All papers are checked via
|← Role of the International Organisations||One Nation Conservatism →|
Servant leadership is a philosophy of leadership that has the implication of viewing comprehensively the quality of people and work spirits. This philosophy requires the understanding of the environment, identity, vision and mission spiritually. Leaders that are classified as servant leaders are initially servants with the responsibility of being in the world, thus contributing to the well-being of the community. Servant leaders look on to the problems of the people and find ways which they can employ to help in solving the problems that face the community. The main focus is on the people motivating them as only those motivated that are able to achieve their objectives.
Servant leadership starts with the natural urge to serve which brings out the conscious to lead. This has a significant difference to urge of leading first as there is assuage of powers drive that are unusual or the acquisition of the material possessions which builds the infinitive variety of human nature. There are some characteristics and practices by which the servant leadership philosophy of leadership is demonstrated. It is seen as a long journey that requires the discovery of one self with the desire to serve other people and the commitment to lead. Servant leadership is far much from the leadership approaches of top-down hierarchical systems, as it emphasizes on trust collaboration and empathy with the use of power being ethical.
Servant leaders must be servant at first with the conscious of making decisions to lead, thus serving others perfectly without increasing the use of their powers. This enhances the growth of people by increase of teamwork and involvement of people and this increases the output of these people unless if it is for selfless leaders. The concept of servant leadership has a long life outcome that influences people and the society to a positive manner which leads to identification of people to their organization and the development of corporate culture.
President Teddy Roosevelt entered the White House under unfortunate circumstances after the assassination of President William McKinley. He used his time exceedingly fortunately that he never waited for the Congress to debate bills in every move. His personality and ego had made most of the politicians dislike him even though the public adored him. He was never put to the limelight by inclusion of his presidency to war, but his trust busting presidency (Blum, 1982). His presidency established many parks, and he negotiated with labor force that strikes strengthening its position. His executive powers were interpreted broadly as it worried conservatives for his over extending powers.
President Roosevelt commanded his country in the wake of the French revolution, without using the government to shield him from public opinion, and he criticized the legislative department as he respected the citizens. He viewed himself as the servant of the Congress and not of the people as he did nothing unless he was explicitly commanded by the Constitution which was always in contrast to perspectives of his own duties. He viewed his executives as being the stewards of the citizens and he was actively bound to do whatever he could for his people.
He did anything that the nation was in need unless it was against the Constitution (Roosevelt, 1958). He was the President that only used his might to do what the people of the US as he never waited for the delay Congress to debate the way forward. Trust busting was Roosevelt progressive use as the business had earlier been left alone by the anti-trust laws. This had law had prevented the formation of monopolies by corporations and was highly ineffective. Roosevelt changed the sugar trust law arguing that regulation of the minimum wages was violating the rights of the workers’ to offer labor in their own terms (Roosevelt, 1958). His administration even started anti-trust proceedings against guidelines that did not exist defining the anti-trust proceedings as he prevented competition that was ruinous. He was concerned with equal treatment to all opposing the formation of monopolies that were out to lame competition.
The decision that he made of the striking coal workers that the military and operate the mine if the operators refused to honor the plight of the workers as he saw them as not acknowledging the representatives of the unions (Gould, 1991). This power was not implied in the Constitution and this threat made the operators negotiate with the union representatives. By his steps beyond the legal edge to settle wrangles which resulted to fair treatment for all parties as according to his sensibility and vigor achieved fairness. Roosevelt was a unionist who did not listen to thing related to business-wise opposed to strikes and unions meddling in politics.
He was very sympathetic sometimes to corporations as he broke up mine strikes as he had support for labor to balance the issues at hand. He guaranteed in his power the by all means for the labor force to join unions and work as union without illegal interference from the capitalist and nonunion people (Blum, 1982). He believed that unions were contributors of the general welfare and minimized the assertion of rights by the capitalists and the labor force, thus contributing to the economic development during his time.
President Woodrow Wilson was a democrat who was the President of Princeton and later an intellectual leader of the progressive movement. His mastery was demonstrated by the creation of the Federal Reserve System that had the effect of lowering tariffs and him revising the anti-trust laws that ended the Roosevelt trust busting, thus, creating clear guidelines that was allowed (Weisenburger, 1936). The policies that he made were in line with the conservatives, and supported the liberal policies of raising the workers wage whenever they threatened to strike.
President Woodrow failed to break peace during the First World War and this led to his state engage in war sending an expedition of forces to France he played a dominant role by ending the war after setting the peace terms. He was the founder of the international order on self-determination and unfettered international trade ending militarist and the organizations of states which was known as the League of Nations. Woodrow had failed to obtain approval by the senate to the treaty as it required the US to enter into the League of Nations as it would compromise the control of war power.
He did not involve the republicans though they were the one controlling Congress and those compromises that would allow the US to get an entry to the league without it surrendering its sovereignty. Woodrow was elite that did not trust the ideas of radicals and thus became an effective advocate of the progressive advancement. He was a mix of the conservatives and the liberals’ ideas with religious underpinning. Though he was a military leader he ignored their affaires and focused on diplomacy to complex issues (Link, 1956). This saw him win the war and his country rejecting the entry to the League of Nations due to his refusal to include the republicans on its implementation.
President Woodrow was a rigid with a self-extracting personality that he sometimes failed to come to agreement that were important to his political objectives as all controversial laws were led through the Congress. He was a man that understood the national legal affairs and diplomacy as he usually recognized the solutions that were capable of satisfying most of the needs to the aggrieved parties (Weisenburger, 1936). He was always willing to negotiate usually getting to his way to the end of the negotiation mostly when motivated by his supporters. The vetoing of the immigration bill by President Woodrow that required the immigrants to be tested on literacy to reduce the immigration of the poor, as he believed that the immigrants could be assimilated to the US society and become a homogenous with other whites of the middle class.
He considered the segregation of the immigrants to be unacceptable because it acted as a group rather than it being blend into a common population. He was determined to seek the US strength through unity through the blending of every community’s characteristics in the creation of the ideal citizenly that contradicted the civilization of the Anglo-Saxon foundation (Link, 1956). The campaign of the suffragists for the passing of the amendment which would allow women to vote arguing that this will have the capability of purifying the politics with new entrants less liable to corruption which the President became the advocate of its critical importance. This is because many democrats were against these suffrages making an issue to democracy.
God was the central pillar of Woodrow leadership and his thoughts as this assured that he followed the guidance of God. This made him see as a messenger of God as he promoted democracy and peace of the world as he personified the US as a Christian nation and that would lead the world. Both presidents played a key role in the exercise of their executive powers to seek for solutions that were beneficial to all the parties that were involved. Roosevelt had extended his powers because of his believe that he served his country best with his surprise and vigorous decisions as he was a President of action who did not under to create his legacy of history.