Summing Up
Is the Term "Servant Leadership" an Oxymoron?
Servant leadership (SL) is a concept that triggers a great deal of interest, judging by my e-mail inbox and the number of responses to this month's column. Many comments suggested that: (1) servant leadership is practiced by many respondents, (2) it works, and (3) there are a number of reasons why others don't or can't practice it. Timothy Lynn Burchfield provided an eloquent endorsement of the concept this way: "Those who serve (vs. power or buy) their way to influence leave a huge legacy to those around them."
Servant leadership is experienced so rarely because of trends in the leadership environment, the scarcity of human qualities required, demands that the practice places on the practitioner, and the very nature of the practice itself.
As Tahir Quzi put it, "A majority of leaders as agents of principals see themselves as maniacally focused on getting short term results …" Napoleon Elortegui commented that "… the organizational model is not geared to move the 'servant' person to the top." It can produce a "culture where leadership is associated with codes like power, selfishness & control," according to Ranji Cherian. As a result, SL was characterized as "… a risky proposition … within organizations…" (John Servant) and … a long and hard road for someone" (Karan Yaramada). Dan Wallace asked, "Where do you go to learn how to lead this way?"
Several commented that SL requires qualities that are all too rare, such as "cardinal virtues" (Katherina Lange), a "paradoxical combination of courage AND humility," (Lisa Slayton), "(a) high degree of self control… " (Ashok Jain), and "validation needs (that) have largely been met … (making it) very challenging for younger people to be servant leaders" (Mike Gatliff). Personal characteristics that get in the way of SL include "Ego (that) makes it difficult to 'want to serve'" (Randy Hoekstra), "greed" (Madeleine York), and "An unhealthy desire to control" (Judesther Marc).
The very nature of servant leadership may influence its spread, according to David Livesley, who said, "Even if it is more prevalent than we think, we will never hear about it; what we never hear about, we never copy." Steve Hickman added, "… it is a recessive organizational gene… You don't get promoted if you don't get noticed." Christy commented that "SL is not prevalent because it is a Utopian approach that requires a complete paradigm shift for most modern day employees at any level." Tom Leahy said "… it is exhausting but also fulfilling," while Myrielle Lemoine attributed its rarity to "everyone from all levels being stretched too thin…" Several (including John Keck, Michael Darmody, and Mona Bagot) subscribed to the idea that SL can be perceived as a weakness. Anna Caraveli had an interesting take on this notion: "… there is a great deal of ambiguity in defining what strong leadership means … interestingly, the 'servant' concept is not considered 'weakness' when applied to a company's relationship with clients…"
As it has evolved in use, the term itself may pose an obstacle for the concept. That's the view of Mark Stanley, who commented that "These terms do not fit together-Servant & Leader … It's just another way poor leaders attempt to elevate themselves above those they 'serve'… an entirely unhealthy approach for a leader to take… Our need to be led well is far more important than our need to be served. The more correct notion is that of a 'Serving Leader' … (with) many 'masters'… when Richard Greenleaf coined this phrase … he was talking entirely about how leaders serve, not about leaders being servants." Do you agree? Is servant leadership an oxymoron? What do you think?
Original Article
Servant leadership is an age-old concept, a term loosely used to suggest that a leader's primary role is to serve others, especially employees. I witnessed a practical example of it at a ServiceMaster board meeting in the 1990s when CEO William Pollard spilled a cup of coffee prior to the board meeting.
Instead of summoning someone to clean it up, he asked a colleague to get him cleaning compound and a cloth, things easily found in a company that provided cleaning services. Whereupon he proceeded to get down on his hands and knees to clean up the spill himself. The remarkable thing was that board members and employees alike hardly noticed as he did it. It was as if it was expected in a company with self-proclaimed servant leadership.
Lao-Tzu wrote about servant leadership in the fifth-century BC: "The highest type of ruler is one of whose existence the people are barely aware…. The Sage is self-effacing and scanty of words. When his task is accomplished and things have been completed, all the people say, 'We ourselves have achieved it!'"
It is natural, rightly or wrongly, to relate servant leadership to the concept of an inverted pyramid organization in which top management "reports" upward to lower levels of management. At other times it has been associated with organizations that have near-theological values (for example, Max De Pree's leadership at Herman Miller, as expressed in his book, Leadership is an Art, that emphasizes the importance of love, elegance, caring, and inclusivity as central elements of management). In that regard, it is also akin to the pope's annual washing and kissing of the feet as part of the Holy Thursday rite.
The modern era of servant leadership began with a paper, The Servant as Leader, written by Robert Greenleaf in 1970. In it, he said: "The servant leader is servant first … It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead … (vs. one who is leader first…) … The best test, and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons … (and become) more likely themselves to become servants?"
Now it appears that a group of organizational psychologists, led by Adam Grant, are attempting to measure the impact of servant leadership on leaders, not just those being led. Grant describes research in his recent book, Give and Take, that suggests that servant leaders are not only more highly regarded than others by their employees and not only feel better about themselves at the end of the day but are more productive as well. His thesis is that servant leaders are the beneficiaries of important contacts, information, and insights that make them more effective and productive in what they do even though they spend a great deal of their time sharing what they learn and helping others through such things as career counseling, suggesting contacts, and recommending new ways of doing things.
Further, servant leaders don't waste much time deciding to whom to give and in what order. They give to everyone in their organizations. Grant concludes that giving can be exhausting but also self-replenishing. So in his seemingly tireless efforts to give, described in the book, Grant makes it a practice to give to everyone until he detects a habitual "taker" that can be eliminated from his "gift list."
Servant leadership is only one approach to leading, and it isn't for everyone. But if servant leadership is as effective as portrayed in recent research, why isn't it more prevalent? What do you think?
To Read More:
Max De Pree, Leadership is an Art (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1987)
Adam Grant, Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success (New York: Viking Press, 2013)
Robert K. Greenleaf, The Servant as Leader (Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, 2008)
C. William Pollard, The Soul of the Firm (New York: HarperBusiness and Grand Rapids, MI: ZondermanPublishingHouse, 1996)
These are the attributes that servant leadership requires. Not a great match. While there are many counter examples, the characterization is fair, if overdrawn. Prof Heskett has never lost sight of these values. Thank you.
Perhaps this combination of strategic thinking and servant leadership is difficult to find in the same individual.
"The Sage is self-effacing and scanty of words. When his task is accomplished and things have been completed, all the people say, 'We ourselves have achieved it!'"
Even if it is more prevalent than we think, we will never hear about it; what we never hear about, we never copy.
Let's look at the issue. The "I'm more important than you" leadership usually limits performance and innovation because everything goes through a single control point the leader. The leader has to be always informed, has to give permission, always has "the best ideas" and focuses only on performance goals that make him, not necessarilty the company, look good. That creates a huge bottleneck on the performance of the leader's employees.
A servant leader, focused on getting the most from his or her employees, empowers and trains their employees to do their job, without the "mother may I" albatross hanging around their neck. The servant leader sends the employees working on the project to meetings and links them with resources to do their job. That way the employees can do their job without having to go through the single choak point "the leader". This type of leader is not loaded with meetings because his or her staff are doing the job. It no longer is about ego but performance. What really is an eye opener is seeing the servant leaders influence explode throughout an organization since they seem to be everywhere. When really it is their influence being expressed by their entire staff at multiple points in the organization at the same time. Bottom line...hire right, support effectively, expect performance....and you will get it.
As a leader...do not become the choak point in your organization. How can you tell? Are you going to too many meetings where you have to followup and pass information to others? Are you overworked with too many interruptions from employees? Are you demanding deadlines to meet goals instead of having work appear on your desk completed? Are your employees happy and getting promoted? If not, take a close look in the mirror.
ntroduce this concept into primary education institutions and develop new leaders from the most early phases in individual development. Then it would become more prevalent.
Their job is to support their teachers so that the teachers can grow and implement change and that is what benefits kids.
Principals who do such things as covering a class so that the teacher has time to put a new method into place in the classroom, and then helping the teacher to measure the effect of that change on student learning, are making the biggest impact as educational leaders.
One problem - The servant leader can often struggle with delegation. The "do-it-yourself" style of person requires other leadership skills and discipline to reach their full potential. This can be achieved through a combination of training and work experience to build confidence.
There is also a dark side that can exist within many organizations. Junior level servant leaders can get stuck below mid-level managers that take credit for their work. As a senior manager within an organization you must learn to identify the leadership skills of junior staff and build opportunities for them to grow within your organization. Otherwise, they will leave your organization or (even worse) become stagnate.
Servant Leadership is serious business and I think the Ken Blanchard Executive MBA program is model for the servant leadership movement.
The book Leading at a Higher Level by Ken Blanchard is also a great resource.
True and lasting high level of employee engagement is a natural outcome in an organization that embraces Servant Leadership. Employe engagement is the the most effective way to become and remain a High Performing Organization.
Servant leadership, in my opinion, can be a marvelous way of leadership while taking care of all aspects that have to be with teamwork model, acting congruently with words about service, and respecting each other as another valid person.
I agree with Adam Grant's opinion: "... a serve leader spends a great deal of their time sharing what he has learned and helps others to develop themselves suggesting ideas or recommending new ways of doing things". Letting they suggest their own ideas and taking them into consideration makes their leader a Serve Leader and a Great Person too. And this last role is always first.
I believe that, as if you say, this way of leadership is not every day way of doing things; it must be a serious job to do by many leaders who want to be recognized seriously as Great Leaders. One first thing we can do is change the way we show organizational charts. If we draw employees under leaders, we are giving them the message that they have to serve us because we are upon them.
Thanks for letting me express my opinion, knowing it's just my opinion.
Regards!
"How do we get there". I suggest we have to start with the schools making the change first.
Choosing to live your life last is not second class leadership. I have done it for 30 years.
This is true leadership and a path to influence that cannot be easily explained. Some people power their way to influence. Some buy there way to influence. Those who serve their way to influence leave a huge legacy to those around them.
Its premised on more eastern philosophical propositions such as flourishing, abundance, transience etc.
2. Most people get into positions of power so that they can receive and be served, not so they can give and serve. Simply put, servant leadership is not prevalent because the desire to serve is not prevalent, and leaders as a group -- by self-selection -- have even less of a desire to serve than others.
While very effective this method I feel is sometimes perceived as counter-intuitive by many that are in leadership roles.
It's all about getting one's ego out the way so to speak. Seriously, it really is. The paradox is that when one implements this attitude of "service" towards people it's very empowering. You're much more likely to be successful at whatever the agenda is. Whether it's getting your team to embrace a new marketing strategy or recommitting themselves to a business policy you feel they've strayed from it works.
It will become the new paradigm in great leadership simply because it works when most other leadership styles fail.
Prof Jim Heskett has raised a very valid question as to why this Leadership style is not popular. It is perhaps the anxiety to meet targets, increase profits, reduce costs, modernise, reengineer, expand and make token contributions towards CSR that keeps our corporate leaders always on the fast track. If Servant Leadership is to gain acceptance as another style of leadership, then today's leaders must learn to be more Humble. Humility alone can nurture a more meaningful relationship between the leader and the led. Unfortunately, the aggressiveness that is promoted in most organisations makes their leaders insensitive to the principles of Servant Leadership. I do agree that Servant Leadership may not succeed in all situations, but it does warrant a fresh look.
Prof Heskett deserves praise for rekindling interest in this long forgotten style of leadership. It would be wise to take it forward by the Business Schools
Since I can assimilate to this type of leadership, I believe that the leader should strive to create the ideal atmosphere and working conditions for all its employees to succeed. Putting your employees on orbit often requires uplifting the employee's spirits, motivating them and trying to get all the petty things out of the way for them to concentrate on the essential, getting the job done.
Like all styles of management it has its pros and cons and is more adapted to certain situations than others.
Help yourselves to free goods (ideas) while supplies last! Costs are (not obvious) absorbed by others.
Ravindra Edirisooriya
Analyst, Programmer and Consultant 05/02/13
Edirisooriya Business and Management Services
I believe what is at the root of why some are or are not servant leaders is a simple issue of motivation, self or the cause. Is this person only here for themselves at all costs or is this truly a great team member who feels their success comes only after the team's success? That is the basic question that begins the path of servant leader or not.
Those of us who are best at command and control rise to the top not realizing the damage we have done to our employees in terms of stress, frustration, and being continually treated with disrespect OR the loss of productivity, innovation, and creativity we have caused. As a command and control type, I did not realize I was creating all this damage until I changed to listening and responding to my people. And I loved the 300% performance gains that resulted from my change.
While companies do not recognize and reward internal Servant Leaders, they hire External consultants as Coaches and Mentors, whose jobs are similar. The Coach/Mentor is expected to serve the employees by widening their horizons, enabling their thought process to take better decisions. However, companies do not persist with these measures long term, and the coaches /mentors are the first ones to be shown the door when there are cost pressures.
1. An unhealthy desire to control others
2. A misguided attempt at self preservation
3. Poorly set cultural expectations.
1. A servant leader must allow those he or she leads to disagree (respectfully) with his or her position and to make mistakes even if that mistake is a result of the disagreement. This will give the leader an opportunity to serve by teaching and bringing the follower back to the goal or vision of the organization. Unfortunately there is a tendency to try and control other's actions and thoughts.
2. Often leaders will stifle innovation and growth in an attempt to preserve their position. They don't want to look bad because someone else had a better idea or knows of a better way. This makes it difficult if not impossible to serve or give to your followers as they would only improve in knowledge and understanding.
3. Lastly, organizational culture and history can create an atmosphere where servant leadership is not rewarded or valued by those at the very top thus making difficulty for leaders in middle to be servant leaders or promote servant leadership. To change the organization it must start at the top.
e opportunity to learn and improve. Why would an employee, "walk though fire" for a boss? Because they know that boss would do it for them or, in fact, the boss has done it for them, it's that simple...but not that easy.
Tom
Lastly, employees and customers have to stand up and demand different, better and more! Without that, nothing will change.
I think to administer suitable doses at the right times would be the appropriate way for catering to different culturally diverse ethnically different set of minds!
Thankyou for the intriguing question. Being a servant often implies being under someone, following their orders, their will. Leadership is about making others follow. This contrast in conception is what I believe, makes serving and leading not compatible in the minds of many. So, the main reason that it is not prevalent, is to my understanding, that it is not considered as a form of leadership by many leaders and they are not willing to become a servant and hence thinking they will become a follower.
Regards
Kamal Hossain
Faculty of Business
London School of Commerce
For more details see my blog here: http://ecologicalleadership.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-un-prevalent-servant-leader.html
http://ecologicalleadership.blogspot.com/
tails, but before you do, check out http://youtu.be/maINUv2H8A0. Here are the lyrics. I hope both inspire you to continue spending your heaven doing good on earth!
My best friend gave me the best advice
He said each day's a gift and not a given right
Leave no stone unturned, leave your fears behind
And try to take the path less traveled by
That first step you take is the longest stride
If today was your last day and tomorrow was too late
Could you say goodbye to yesterday?
Would you live each moment like your last
Leave old pictures in the past?
Donate every dime you had, if today was your last day?
What if, what if, if today was your last day?
Against the grain should be a way of life
What's worth the price is always worth the fight
Every second counts 'cause there's no second try
So live like you're never living twice
Don't take the free ride in your own life
If today was your last day and tomorrow was too late
Could you say goodbye to yesterday?
Would you live each moment like your last?
Leave old pictures in the past?
Donate every dime you had?
And would you call those friends you never see?
Reminisce old memories?
Would you forgive your enemies?
And would you find that one you're dreaming of?
Swear up and down to God above
That you'd finally fall in love if today was your last day?
If today was your last day
Would you make your mark by mending a broken heart?
You know it's never too late to shoot for the stars
Regardless of who you are
So do whatever it takes
'Cause you can't rewind a moment in this life
Let nothing stand in your way
'Cause the hands of time are never on your side
If today was your last day and tomorrow was too late
Could you say goodbye to yesterday?
Would you live each moment like your last?
Leave old pictures in the past?
Donate every dime you had?
And would you call those friends you never see?
Reminisce old memories?
Would you forgive your enemies?
And would you find that one you're dreaming of
Swear up and down to God above
That you'd finally fall in love if today was your last day?
Ours is a culture in which strong leadership may conjure up images of the confident, authoritarian captains of the industry of a previous era or visionary, industry-transforming rebels of today--but certainly not a humble Christ-like or Confucian leader figure. I believe there is a great deal of ambiguity in defining what strong leadership means--outside strategy and posture.
Interestingly, the "servant" concept is not considered "weakness" when applied to a company's relationship with clients, for example through customer service and the concept of demand centricity. Customer-driven organizations are not associated with weakness but with innovation and relevance. Perhaps this is because it is much clearer how customer orientation translates into business results. What we have found, of course, is that no organization can shift from customer service to true customer orientation if the servant leadership philosophy is not applied to all stakeholders--customers, employees, partners, etc.
The studies of organizational phychologists are fascinating, in that they link leadership philosophy to outcomes.
First, thanks for your book The Culture Cycle. You may have heard this from your other readers too, but I've found that your research helps immensely in discussions with senior executives who tend to view culture as the 'soft stuff'. I simply quote your 8.0+% Operating margin differential, and the attentiveness immediately improves!
As for why servant leadership isn't more prevalent, my belief is that we are not yet past the point where Type A personalities can feel safe
a) accepting their own human vulnerabilities, and need for things like love, care, appreciation, and
b) showing that side of themselves to their employees.
In the mindset of many CEO's, Presidents and senior execs, serving may be confused with weakness. After all, in many cases, often it has been Alpha dog behaviour that helped get them to the top. Servant leadership would require a major shift in mindset and behaviour.
So I think Grant's book, as is yours, is quite timely and useful in showing through research, that a servant approach to leadership is not only humane and moral, but it also yields superior performance results (far greater than those of competitors who retain dated leadership styles). Talk about a win/win deal!
It's all about personal values and the influence they have on leadership style. And it's awfully difficult to get to truly know what a person's values are....especially in difficult circumstances.
Cynicism, cronyism, and greed seem to be in season, but times change. I have great hopes for the generation coming of age since the may have it's meltdown. I also see some phenomenal women who are servant leaders.aybe we don't hear about it so much yet- give it another 10-15 years.
Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant (Matthew 20:26)
I have experienced numerous bosses/leaders in my lifetime, but the true leaders are those who possess humility, logic, compassion, empathy, righteousness, and especially meekness. This leader is a tolerant, yielding spirit that has the right of way, but he/she doesn't insist upon it.
Way too many "leaders" view meekness as a weakness, a timidness that they can't or don't understand or relate to. I know many mid-level managers who have these traits, but they aren't put into higher levels of management because 'upper management' doesn't get it.
Can the blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch? (Luke 6:39)
I think President Clinton at his recent speech at
http://www.georgetown.edu/news/bill-clinton-april-2013.html reminds that in order to serve, one must be obsessively interested in the people and the purpose first.
Rabindra nath Tagore's Postmaster (
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Postmaster) brings the point to the table, that servants have bigger hearts than the masters. Only a servant can take up work that no one might volunteer to. The work taken up by a servant is about connecting with the human nature that everything that matters around is done with ownership and pride for the outcome. In short, it is about getting the hands dirty to get to work.
But it is not just semantics. Greenleaf's view of servant leadership includes a deep dedication to the growth of their followers, to their transformation into better human beings - and better employees. And servant leaders themselves must be doing their own work on their own growth towards their own full humanity to authentically develop those they serve. How many CEOs do this? When will this be a selection criterion for positions of "leadership"?
With no meaningful way to discern the Servant Leader aptitude of two applicants the tiebreaker becomes profit, EPS, gross margins, etc...
Companies make choices based on what will allow the organization to survive or reasonably guarantee. A leader that can make the numbers has tolerable weaknesses. A servant leader that misses the target is unacceptable.
By nature Servant Leaders are humble and do not draw attention to themselves or their accomplishments. How then do you know that they are a Servant Leader?
Micro-managing is another form of disservice to an organization, for workers learn best by making decisions and trying new things. Sometimes they fail, so the freedom inherent in a service leadership style is risky.
Practicing servant leadership is the best way to promote it.
The world is seeking a different model for sustainable organizations , societies and our planet .Leadership development programs have significant inclusions of the principles of Servant Leadership . It is for many organizations and high performing companies "the" practice not always called servant leadership but the signs are clear -- listening , healing , empathy , awareness ,persuasion , forsight , conceptualization , stewardship , building community .
Beyond that we now have Spiritual Intelligence moving to Spiritual Capital allowing a deeper broader understanding for leaders , educators and organizations . It is a rich moment to be engaged and serving .
I add yet another quote from Lao Tzu: "He, who takes upon the humiliation of the people, is fit to be the master of the people".
This is leadership through massive delegation, accompanied by accountability. We might also call it "Humble Leadership." In my experience, it works - full stop - but indeed is not prevalent. Why not? My thoughts are:
1. Leading that way requires that you view your role as helping others be successful. Those are the people whom Adam Grant calls Givers. I don't recall his numbers, but there are many fewer givers than there are Matchers and Takers.
2. We are much more obsessed with outcomes than with process. Leading through massive delegation requires that you be willing to allow people to make mistakes, to have failures and to do things in ways other than the way you would do them. Great leaders know that allowing those things to happen will make the organization stronger in the long run, and know that if absolutely necessary, they can intervene to prevent a catastrophe. Weaker leaders are afraid of the near term consequences of any failure, and so act in ways designed to prevent them.
3. It takes a fair amount of ego to want to be at the head of an organization. The combination of a strong ego and a humble spirit is relatively rare.
4. As one of the commenters noted, the hero stories we here about leaders focus on the decisions they made, not the people they developed. Most people who've read Good to Great recall the Hedgehog Concept. How many of us remember that Collins starts with "Level 5 Leadership," which is all about humility and the empowerment of others?
5. Since most leaders are oriented toward command-and-control, it is very hard for humble leaders to advance because regardless of the results they produce, what they do looks and smells funny to the people responsible for their promotion.
6. Where do you go to learn how to lead this way? I am a very (!!!) proud graduate of HBS, but this certainly isn't what we were taught. I have friends who went to all of the "usual suspects" among great business schools, and none of them were taught it either. If our leading institutions of leadership education don't teach this style of leadership, who will?
Love Works, by Joel Manby. Joel is CEO of Herschend Family Enterprises. Joel is a 1985 HBS MBA whose work prior to Herschend included time at GM/Saturn, Saab and several other places. He also has been on the TV Series Undercover Boss. His book is about the values used at Herschend which are based on 1 Corinthians 13. The values are Love is Patient, Kind, Trusting, Unselfish, Truthful, Forgiving and Dedicated. You can do all of these things without sacrificing growth and profit.
So far so good. However, when we confront the various challenges of corporate life - business growth, profit making, meeting so many financial and non-financial targets - most of us remain so much under stress and tension that the ' higher ' needs receive lesser attention than deserved.
Business goals have got to be achieved. A CEO, therefore, makes it priority number one. For this, he has to see that his team delivers optimally. Those who fail to perform have to be appropriately dealt with. All this seems rather impossible if one adopts a strict ' servant ' approach.
As far as behavior towards staff is cocerned, it is possible to be humane, kind and helpful. One's own day-to-day routine needs can also be personally taken care of. Anger and harshness can and need to be avoided. Treating others the way you would expect them to treat you is a holy quality. Even if we give due attention to all this, we would be doing a lot.
Look at our schools and universities, which contents they are using. Look at society which roles models we are presenting. Look at CEOs which are getting fame. How a person dare to serve in these circumstances.
Service leadership is a philosophy which is not compatible with capitalism. It other hand promote human side of leading. Capitalism focus only numbers at the end. Service leadership give importance to human not numbers.
All those organization who wish to be lead humanly must withdraw themselves from numbers. They may be secondary objectives not prime one.
We tend to thing leadership comes from being and using power. The servant leader must yield most of his/her power down to the functional level. The leader's jobs are two, in my opinion. The first is Vision. Where are we going? And why? The other is providing resources. How are we going to get there?
The on-going conversation with respect to those things keeps the group leading and being led.
True Servant Leadership should be directed at the colleagues within the organisation. If this is correctly managed the desired results will follow naturally. A happy, well recognised & valued work force will always go the extra mile. Their reasoning will be that they are doing it for thier leader & and not the business however, the results will be better that those achieved through pressure from above to deliver profit.
Companies of all sizes have scaled down to the point of everyone from all levels being stretched thin. This results in leaders focusing on the bottom line with an approach of how they got there, so that they can replicate their product successes.
The focus on the human factor of business performance tends to be to weed out non-performers. The valuable time that should be spent properly acknowledging who got us there and constantly asking them "what can I do to make you be more successful?" is fallaciously re-allocated to compensate for that lack of time.
In order to be a servant leader, one must have a resolve that time is a valuable commodity only if spent wisely - and time spent putting the needs of others first to support them to perform as highly as possible is an investment that could yield an immediate return to the business.
es but few leaders!
1. Much of a manager's experience at work is one of frustration, and when we are frustrated we are more likely to act in a churlish manner. Peoples' immediate reactions reinforce the behavior.
2. Servant Leadership is about influence where most management training focuses on control.
3. Most company cultures reward managers who look and act in a decisive manner, whether their actions are productive or not. "Nice people" are generally considered to be "weak," or "too soft" to make the hard decisions.
4. Servant Leadership is a set of principles that have to be learned through experience. It is not a toolbox of techniques or methods. It is most effectively learned through mentorship - and we know there are not a lot of Servant Leaders to act as mentors.
thank you for your article on Servant Leadership. My colleagues and I here in the UK are actively promoting S/L and also have started a consultancy to help organisations boost their journey towards developing an S/L culture.
The time seems ripe for this as many people here feel jaded and cynical with leadership in general and in the Finance Sector and government in particular.
we recently ran a not for profit day on the theme of Leading in Troubled Times and had many enquiries and a good attendance, with people already on their journey and those who were curious about S/L.
If you come to the Uk it would be lovely to meet up and talk.
kind regards
Victoria
The ones who are striving to be servant leaders are deeply secure in their own identity. They know who they are, and who they aren't. Their identity is not rooted in external success or failure, or in what other people think of them. They have a deep sense of trust that if they are advancing the worthy mission of the organization, focusing on helping others be increasingly effective, they themselves will be fine.
Perhaps another way of describing this is that their validation needs have largely been met. They don't need to prove anything. They can largely forget themselves and focus on the goal, and the welfare of those around them.
I think this is one reason it is very challenging for younger people to be servant leaders.
Leaders are constantly prioritizing, choosing ultimately what is best for the organization. Sometimes the priorities are such that followers feel 'served', i.e. if the priority is growth and promotions and opportunities for advancement are ways forward that just so happen to feel like being 'served' to those who follow. But sometimes the priority is cost control - which leads to layoffs, reduced budgets, loss of benefits, wage freezes. Followers in this context do not feel 'served'.
One of the key problems with the Servant Leader idea is the understanding of who and what a servant is. Servants can and do serve their masters, but do not necessarily care for or care about their masters. They serve for a variety of reasons: for the money, to have a job, because they have no other choice. The notion of 'servant' is one step removed from slavery and has many of the associated negative connotations.
The 'Servant Leader' approach is one that is so schizophrenic that it is an entirely unhealthy approach for a leader to take. And - when it comes to followers - we are desparate for caring, competent, committed leaders. Our need to be led well is far more important than our need to be served.
The more correct notion is that of a 'Serving Leader' - and its more than just semantics. It fits with most of the warm fuzzy descriptors of a Servant Leader, but it is more realistic. Much of the challenge of leading is that one must serve many 'masters'; the board, the customer, the staff, the bottom line. It is an entirely different thing to be a servant of the board, than it is to serve the board.
Finally - and I suppose I should have started with this - when Richard Greenleaf coined this phrase some 40+ years ago, he was talking entirely about how leaders serve, not about leaders being servants. Two entirely different concepts.
A good test of potential servant leaders is the way discussants have filled in their position titles when posting comments to this discussion. Titles are associated with perceived achievement of success.A real servant leader has no use for titles.
Many visible 21st century leaders appear to be narcissists, almost like movie stars of a previous era. Building a profile, talking about one self and one's accomplishments, entering awards to win adulation at industry conferences or working on the perception of oneself is something considered almost crucial to worldly success today.
One cause of such behavior could be the curriculum at universities which inculcate such values and stress the importance of external/outward appearances. Another could be the incentives/rewards which some boards seem to accommodate for perceived breakthrough leaders capable of making/keeping companies successful in competitive industries or in government. This tends to inflate or self justify the ego of such leaders.
Servant leadership is quite similar to the quiet leader concept propounded by Prof Badaracco a couple of years ago. I still believe some of these can be found in places like universities where genuine concern for students under one's tutelage is the dominating paradigm.
As Jesus Christ aptly put it in Mark's gospel when the apostles argued as to who would be first," And He sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all"
Example: everyone knows you must be very careful setting a salesman's comp. plan because he/she is a master at gaming the system. The good salesman will figure your Plan out and exploit it where it can be exploited.
Why on earth do you think a 'leader' will not do the same? You have far too lofty an opinion of a CEO.
Leaders do what the organization incents him/her to do. Period. And organizations, by and large, look NOT to the success of subordinates as proof of leadership success but to the results of the LEADER. Thus, leaders are incented to take credit, manage, and do that which bestows glory on him/her-self, not on subordinates. This is a death-blow to servant behavior.
Then the question is: "Why do ORGANIZATIONS demand selfish behavior rather than servant leadership?" Do BODs not believe in the servant model?
The modern work culture does not value these virtues- humility (which is the basis of servant leadership)is frequently seen as a sign of weakness not strength, and is not necessarily rewarded. And humility is the opposite of assertiveness, which is counter to what is recognised and rewarded in today's work culture.
A few more humanities courses in the management curriculum might help people find the path themselves.
There is a sea change in leadership paradigms if you look back a couple decades. There is a growing literature that verifies that the old "captain of the ship," autocratic style leadership is toxic.
For example, Jim Collins' work in "Good To Great" identifies leadership styles that run the best of the best organizations. It's not perfect research, but he makes a good point. Much of what he identifies aligns with servant leadership principles.
Like any paradigm shift, it takes time. We think nothing now of working women, equal opportunity, minority managers, etc. whereas a couple decades ago it was very different.
Moreover, different forms of media be it may as television, social media, etc are portraying the popular notion of how a leader should be seen. Managers are viewed as some one who has the power to do things.
Servant leadership does not work, because the maturity , competence , skill , understanding of those whom you serve consider humility as weakness. It is not seen as empowerment of the people and providing resources, which anyway most companies do. But as inertness, complicit and casual.
Leaders have to continuously confront situations, where logical and database answers do not provide solutions. But the ingenuity and foresight of the leader drives the team to success. Hence serving literally means standing out and Giving literally means maneuvering the complexities to ease the burden of all associated with the firm. Some leaders have fancy lifestyles, but let not the personal life of leaders be a reflection of the service which he humbly provides. Optimal arrogance also pays as a firm is attacked continuously in a competing environment both internally and externally.
Culture is another big issue. In Europe, a CEO may drive his own car, but in Asia, a manager will have two drivers, moving him to his office next door and his children to school. Driving your own car would be considered servant and being driven a leader. How far will you go in changing the world ?
"Max De Pree's book, Leadership is an Art, that emphasizes the importance of love, elegance, caring, and inclusivity as central elements of management. In that regard, it is also akin to the pope's annual washing and kissing of the feet as part of the Holy Thursday rite."
Today's so leaders have orders from boards, shareholders and owners. Their first order of business is to make as big a profit for the company as possible. "Love, caring, inclusivity" are not taught in Business School, they are not even discussed. Foot washing? Loving the other human being? Are you joking? And keep in mind that the show is orchestrated by business leaders who have the biggest egos. They are so egotistical, they even compete amongst themselves. In the majority of Business Schools, the lesson plan focusses on how competitive business is and on how to stay as many steps ahead of your competitors as possible. It focuses on maximizing how to separate the consumer from his hard earned dollar, while giving same consumer a product that is produced at the lowest production cost possible; all for the benefit of the Capitalist(s) who set up the Organization. As long as that is the basic business model that companies world-wide follow, there simply is NO ROOM fo
r an elegant and noble concept such as Servant Leadership.
In the same lines, Gandhiji also proposed that the customer is a person to be served by businessmen as he is the one who gives you an opportunity to serve. This is particularly important because he said this in the first half of 20th century itself. Now, we find many business establishments portray these sayings of Gandhiji in prominent place, advertisements etc, in India.
There is an interesting saying, "When you see a chained slave, look at the other end of the chain, and you find his master." So meaningful! Slave and Master are equally bound by the chain. Similarly, a leader cannot exist in vacuum; he needs servants (or followers) to accomplish his task. He can accomplish it better by being a servant.
So I do not find the term "Servant Leadership" as oxymoron.
I challenge each leader to get some principles of leadership, based on Jesus life, you will see interesting revelations, on how we can manage and be better leaders.
we hope to have a fraction of the impact.
Regards,
Ron Strieker, Ph.D.
have second thoughts and withhold such help.
y use this approach to swallow all IT jobs in USA, Europe and everywhere by working (Perceived notion) for 14 hrs, sleeping in office and saying yes to everybody, how or who can tackle this onslaught. With such action nobody else can get job and can't compete because nobody will come to such a low quality of life or tricks so what is the way out, I suppose nothing. Most of the business school theories are just concepts in real world, look at reality of HR department, I will say this term or function itself should be abolished and it should be called Administrative services instead.
Others on this blog who have expressed concern with the term seem to think that "Servant Leader" only means the leader serves their employees. This too is shallow thinking. A leader has to serve the whole organization. Yes, their position in the organization makes it so having a maximally effective team is their primary task. But they also owe service to their peers, to their superiors, and to the corporate vision and goals. Economic realities bound what we can do for our teams and our corporations; and ignoring these realities serves no one. Serving the corporation also means service to society. As all corporations exist only with the permission of broader society: we have to make sure society values us. So, effective leadership is not just about "serving" every now and then. Effective leadership is a full-time job as a "servant." Indeed, it is not far from being a slave.
Boards of directors who promote egocentric CEOs are only passing up the greater economic value they can achieve by promoting executives that serve the organization, full time; and not their egos any of the time. I have seen egos squander corporate resources over and over. Promoting egocentric managers is not Darwinian optimization; but ignorance. Most on this blog seem to think ignorance is a top reason Servant Leadership is not more prevalent: ignorance of how it is done, and ignorance of the economic value it creates. Most on this blog also seem to think that egocentric leadership will not create the most competitive corporations of the future; but that egocentric leadership will itself soon go the way of the dinosaur.
By the way, I graduated from HBS in the 80's. I think I learned this stuff first at HBS. To me, "Servant Leader" is just an enhanced version of what we learned back then as state-of-the-art management practice. I am disappointed to hear others on this blog say they did not learn these principals while at HBS. It is interesting how we can hear the same words, and get different messages.
I apologize for being so blunt. I couldn't figure out how to make my point more graciously. Feel free to call me if you want to discuss. I am in the alumni directory.
And in answer to the question asked; No Servant Leadership is not an Oxymoron. It is truth once the misconceptions created by ego are stripped away and we can clearly see reality. We are one, not many. E Pluribus Unum, from many one - is false in that we were never many in the 1st place. Servant is Master and Master is Servant.
A LIMITING FACTOR FOR ANY LEADER IS THEIR MORAL DISPOSITION DEFINED BY SOME COMMON CHARCATER TRAITS SUCH AS , responsibilty , respect for one self and others , integrity ,fairness, honesty .
These leaders and their organization exhibit these principals listening , empathy , stewardship ,healing, awarness,conceptualization,forsight ,commitement ,community .
There are virtues involved in how you might apply these and then there is simple were is the heart in all this and all would agree we could always stand more virtues leaders in all segments of society . It is a very rich illuminating journey for those who choose it .
I remain in your service
Richard R pieper sr
In essence, I suggested there are three reasons.
The first is that transactional leaders outnumber transactional leaders.
You see, I'd say that most servant leaders are what James MacGregor Burns would have called "transformational" leaders. They tap into people's needs and values, inspire them with new possibilities and raise their confidence, conviction and desire to achieve a common, moral, motivating purpose. But transactional leaders aren't motivated by a higher, moral purpose - instead they concentrate on getting things done via a "I'll give you this if you give me that" approach. For example, politicians promising favours in exchange for votes.
My point is that our political parties and business organisations make it much easier for transactional leaders to float to the surface.
The second reason is that few leaders emphasise the importance of embodying a motivating vision.
That's partly down to the sheer number of transactional leaders out there, who aren't interested in vision and "direction" almost by definition. But it's also because so many leaders in my experience fear they are a failure if they don't have a ready-made vision (and most don't) so they avoid the subject. The tragedy is that they haven't realised it's possible to co-create a vision with those around them.
The third and last reason, I suggest, is that so many leaders have self-esteem problems. Deep down, for example, they may believe they are not good enough and fear the risk of failure and humiliation. That may surprise you, but after 3000 hours of executive coaching with CEOs and other leaders, I find it's true. It's just that most leaders are good at disguising their fears.
Why is a lack of self-esteem a factor behind the dearth of servant leaders? Well, a person who lacks self-esteem is forced (unconsciously) to defend themselves against their worse fears. And I've found that it makes them self-centred to the point where it dilutes the desire to serve others. The answer? Teach leaders to work on the practice of self-mastery in order to free themselves from their fears.
If you want to read the full article, you can find it here: http://www.three-levels-of-leadership.com/blog/self-mastery-2/why-do-we-have-so-few-servant-leaders/2013/08/09/
Maybe, It is just not studied or recorded enough. Great leaders need servant leadership skills. People need to feel and think their leaders take care of them, leading them to their maximum performance.
There has been a historical miss-conception that leaders need to be egocentric, self-centered, etc. funded by intelligent sociopaths who excelled in leadership based on their unhumanly drives and supported by an inmense historically ignorant and subjugated population.
Just 100 years ago, very few people had learning opportunities. Education has taken the power from sociopathic leaders and invited the SL leadership.
There are succesfull SL thru history. It takes a lot of effort to be a SL leader, at the same time, they are quite difficult to recognize, as Lao-Tzu says, "is one of whose existence the people are barely aware"
Being a succesful servant leader is not simple. "It requires qualities that are all too rare, such as "cardinal virtues" (Katherina Lange), a "paradoxical combination of courage AND humility," (Lisa Slayton), "(a) high degree of self control... " (Ashok Jain), and "validation needs (that) have largely been met ... (making it) very challenging for younger people to be servant leaders" (Mike Gatliff). Personal characteristics that get in the way of SL include "Ego (that) makes it difficult to 'want to serve'" (Randy Hoekstra), "greed" (Madeleine York), and "An unhealthy desire to control" (Judesther Marc)."
These are qualities only educated people can appreciate, and now society is ready to appreciate them.