Servant Leadership

[Zeke]

Reading the thread about auto parts chains and the WallMart syndrome made me think about top down management and servant leadership. Not too many good examples today in the corporate world of this kind of management. Supporting the individuals to help them realize growth and gain for not just themselves, but for the customers and the company.

I could tell you a story about trying to work for a company in lieu of fighting out a living as a lone wolf. After some training, I was put to work in sales. The phone I used had someone else's message on it and I couldn't access the message center if someone happened to find me on the phone and left a message. The other person got it later. I never did get an email account for over a month.

I quit. I thought I was a pretty good asset, much more than the counter help at AutoZone (mentioned many times in that other thread) or BurgerDonalds. I wonder why I was even hired? Well, I sold myself pretty well, but that's another story. No support whatsoever.

So, at your place of employment, be you the top dog or the runt, how's they treatin' ya? Do you feel any satisfaction? Is the place open, ethical, moral and vital? IOW, do you/they know anything about Servant Leadership?

I won't ask any more questions until later.

[Rusty Heap]

I was told once by a past supervisor during my performance review, to "lower my expectations in order to get along better with others"........

So basically, don't try to soar with the eagles or dare to make a difference, just peck the grain with the other turkeys and hens.

I don't mind losing the battle if I win the war, you have to pick the battles you CAN win.

Corporate America has really lost the drive, the passion, the daring.......

Middle of the road, politically correct, don't promote the people who take risks, and still give about the same level of salary increase to people who are asleep at the wheel.

Call me jaded, but really there isn't much reward that I see for sticking your neck out anymore. I've attempted to get 2 patents issued in my name, asked to present white papers to engineering industry, and got zero support from managment.

I'll sometimes put a post-it note on my desk with the accronym "LYE"........to "lower your expectations"........but no I don't tell anyone what I means, just smile and nod and be another sheep in the flock...

The early bird may get the worm, but the 2nd mouse gets the cheese from the trap.

[Head416]

Originally Posted by Zeke

...how's they treatin' ya?

The checks don't bounce.

Do you feel any satisfaction?

Very little.

Is the place open, ethical, moral and vital?

I wouldn't call it unethical or immoral. Open? No. Vital? Not sure what you mean by this, but the answer is probably "no".

IOW, do you/they know anything about Servant Leadership?

Absolutely not!

[Zeke]

Vital was a wildcard I threw in. I guess it means is the work real. There may be other interpretations as well.

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Zeke

So, at your place of employment, be you the top dog or the runt, how's they treatin' ya? Do you feel any satisfaction? Is the place open, ethical, moral and vital? IOW, do you/they know anything about Servant Leadership?

I'm the top dawg. Never heard the term Servant Leadership, but I used to do something that was similar. After years of trying, I've turned the whole HR thing over to someone else and employees no longer have much freedom to be creative or ambitious in their jobs. For years I assumed everyone had enough of an entrepreneurial spirit to take advantage of the freedom and opportunity I gave them and do something with it. I had this idea that I could provide a springboard for them to move on to a great job with a big company, or go off on their own, or be a leader in my company. Some employees did take advantage and are now partial owners of the company, but most just wanted a job to do. I didn't understand it, but some people just want a job, just want to work for someone else, do their job, and go home. The concept is so alien to me that I couldn't manage people like that.

[Baz]

I can't remember who said it but I was once told if your employees go on to better things after their stint with your firm - then you have been successful in your approach to train and support them.

I.O.W. do everything you can to encourage your employees to grow and move up the ladder.

I guess that approach may seem too generous for some employers but I've found that there's basically 2 kinds of workers...those who are born to lead and those who are born to follow. No matter how much encouragement you provide as an employer a follower will never leave and a leader will always leave and in the meantime you can help either one to find their calling.

I've done as much as possible to mentor those who have worked for me and with me through the years because I remember when was younger those who provided wisdom and insight were and have always been my personal heroes.

Not sure if that answers your question but for me it's a question of philosophy that some get and some do not.

[Zeke]

The last 2 posts do bring up another issue: the best employees can easily get another job. The slackers, not so much.

I guess it's a Catch 22 whether to bring about the personal satisfaction for the better employee or bring the slacker in. Of course, some will never take an initiative to work harder for growth and gain. That again, is dependent on growth and gain being available and attainable.

Wiffteen, here is where I started. What that site doesn't seem to tell you is that the founder and author of the principle was the Director of Management Studies at ATT before the break up into the Baby Bells.

Google does have several hits on the subject of servant leadership. Geo. Washington was said to be one. The definition most applicable to GW as far as SL was that he was able and willing to give up his power. Had the Constitutional Convention produced a monarchy for the new US, it is said GW would have been our first king.

Now I wonder how he would have handled that, power mongers would not/could not do that. But I digress.

[oldE]

I knew my days were numbered when, after politely expressing my concerns with new packaging, I was taken aside by my boss and advised, "If you can't say anything good, then don't say anything at all."
The new products failed. The company lost money.

I found it to be like witnessing a car crash in the making and being forced to praise the driver for their skills and awareness.

Best
Les

[on2wheels52]

I'm the only dog at my place. Sometimes I'm counting the money; sometimes I'm sweeping the sidewalk out front.
Jim

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Baz

I can't remember who said it but I was once told if your employees go on to better things after their stint with your firm - then you have been successful in your approach to train and support them.

That was my approach. It didn't work out all that often because so many employees were content just to do their job (and complain about the compensation, the heating, the air conditioning, the work environment, the temperature of the water in the bathroom sink, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.) Some, however, really shined and their careers took off under me, so I wasn't a total failure as a leader.

[jhynesrockmtn]

I was just out of college and working as an auditor at a very large and now very dead accounting firm. My first big job was Costco Wholesale which at the time was a small private company with 12 warehouses. This was 1985. We were working on their initial public offering.

Their President/CEO from that time Jim Sinegal just retired, the same CFO is there and so is the Chairman. They purposely put in a pay and reward system to promote employees staying long term and to promote from within. Craig Jelinek who succeeded Jim grew up through the company. Jim continuously showed up over the years in lists detailing CEO's who took the lowest amount of cash payment in lieu of his wealth growing as the company's value grew.

You may not be a fan of Costco but their leadership and the way they treat employees is stellar and very old school. Take a long term view, treat employees well, grow management from within the ranks, help out in the community, nothing fancy, $1.50 hot dogs......

[Head416]

Originally Posted by Zeke

The last 2 posts do bring up another issue: the best employees can easily get another job. The slackers, not so much....

I've actually had several conversations over the last few weeks about the employer/employee relationship. I think that employers should invest in what is good for their employees. In my conversations we were specifically talking about investing in training for IT staff and, as much as possible, letting them work on the technologies they were most interested in. Yes, this will lead to the "good ones" leaving, but you will get much better work out of them due to their increased skills and motivation while they are there, and they will probably stay longer to keep getting the training and experience. And they will most likely have an affect on the rest of the team, being a spark that raises the performance of everybody around them. I think this is just one example of how focusing on the employee ultimately helps the business.

[Zeke]

Head, you seem to contradict yourself there. How does a business get helped if the best leave?

You guys do know there's a 100 Best Places to Work put out by Forbes? It is possible that workers will stay, do a great job and actually get less money. There are so many internal and external factors. The only control the employer has is over the internal ones.

It seems to me that this subject can't be so foreign or hard to understand. What are we seeing when we watch "Undercover Boss?" The script is always the same, but do some of these execs "get it" after working out in the field and in the plant? The show would have you believe they do. More than once that show has choked me up.

My next post will have some facts about Southwest Airlines, company led by servant leadership.

[Rusty Heap]

We could also turn this around and focus the "skills and personality style" of the people running the joint.

I see "Bosses" who year basically boss people around.

I see "Supervisors" who let people do their work without micromanaging them, nudging the wheel and keeping the car out of the weeds and on track.

I see "Leaders" who grow people, and make people want to learn and follow and receive due recognition.


Imagine a battlefield and your team is going to have to take a hill, with enemy machine gun fire raining down on you, and you're the Head Guy that has to direct his troops. Do you Boss them, Supervise them, or Lead them?


Theory X and Theory Y management styles comes to mind:








Good info and lots of data on Theory X and Theory Y management styles.

Unit 96




My last place of work was very very much "The beatings shall continue until the moral improves" The BOSS ruled by fear, and employees did the same in-efficient process they'd done for 20-30 years with zero Methods engineering or Lean or Quality improvements.
While there, we didn't even have a group meeting in 9 months, no communication between the boss and slave servants, none zero zip, in the 9 months I was there. Also when I asked for an employee review at 90 days, nope, 6 months, nope, 7 then 8 months? Nope. "I don't have time to give you feed-back" is what Al told me.............wow, that was a motivator. I left at 9 months.

[Head416]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Head, you seem to contradict yourself there. How does a business get helped if the best leave?

You guys do know there's a 100 Best Places to Work put out by Forbes? It is possible that workers will stay, do a great job and actually get less money. There are so many internal and external factors. The only control the employer has is over the internal ones.

It seems to me that this subject can't be so foreign or hard to understand. What are we seeing when we watch "Undercover Boss?" The script is always the same, but do some of these execs "get it" after working out in the field and in the plant? The show would have you believe they do. More than once that show has choked me up.

My next post will have some facts about Southwest Airlines, company led by servant leadership.

I agree that it seems like a contradiciton, but I don't think it is. The business benefits by having outstanding employees for a period of time, many of which eventually move on. Some do stay.

I worked for my last employer for eight years, which I consider to be a pretty long time for IT. They reimbursed me for college. They paid to send me to training. They reimbursed my costs for certification tests. All of these things improved my resume and made me a better candidate for when I felt like moving on. But for those eight years they had a good employee. I was working hard, always learning more, always looking for opportunities to improve our infrastructure and processes. Because the company was supportive in this way, they had environment full of techs all trying to better themselves, all working hard, and yes, all planning for how they were going to eventually leave the company and find something better. But these benefits are why I stayed for eight years, otherwise I would have left sooner.

We just promoted a guy up from the Help Desk to a Sys Admin position. If he hadn't had the opportunity to move up, he would be leaving right now. He's a young go-getter trying to learn as much as he can and move up the ladder. He's a big assett to our team. The only reason we had that opening is because somebody else left. That guy was a loss for sure. But we'll be okay, and we're tyring to have an environment that promotes growth and learning.

I think an employer/employee relationship should benefit both parties. You want me to contribute to the company's success? Okay, what are you going to do to contribute to my success? A paycheck isn't enough.

[Seahawk]

I have run large program offices (hundreds and hundreds of military, government, civilian and contractor personnel) with multi billion dollar budgets.

Currently I own a small company that employs just under 30 people.

My leadership style is, "To thy own self be true". I couldn't pretend to be, or try and force, any style of leadership that isn't me. It never works.

So I only have a few rules:

- Bad news doesn't smell better with age. Tell me, we'll deal with it; don't, and you'll deal with it.
- Never lie...one time one exit.
- I don't shoot the messenger, ever.
- Hire well, pay well.
- Share the credit, accept the blame...protect and encourage.
- Harassment of any kind is investigated. The workplace should, in my mind, be a refuge.

All the rest is situational and dependent on the person: We have MIT grads and high school grads on the payroll and I'd never assume they would all respond to the same type of leadership or direction. I will drop the hammer when required. If the rules don't work for you, find a better deal.

[Head416]

Servant Leadership... I think that is what leadership is supposed to be. A leader is somebody who is focused on others, on doing what is best for everybody else. Most "leaders" we see think their role is to wield power, and as a result of that mentality they suck as bosses. I always like it when I see a restaurant manager wiping a table. Many would think the manager is above such a menial task. No, his job is to be ultimitely responsible for the success of the establishment, and that means leading by example and doing what needs to be done. It's about supporting those you are trying to lead, helping them, treating them as your burden and your responsibility. If a leader is focused on "self"... they are failing. That's where I think it ties into the empoyer/employee stuff we were talking about. You invest in people - care about what's good for them - and it pays dividends.

I read this article recently about a company that focuses on investing on their employees: Wegmans | David Rohde

Admittedly, in their case they're probably expecting long term retention.

[wdfifteen]

McGregor concluded that employee behavior was the result of the style of management."

McGregor was wrong.
I approached everyone from a theory Y perspective. I treated everyone the same, yet some of them responded with X behavior, some with Y behavior. Some were just beeches and sons of beeches.
I've had really good employees, some lazy ones, two thieves, one con artist, and two who were truly crazy. I don't know how anyone can claim that was all the result of my style of management.

[Head416]

I'd say where I work now we have Theory X management and a bunch of angry, unhappy employees who are used to Theory Y and expect to be treated accordingly. As a result, 90% of our infrastructure team is actively seeking other employment opportunities.

The longer I stay here the more I feel myself devolving from Y to X.

[Seahawk]

Leadership is an inherent trait. It cannot be taught.

One either has it or they don't. Leadership has many permutations and personalities, but everyone knows it when they see it.

Books on leadership (not "management") are largely written to entertain.