Don, let me try to get the conversation going a bit......I wrote in a post back on January 12th about community service, serving others, and our position of power (readers can use the archives search with the word 'power' to read the entire thing).
I think there is a clear line between servant-leadership and service-leadership. If we are doing service primarily as a way to help 'fix' other people and/or their problems, then we are coming into the situation in a position of power (I can do something for you that you cannot do for yourself). This is all well and good, but it is not servant-leadership.
What are others' thoughts? What do we need to do to make helping others in our community and world a servant-leadership venture rather than just service-leadership?
Or am I just full of beans too? (Note to my wife: please don't answer that question!)
I am also going to join you in believing that servant-leadership is different from service-leadership. I think the difference has to do with the driving force behind the action of serving. Some may say this is the "motivation" but I think it is deeper than that. Greenleaf says, "It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first." I believe that "natural feeling" comes from a connection to our "true self", "undivided self", one that is connected to Source, Divine Wisdom, God. That connects us to one another and to all of creation. It gives us "the natural feeling" to serve. With our ego out of the way, our need for power, recognition, or reward disappears. Our serving/giving then resembles the poor widow that gave out of her poverty rather than the excess from which others gave.
My two cents(which is probably all it is worth).
It has been my experience (which is rather limited and shouldn't imply that all non-profits are similarily influenced) that the non-profit world can be motivated by how many services it provides or how many have been served. When a non-profit is supported by outside grants, there is a need for "a-counting" how much service the grantor is getting for their dollor. It is my believe that this relationship between grantor and grantee can result in the focus becoming one of providing an "a-countable" number of services or or serving "a-countable" number of people, which is not the same as focusing on serving through leading others so that they can meet their own needs. Is it possible that this type of "a-countability" might play a part in equating "service based" leadership with servant leadership?
This same measurement of number of services or number of people served can be mistaken for good service on an individual basis as well, which also is not what I believe servant leadership is all about.
Tom J
Tom,
You made a few great points here. I, too, work for a non-profit organization that prides itself on the quality and capacity it provides for its client base via its many services. The rub here, I think, is between the very definitions of service and servant (I once had an acquaintance who heard my elevator speech about servant leadership later contact me with a request that I speak to his Scout troop about "that slave leadership thing," but that's another topic entirely!). I'm known for asking questions, so I'll start with one: Is the motivation of the person providing service (in whatever capacity and context) centered on being a virtuous person and behaving accordingly? This leads to a mini-discussion about ethics that I will try to keep short.
When we talk about normative ethics, we are typically referring to deontological, teleological, Kantian, or some other view that includes the consideration of social and/or distributive justice, as well as other philosophical approaches to moral behavior. The term "normative" has always rankled a bit, but I realize that here it just signifies the concepts that frame what we think of as ethical norms. Some researchers include virtue ethics as an offshoot of one or another of what we typically consider normative ethics. Some do not. I personally do not consider this a viable way to think about virtue ethics because I believe it is centered on an understanding of the character of the person as the key point to consider when thinking about how that person practices virtue ethics (if we can ever really apply it at all - this gets at the notion of a state of being versus a way of doing).
For instance, the person who practices virtue ethics acts in virtuous ways, but how are his behaviors and motivations constrained? By this, I mean does a person who practices virue ethics worry about the rules by which he "must" conduct himself? Does this person seek a virtuous goal and if so, what is it? Is it a virtuous outcome he seeks or does the virtue lie in the act itself? Ultimately, the person who conducts himself according to virtue ethics guidelines asks himself not "What should I do," but "What kind of person am I?" This gets at my mention above of a way of being versus a way of doing. Up to this point, I have not discovered a tractable decision/practice model beyond asking the "What kind of person am I?" question, and perhaps this is enough.
So, I come back to my original question when thinking about the distinction between service-leadership and servant-leadership: Is the motivation of the person providing service (in whatever capacity and context) centered on being a virtuous person and behaving accordingly? As I have observed at the non-profit for which I currently work, it is entirely possible to perform service and to lead by providing service to others, yet capture the motivation for doing so within an economic framework such as capitalism which promotes ostensible service behaviors with the sole purpose of enriching the provider (contrary to popular opinion, non-profits do need to generate profits to keep the lights on and the wage slaves happy).
Finally, to make a very long story short, I, like Trevor, Tom, and Mary, believe that service leadership and servant leadership are, and should be, two very different things. I also believe Greenleaf would have agreed, though probably for very different reasons than those I've laid out here.
If I am writing too much, would someone please email me and let me know? I always appreciate constructive criticism and feedback. Since this is not my forum, I am open to being sensitive about how much I post here. And I do appreciate the fact that this forum exists - what a wonderful resource. I only just discovered it yesterday! 
Darin, thank you for such a thoughtful post. You add richness to the discussion.
I've decided that "servant-leader" is, before anything else, ontological. It is about who we are, deep down, in "the undivided self," as Mary puts it. But part of the paradox is that it's also about what we do, as witnessed in Greenleaf's "best test" that measures outcomes, not outputs or intentions. The most important outCOME is how people grow as a result of one's efforts. People talk blithely about paradox but often find it unsettling to live inside paradox. They'd rather have it resolved. But that's the task for servant-leaders, and it's sometimes messy.
I've conducted a number of evaluations for foundations and am aware of the accountability movement that seemed to take off 7 or 8 years ago. Some of that was good, because it is important to report to donors how their money is being used. (Incidentally, the research shows that women tend to be more vigilant about how their money is applied and expect more direct, personal contact from the recipient.) But in my limited observations, too often a nonprofit confuses service numbers with servant mission, as Tom suggests. To be fair, not all nonprofits have a mission that includes servanthood, so I suppose they are being congruent.
Greenleaf advised people responsible for giving away money to retire or move on to another job after 5 or 6 years, and I know of several who did just that. Greenleaf believed that exalted role tended to have a corrosive effect on one's soul because it carried so much coercive power. Sure enough, I think the catch-all term "service provider" carries a lot of power baggage. I'd rather have Dr. Olson pull my tooth than a "dental service provider." Dr. Olson knows me and the transaction between us is personal. I give him the power freely.
Another way I look at this is that, if servant leadership is a spiritual path (and I believe it is), service leadership is its secularization. At the end of the day, Greenleaf always insisted that spirit was the source of the impulse to serve, not strategy or ego.
Don,
Thank you so much for clearing things up for me. I don't pretend to know as much as you about servant leadership (I suspect you've forgotten more than I know!). I have never considered servant leadership to be a spiritual path, though I believe I should. This has given me plenty to think about - thank you so much.
Commenting by HaloScan
