A Cross-Cultural Investigation into Clergy Enactment of Servant Leadership
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Leadership theories have proliferated in the last several decades, as has the desire for ethical leadership. Servant Leadership was initially proposed as an ethical use of power in leadership, arguing that serving should be the motivation and leadership the enactment. After being largely ignored by the academic world for several decades, only recently has research interest in Servant Leadership increased. In contrast, the vocabulary of Servant Leadership was incorporated into Christian writings on leadership, to the point where the term is so ubiquitous that it is nearly synonymous with Christian leadership. Both the academic and theological discourses neglect the reality that cultures vary in their view of the ethical use of power. This variation was initially mapped by social psychologist Geert Hofstede, whose Power Distance (PD) rankings of national cultures was seminal and has generated research to this day. This project is a preliminary investigation into the possibility that Christian leaders’ use of power may vary by culture.The project employs a qualitative phenomenological methodology, involving semi-structured interviews with fifteen clergy from three different PD backgrounds: Philippines (PD ranking 94), Hong Kong (68), and Euro-Canadian (39). Significant differences in how leadership was conceptualized were found between the different PD v groups. Higher PD clergy more easily held a self-understanding of themselves as leaders and as having power than did lower PD clergy. While all the groups were motivated by a desire to serve, the higher PD clergy were more easily able to identify the leadership dimension within Servant Leadership. The results suggest that the understanding and enactment of Christian leadership varies by culture, meaning that both the theological and academic discourses on Servant Leadership should be more attentive to variation by culture. Further, it would be wise for churches and ministries to engage in a culturally-aware discernment process to articulate and map Christian leadership in their settings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».