Stewardship and Governance: Model Review and Analysis Report

This report undertakes a comprehensive review of stewardship models, focusing on the contributions of Wilson (2016) and Block (1993). The analysis begins with an examination of both models, highlighting their core principles and contrasting their approaches to leadership and governance. The rep...Read More

Running header: Stewardship and governance 1
Stewardship and Governance
Students Name
Institutional Affiliation

Stewardship and Governance 2
Review of the model of stewardship presented by Wilson (2016).
Kent Wilson’s presents a historical and biblical model of stewardship. Most Christians
think that servant leadership is the modest and best leadership model, but Wilson presents it
differently. According to him, servant leadership is a subset of steward leadership. Kent Wilson
defines stewardship as the control and management of resources that belong to another
individual so as to meet the owner’s objectives or goals (Robinson, 2017). He continues further
to extinguish between non-profit and business models of stewardship. This is because, the
principal identity of a non-profit leader is to act as a steward of resources belonging to other
peoples (Wilson, 2010). This means that steward leadership is the best model for non-profit
leaders.
The historical roles of stewards present in the Greco Roman world are well described and
exposed. On this, the nine characteristics that apply to contemporary management are outlined.
Next, Dr. Kent exposes the biblical integration with leadership. In this, he shows how the biblical
model of stewardship differs from the classical approach. One element that is a requisite in both
systems is trustworthy on the people managed (Wilson, 2010). For example, Wilson argues that
Biblical stewards are accountable and answerable to God. This is by ruling as in the image of
God, which is the set divine pattern of the divine owner. In conclusion, the clarity of how Wilson
presents the different stewardship models generates a persuasive case for stewardship leadership.
Review of the model of stewardship presented by Block (1993).
Block (1993) defines stewardship as the choice to officiate the precise distribution of
power. It’s the willingness to accountability without compliance. Block’s models of stewardship
are focused towards how institutions are governed and managed. According to Block,
stewardship begins with accountability to a larger body such as an organization, team or
community. More emphasis is made on service over self-interest which is a model of
stewardship, since being genuinely accountable means not being in control of the world around
us (Block, 1993). Therefore, a level of trust is needed. As a commitment to service, the
accountability model requires the application of good parenting as a type of governance.
Secondly, we have partnership which is a stronger cousin to patriarchy. Genuine services
require people to act on their account. However, partnerships are fundamental in governing the

Stewardship and Governance 3
growth of institutions. It includes major elements such as exchange of purpose, absolute honesty,
mutual accountability and the right to say no. In partnerships, there should be contact without
control since it’s not all about getting our way (Block, 1993). Block also focusses on choosing
adventure over safety as a model of stewardship. Individuals are empowered to be in positions
that help them discover themselves and define their purpose. However, empowerment without
commitment can be devastating. This is because an employee is given the mandate to become the
creator of their position in the organization.
Block model of stewardship.
Selected model: Choosing service over self-interest.
According to Block (1993), stewardship calls for the trust of those in leadership
positions. This model requires leaders to place service ahead of their self-interests. This is
because for a leader to serve effectively and efficiently, he or she should give up control. This
model borrows from Gandhi’s elements of service based on power, and they include;
• Contribution is considered our humanity.
• Power can only be granted from those below.
• What may be true is known by all parties involved.
Over the years, leaders who implement this model are held in high regard (McKinney,
2014). They are sought for guidance and direction since they are believed to be competent and
knowledgeable. One such custodian of this model happens to be in the fifth century BC. This
was a time that the Roman army was surrounded and there was a need for a leader who could
lead the country into victory hence seizing the moment. The Roman army chose a farmer known
as Cincinnatus to guide them. Cincinnatus came and conquered and gained fame for his devotion
to his country. This is a perfect example that demonstrates how the legendary hero gave his all in
a time of crisis for his country (McKinney, 2014). Even after the task, the gentleman gave up the
reins of power and went back to farming.
Also, George Washington, the first president of America exemplifies this type of
stewardship model. George Washington is considered an aristocratic leader, and when called to
defend the interest of his nation, he arose to challenge all odds (McKinney, 2014). This was

Stewardship and Governance 4
during the American war of independence. After leading his nation for about two terms, he
resigned and went back to his agricultural endeavors. This means that he was not after the
position but after the interests and welfare of the people of America.
True leadership is primarily a selfless action. This is because the needs of others are put
first. It takes other people into account at the expense of one’s pressing needs (McKinney, 2014).
Choosing service over self-interest considers what is best for the broader interest. I believe this
model of stewardship from Peter Block is one of the best models that can bring a positive change
to an organization. Considering the needs of others is what pertains to love and respect
(Hernandez, 2008). For example, when a driver is driving a car responsibly by observing the
rules and regulations required, this means he or she cares about the lives of his or her passengers.
This is what we call selflessness and by adhering to that ensures the needs of others come first.
Even for organizations, customers are regarded as the most crucial stakeholders since meeting
their needs and wants forms the basis for the organization’s operations (Russell & Gregory
Stone, 2002).
Potential benefits of choosing service over self-interest in an organization setting.
In the organization I am based in, the leadership of the departments is separated in the
form of different job groups including engineers, accountants, procurement officers, and other
job groups. The organization follows a functional type of organization setting. The organization
can achieve major benefits if it employs/ incorporates the service over self-interest stewardship
model. To begin with, we have increased productivity. By focusing more on its employees and
also ensuring they are well compensated, the employees can be motivated to provide their best
input (Joseph & Winston, 2005). In addition, the inclusion of employee participation in crucial
decisions can ensure the employee interests are met hence prompting increased productivity.
Secondly, we have low turnover rates. Giving recognition to all employees through
respecting their diverse needs and wants will ensure the employees have no reason to leave the
company (Russell & Gregory Stone, 2002). In addition, putting the needs of employees first will
portray the selflessness of the organization which is a crucial aspect in ensuring the organization
soars high. Its brand image will also get better hence guaranteeing the competitive advantage of
the organization.

Stewardship and Governance 5
Lastly, we have excellent communication. Communication is a crucial tool in the
productivity and performance of every organization (Mallett-Hamer, 2005). However, it is
dependent on the flow from the top management to the lower management. By employing the
model and ensuring the organization is more focused on service rather its greedy interests, the
organization will be able to coordinate different functions across its employees both effectively
and efficiently. This will, in turn, lead to improved productivity within the organization.
Potential challenges of choosing service over self-interest in an organization setting.
Employing service over self-interest in a functional organization setting can prompt
different challenges within the organization setting. Since I work in an organization that has
adopted a functional organizational setting, the challenges that might be experienced include;
One, we have the inability of achieving more with less. Focusing only on service without
involving self-interest brings around the question, how can make ensure productivity with the
increased consumer demand and fewer employees? Due to cost pressures, questions of
innovation, and sustainability, it would be challenging to always focus on the personal interest of
each stakeholder and be able to meet their exact needs (Block, 1993).
Secondly, we have creating commitment and passion among employees. Since the
organization differentiates leadership in terms of specialty, creating enthusiasm among the
employees in order to take responsibility for the success of the company can be a challenge.
Since the employees need to assume their roles as “owners” of the organization, creating a
workplace that stimulates commitment might allow the company to achieve more (Block, 1993).
For the model to bring success, each employee needs to believe that he or she is a crucial
component since the model offers spirit and choice to employees in order that they can deliver
the same to the market.
Lastly, adapting to the customer's requirements will be a challenge. Since the company
has adopted a structure that employees are dedicated to a particular function, employing the
model so as to allow employees work in a team to achieve the needs of the customers or to adapt
to their requirements might be a challenge. This is because responsiveness goes deeper than just
a friendly voice, welcoming website or positive attitude (Lapointe & Vandenberghe, 2018).
Customers want to have more influence over what they want or need hence, focusing selflessly
on in the customers interests might be difficult at first for the employees.

Stewardship and Governance 6
References
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Hernandez, M. (2008). Promoting stewardship behavior in organizations: A leadership
model. Journal of business ethics, 80(1), 121-128.
Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and
organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 6-22.
Lapointe, É., & Vandenberghe, C. (2018). Examination of the relationships between servant
leadership, organizational commitment, and voice and antisocial behaviors. Journal of
Business Ethics, 148(1), 99-115.
Mallett-Hamer, B. (2005). Communication within the Workplace. University of Wisconsin-Stout.
McKinney, M. (2014). The Focus of Leadership | Service | Servant Leadership @ Leadership
Now. Retrieved from https://www.leadershipnow.com/service.html/
Robinson, N. (2017). Book Review: Steward Leadership in the Nonprofit Organization.
Retrieved from https://asistasjourney.com/2017/02/14/book-review-steward-leadership-
in-the-nonprofit-organization/
Russell, R. F., & Gregory Stone, A. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes:
Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3),
145-157.
Wilson, K. (2010). Steward Leadership: Characteristics of The Steward Leader In Christian
Nonprofit Organizations. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5e83/15f4a8558f3809f86fc565ba865e34f5d57d.pdf