as employees, competitors, and complementary operators (Webster 28). While the interest of a servant leader is aimed at the motivation of a healthy work environment, it is also hinged on performance through functional interactions between each of the stakeholders. Communication allows me, as the leader, to appreciate the ability, interest, limitations, and resolve that affect how employees perform. In this way, my planning, task assignment, and decision making are hinged on a practical expectation from each worker, optimizing the management methods I choose to implement from a servant’s point of view. 

Essentially, a leader can directly influence the actions of the employees, but through effective communication, foresight, and authentic inclusion of other stakeholders, influence can grow. For example, Ma et al. illustrate that through knowledge sharing with other stakeholders, it is possible to empower them towards acting in the organizations best interests, thereby boosting productivity through effective communication (615). The influence of such administrative action can become far-reaching in the market, effectively transforming the working environment to reflect the authentic leadership principles that a servant model can implement (Shek et al. 220). On a personal level, this philosophy allows simpler engagement with all stakeholders, particularly allowing me to serve the interests of workers, solving problems for clients, and delivering on the needs of everyone served by the organization. Furthermore, it allows me to appreciate the position of each individual, thereby enabling me to negotiate better with them and push productivity goals further through such knowledge. 


Serving the needs of one’s subject is a philosophy of leadership that addresses the challenge of most organization-setting management systems. By allowing an administrator to appreciate the position of the employee, the model makes it possible for functional communication, mutually beneficial growth, empowerment of the workflow system, and the optimization of efficiency to occur (Hannah et al. 255). I prefer the model to form the basis on which my approach to leadership is developed since it makes it easy to perform in teamwork settings. From the illustration of additional benefits of using this approach, my belief strengthens regarding its role in increasing the effectiveness of the philosophy by ensuring the loyalty of employees, easing communication, reducing animosity, and increasing efficiency. 

Leadership is dependent on personal influence as much as it relies on the systems that exist in an organizational setting. My personal philosophy reflects the aspects I consider to be critical in achieving balanced, ethical, authoritative, and effective management. Inasmuch as my methods are dependent on both servant leadership and value-based administration, I believe that they can still be implemented in teamwork environments to ensure communication and workflow are effective. Furthermore, the principles can be implemented where the ethical balance is sought since they allow the leader to become part of the workforce, thereby relating with their interests, problems, and abilities. Overall, I believe that the methods I employ are realistic for the situations in which I have observed, both in theoretical and practical contexts. The philosophy allows the leader to be practical in his or her administration without compromising the needs of an organization or losing the ethical standards on which all leadership should be based.  

Works Cited

Andriukaitienė, Regina, et al. “Theoretical Insights into Expression of Leadership Competencies in the Process of Management.” Problems and Perspectives in Management, vol. 15, no. 1, 2017, pp. 220-26.

Bavik, Yuen Lam, et al. “Ethical Leadership and Employee Knowledge Sharing: Exploring Dual-Mediation Paths.” The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 2, 2018, pp. 322-32.

Chughtai, Aamir, et al. “Linking Ethical Leadership to Employee Well-Being: The Role of Trust in Supervisor.” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 128, no. 3, 2014, pp. 653-63.

Ciulla, Joanne B., et al. “Guest Editors’ Introduction: Philosophical Contributions to Leadership Ethics.” Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 1, 2017, pp. 1-14.

Frunza, Sandu. “Ethical Leadership, Religion and Personal Development in the Context of Global Crisis.” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies, vol. 16, no. 46, 2017, pp. 3-10.

Hannah, Sean T., et al. “Transforming Followers’ Value Internalization and Role Self-Efficacy: Dual Processes Promoting Performance and Peer Norm-Enforcement.” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 101, no. 2, 2016, pp. 252-66.

Hemingway, Christine A., and Ken Starkey. “A Falling of the Veils: Turning Points and Momentous Turning Points in Leadership and the Creation of CSR.” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 151, no. 4, 2017, pp. 875-90.

Herman, Robert D. “Executive Leadership.” The Jossey‐Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management, edited by David O. Renz and Robert D Herman, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, 2016, pp. 167-87.

Liu, Sheng-min, et al. “Authentic Leadership and Whistleblowing: Mediating Roles of Psychological Safety and Personal Identification.” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 131, no. 1, 2015, pp. 107-19.

Ma, Leanne, et al. “Community Knowledge, Collective Responsibility: The Emergence of Rotating Leadership in Three Knowledge Building Communities.” Transforming Learning, Empowering Learners, Proceedings, Singapore, 20-24 June 2016. Edited by Chee-Kit Looi, et al., ISLS, 2016, vol. 1, pp. 615-22. 

Russel, Eric J., et al. “Discovering the Self-Interest of Servant Leadership: A Grounded Theory.” Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice, vol. 4, no. 1, 2017, pp. 75-97.

Shek, Daniel T., et al. “How Unique Is the Service Leadership Model? A Comparison with Contemporary Leadership Approaches.” International Journal on Disability and Human Development, vol. 14, no. 3, 2015, pp. 217-31.

Sorenson, Tyson, et al. “Leadership Identity Development through an Interdisciplinary Leadership Minor.” The Journal of Leadership Education, vol. 15, no. 1, 2016, pp. 31-43.

Webster, Mark David. “Philosophy of Technology Assumptions in Educational Technology Leadership.” Educational Technology & Society, vol. 20, no. 1, 2017, pp. 25-36.

Wilson, David Carl. “Can Philosophy Teach Us Anything About Leadership and Management?” LSE Blogs, 29 May 2017, Accessed 24 Apr. 2019.