To me, servant groups become autonomous by emphasizing service to unique community needs, instead of adherence to generalized corporate rules.
For example, a school serving a neighborhood of recent Mexican immigrants might use methods other than the standardized, generalized methods advocated by the centralized education bureaucracy. Bilingual education or English as a second language (ESL) methods might be used at first---something not needed in mainstream schools. Once English proficiency was achieved, it would become easier to teach subjects in more standardized methods.
I like your point that “…the only time group autonomy is overruled is when the common welfare that guides the organization is threatened….” For instance certain US cultural values could not be ignored by my example servant school. Trevor quoting Greenleaf back in February
http://
servantleadershipblog.com...tutions_07.html
noted that Greenleaf believed “…the goal of education…to provide continuity for a culture in which freedom and rationality would prevail….” So never would a teacher want to ignore the teaching of democratic values and analytical thinking---concepts that undergird American society.
We’re back to Greenleaf’s best test, I suppose. Do those served grow as persons? I think autonomy can facilitate that goal. A non-autonomous group instead would probably ask something like, “Did I follow the standard corporate operating procedures?”
Chris,
Thanks for the comments, I sure appreciate your additions. Your reminder about Greenleaf's best test is a good one about measuring autonomy. It is in deed the "best" best test on all things related to servant leadership.
This one is a little tougher for me to draw a direct line between autonomy and servant leadership. But rereading your Greenleaf quote, I think he's simply saying, "Don't wait for your boss to tell you to get out there and serve others. Find a way to serve others, and start doing it."
This essentially multiplies the strength of a servant group. Everyone is independently thinking of how they can be of most use.
With Twelve Step groups, autonomy also helps assure more effectiveness, I believe. Centralized control is less important than finding individualized/autonomous ways to improve the lives of those served.
It is very difficult to be autonomous in an organization where everything requires permission. This is especially true in churches. Most larger churches start hitting a brick wall organizationally around 1,500 members. That is the point where the leadership of the church has to step back and decide how to handle the growth. Under that size it is usually easy for the leader to make most of the decisions. If someone has an idea and wants to do something, they ask the head pastor.
However, as churches grow they have to push authority to the edges. If they don't, people will not act on their own because they feel they need permission to act. The best way to encourage people to act on their own is to encourage failure. Celebrate people's best efforts--even if it didn't work out the way they had hoped.
An organization that encourages people to attempt great things will motivate people to function autonomously much more than one that only encourages people to achieve great things.
Commenting by HaloScan
