From Blame to Belonging: Transforming Organizational Leadership with the System-Servant-Self Model

Not long into my career in higher education (one that spanned nearly 20 years and five institutions, ranging from large R1 universities to small non-profits, I found myself in a one-on-one Zoom meeting with the Chair of the Board of Directors of my institution. It’s a long story about how I got there (what early-career academic gets such an audience?), but nonetheless, there I was. ?

He was laughing and telling me a story about how he was a high school dropout but how he’d had the best teachers. Simply the best.

“We knew how to read and write, let me tell you.”?

He continued his diatribe about how he’d taken his GED and gone to college. How he (a white man in his 60s, maybe early 70s), somehow, without any post-secondary degrees, was now the Chair of the Board of Directors for an HEI conglomerate. It was baffling. And at the same time, it wasn’t.

He hadn’t stopped talking for 20 minutes, and I was no longer sure what the conversation was about. The pit in my stomach was growing larger because I could sense it coming. I could feel the power differential that he wanted to convey flowing through his pixelated image on my screen. And then he hit me with it.

“You know who I blame for students’ inability to write?” he asked.

I knew it was a rhetorical question. He wanted me to give him an answer that was not the right answer so that he could give me his answer. The one that would set him apart from me.

“I don’t know. You tell me,” I ventured, hoping I was playing into his game the way he wanted me to.

He chuckled. “The women’s movement.”

I feigned a chuckle. There it was.

“Think about it,” he continued.

And I tried to look compelled and interested as he explained that the reason we needed to develop this program for assessing our incoming students’ writing skills was because of the progress women had made in career advancement over the past 50 years.

The “bra-burning!” His eyes widened as he said this, and I almost didn’t catch it because I was trying so hard to act interested and not listen at the same time.

“Yes.” I found myself nodding. And so he continued.

“Back in my day,” he said, “the brightest women only had three options. Be a teacher. Be a nurse. Be a mom. Now, they have all the options that they want.”

Now, my eyes widened. Oh yes, I thought to myself, all the options we want. We’ve got ‘em all.

“The best and brightest women, they are all getting PhDs. I mean, like you.”

I admit I was flattered by this.

“None of them are teaching anymore,” he lamented. “Now, teachers are the bottom of the barrel.”

And with that, and with the fact that the meeting had already gone nearly 30 minutes longer than I intended, I finally interrupted him. Apologetically, because obviously I really did want to hear his opinion of America’s teachers and how they were the bottom of the barrel, I let him know I had another meeting starting in just one minute and that I really needed to go.

He thanked me. He told me he’d enjoyed the conversation. I replied that, no, the pleasure had been all mine. That I was grateful he’d taken the time out of his day to talk to an employee of one of the many organizations over which he presided about a project we hoped would help support our rapidly growing student population.

Does this blame game sound familiar? It’s never the fault of those in power when things aren’t going quite according to plan, is it? When profits drop or targets aren’t met, it’s not the system; it’s those in it who have changed, right?

Wrong!

The "system-servant-self model" encourages organizations to move away from blaming external factors, such as the women's movement, for internal issues and instead promote genuine self-reflection for organizational change. The model emphasizes how third-space leadership can thrive if the system supports it, but when it doesn't, professionals turn inward. It is based on these premises:

• Third space leadership is democratic, distributed, and relational, empowering those in organizational blind spots.
• When the system doesn't support this leadership, professionals seek self-actualization elsewhere.
• Organizations need to restructure the system to value third-space positions as much as their professional counterparts.
• Financial compensation, promotion opportunities, and self-actualization are critical for professionals in the third space.

To stop the blame game and foster internal reflection, organizations can apply the system-servant-self model by:

Recognizing the value of third space professionals: Acknowledge the contributions of those in non-traditional roles who often work in institutional blind spots.

• Challenging patriarchal structures: Move away from top-down, hierarchical systems that reflect oppression and inequality, and instead adopt democratic and human-focused leadership.
• Promoting feminization: This means moving towards more democratic and human-focused ways of leading, not at the expense of males.
• Creating a sense of belonging: Ensure that being a woman or member of a marginalized group does not undermine expertise or authority.
• Shifting the system: Re-evaluate what is valued in the organization, such as de-emphasizing traditional credentials or what a leader “looks like” if it doesn’t lead to effective leadership.
• Equipping and empowering: Adopt a leadership style that equips and empowers individuals, fostering their growth and potential.
• Addressing institutional blind spots: Bring issues to leadership conversations and meeting tables.
• Valuing diverse perspectives: Implement organizational changes that value a wide range of views and challenge conventional practices.
• Expanding shared governance: Increase opportunities for staff participation in decision-making to promote autonomy and social responsibility.
• Analyzing pay structures: Conduct thorough analyses of pay structures and address inequities across different units.
• Recognizing core work: Acknowledge and reward essential tasks such as mentorship and counseling.
• Challenging assumptions: Combat institutionalized assumptions about who should do what work, ensuring that "university housekeeping" is not disproportionately placed on women and devalued.
• Prioritizing collaboration: Shift the organizational culture to prioritize collaboration and connection over hierarchy, recognizing and rewarding diversity in leadership.
• Adopting critical pedagogies: Use critical pedagogies to discover systems of oppression and power, giving voice to marginalized groups.
• Engaging in immanent critique: Reveal societal contradictions to elicit progressive change by exposing gaps between assumed power relations and lived experiences.

By implementing these strategies, organizations can create a more equitable and inclusive environment, fostering genuine internal reflection and transformation rather than resorting to blaming external forces. This approach requires a shift in perspective, recognizing the value and potential of all members, especially those in the third space, and addressing systemic issues that perpetuate inequality.