Servant Leadership -- discuss

[Z-man]

The definition I'm working off of is this: "Servant leadership is leadership in which the leader transcends self-interest to serve the needs of others, help others grow, and provide opportunities for others to gain materially and emotionally." (Richard Daft, The Leadership Experience 2011 Cengage Learning p. 176)

What does servant leadership mean to you?

What leaders do you feel were servant leadres?

Discuss,
-Zoltan.

[Paul_Heery]

^^^

it looks like somebody needs help with their homework for grad school.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

the last CEO of Network World magazine practiced this type of leadership.

With over 3 years of experience under this concept, I can confidently say it's not leadership at all, but rather weakness. It's one of those things that sounds good on paper and is disastrous in practice.

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by Paul_Heery

^^^

it looks like somebody needs help with their homework for grad school.

Ya found me out!!

Actually, I already have a good outline, working paper, and a few famous servant leaders, so I'm pretty much set.

The concept of servant leadership is not well known in corporate America - it is somewhat radical since it reverses the tradiitonal roles of a manager and a subordinate. I believe it can be a very effective leadership style -- and I wanted to bounce this concept off the Pelican braintrust!

-Z-man.

[Groesbeck Hurricane]

Check out some reading on:

Dr. Ron Paul

Jackie Mars

Other than that my mind cannot work. (Between work, farmwork, grad school, and certification training...........my SC STILL needs the front brake pads replaced and the bearings looked into)

[Moses]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

I can confidently say it's not leadership at all, but rather weakness. It's one of those things that sounds good on paper and is disastrous in practice.

Beautifully illustrated in Zorba the Greek. "Man is a brute.... If you're cruel to him, he respects and fears you. If you're kind to him, he plucks your eyes out."

[Z-man]

Shaun, Moses- can you elaborate? I am curious to see your point of view.

@Moses - I find it rather ironic that you don't subscribe to servant leadership, with a nickname like Moses, who definately was a servant leader!

@Shaun - what criteria did you use to determine that the CEO's leadership style was ineffective? Did the company's profits decrease? Company morale diminished? The publication no longer a source of pertinent information?

Please elaborate -- it is easy to simply say, "It doesn't work." It is much harder to come up with substantial evidence. On the other hand, it is easy to say "In theory, servant leadership works." Much harder to get a whole company to buy in to this paradigm and make it work in practice.

-Z

[Moses]

Originally Posted by Z-man

Shaun, Moses- can you elaborate? I am curious to see your point of view.

-Z

Zorba was the boss at a mine. He befriended the workers. He treated them as equals. At the end of the day he served them cool water from a bucket. They grew to disrespect him. Ultimately they defied his leadership and the mine failed.

His conclusion was that you can be a boss or be a worker. You can't be both.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

I can later, busy morning and have to run to vote.

IMHO, it's a great leadership style for Liberal Women or anyone in Denmark. Works well in a Socialist environment. Capitalism has no place for servant leadership.

[Hugh R]

There is a reason that lots of workers come in late/leave early when the Boss is out of town.

[cbush]

Sounds like the Mentor / leader concept the Army uses. Some discussion of it here:
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20091231_art015.pdf
Google Army leader mentor foro this link and some others.

In an organization like the Army where you have to grow your own leaders, it is essential that leaders take the initiative to train their subordinates. It is a key part of your leadership responsibilities. While that may not apply so much in civilian context where you can hire in new leaders, I can't imagine why a leader would not want to do this. The article at the link above object more to the idea of the Army forcing this through a program or strategy rather than having it happen naturally, but that tends to be how we are.

The article gives some good examples of mentor leaders, George Marshall being one.

Good luck with your research

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

IMHO, it's a great leadership style for Liberal Women or anyone in Denmark. Works well in a Socialist environment. Capitalism has no place for servant leadership.

Hmm - it seems to work at Craigslist, IBM, Delta Airlines, Nordstrom's, FedEx, Wal-Mart, the US Army, various other companies

On the other hand, the 'traditional' style of leadership wasn't very effective at companies like AIG, Bear Sterns, Enron, ImClone, Lehman Brothers...etc.

-Z-man.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by Z-man

...Richard Daft, The Leadership Experience 2011 Cengage Learning p. 176

What does servant leadership mean to you?

What leaders do you feel were servant leadres?

Discuss,
-Zoltan.

What's the use of all your damn books if they can't answer that? --They tell me about the agony of men who can't answer questions like yours? --I spit on this agony!

End of discussion.
-Zorba.

[scottmandue]

John Wooden?

[Instrument 41]

I believe that this type of leadership works with only a certain type of employee. Others require a "Iron Fist " approach.

[Paul_Heery]

Servant leadership will always fail. The companies that you mentioned have embraced portions, but never fully. The worst way to make decisions is via large groups without a smart, conceptual leader. At the end of the day, an organization needs followers as well as leaders.

[Instrument 41]

I have seen just the opposite. Again it depends on who you are leading. Large companies, yes I can see this type of direction would not be successful. But, a firm that has a small number of employees, I have seen this type leadership work well, and yield some very good results in productivity, employee retention.

[Seahawk]

My opinion is the SL can work, but with constraints.

I have a great deal of experience managing large and small organizations, both in uniform and for the last two years as a business owner.

"Servant leadership is leadership in which the leader transcends self-interest to serve the needs of others, help others grow, and provide opportunities for others to gain materially and emotionally."

In some specific, measured events, this is a valuable tool. For instance, as a detachment Officer in Charge, I was always the first to arrive and the last to leave, regardless of personal schedules and commitments. I also spent a great deal of time and effort making sure we supported personal and professional growth opportunities for the young sailors. That included lots of informal career and professional advice, basket leave if they needed it, etc.

The list goes on and on.

As a program manager of a multi-billion dollar program office, I always supported losing valuable people for promotions into other organizations if I couldn't give them the same opportunity in mine. We would take the hit, scramble and reorg to pick up the slack, but that's just what you do.

In my last year of a nearly five year tour, I asked my boss to split my program office from one into three...the growth in UAS programs was swamping my ability to effectively manage the plethora of the small to very large UAS' in my portfolio. It was the right thing to do, even though it was not in my best self-interest.

All that said, there was never any doubt, nor is there now, who runs the program or company. I do. There is no committee, just my partner and me. We set the strategy, invest appropriately and LEAD. The material and emotional growth of our employees is tied to our performance and ability to execute our business plan and programs.

Do I still us SL in tailored cases? Sure. SL is just one aspect, albeit a minor one, of our overall strategy. But, then, so is Comanche Leadership when appropriate.

SL is not a strategy, it is a tool to be used in context.

[Por_sha911]

I can't give you a snappy definition with a lot of corporate mumbo jumbo buzzwords but I can tell you this:
-A S/L is not so self-absorbed that they are too big to do a menial task. Humble. He/she is willing to do anything they ask someone else to do. See a can in the parking lot? Pick it up and throw it in the trash on your way into the office. Make a pot of coffee instead of calling an intern to do it. A company owner who will hold the elevator door for the janitor.
-I spent 10+ years as a Board Member of a local community youth center operating completely by unpaid volunteers from the Chairman of the Board on down. Everyone on the board volunteered one or more nights. We cleaned toilets, swept floors, took out the trash... Whatever needed to be done. Could we have required someone else to do it? Sure but isn't it easier to follow someone who is willing to do anything they ask you to do?
Example: I wish I could remember who it was but there was an Army General who would stay at the front lines and eat the same food as the regular Army.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

the last CEO of Network World magazine practiced this type of leadership.

With over 3 years of experience under this concept, I can confidently say it's not leadership at all, but rather weakness. It's one of those things that sounds good on paper and is disastrous in practice.

I was gonna say......then this appeared in the third post. Show me a "service leader" and I'll show you somebody that's going to get crushed by several other non-service "managers."