Re: “The First Tradition reminds us to stay focused on what the group is really about, and not to become diverted by what an individual may think is important.”
Great subject. This has interesting ethical and servant leadership corollaries.
Isn’t focusing on the group needs more of a pure “transformational” leadership objective, not a pure “servant” leadership objective? I don’t want to split hairs too much, but I don’t want to lose what makes servant leadership so wondrous.
“While transformational leaders and servant leaders both show concern for their followers, the overriding focus of the servant leader is upon service to their followers. The transformational leader has a greater concern for getting followers to engage in and support organizational objectives…Servant leaders do not have particular affinity for the abstract corporation or organization, rather they value the people who constitute the organization.” Gregory Stone, et. al. 2003 "Transformational versus Servant Leadership"
http://www.regent.edu/acad/sls/
p...tion_versus.pdf
I know where you’re going with this, Tom, and maybe generally the group focus is good. But I think a true servant leader will be focused more on the people in the group, rather than what the group is about.
And I’ll ask because I’m not sure. Doesn’t that mean a “servant” leader will be focused also on what each individual needs, even if it’s different than the group’s need? And the group’s needs will be left to the “transformational” leader?
Chris,
Thanks for the thoughts and questions and the link to the paper on Transformational vs. SL. I am really not too familiar with other leadership theories, so your questions on Transformational Leadership are new to me. I did read over the paper though (and found some other interesting ones at the Regent University site, thanks for the resource). So I am not sure I can give your question the in depth answer it deserves, but I will give you some more of my ramblings for what they are worth.
"Doesn’t that mean a “servant” leader will be focused also on what each individual needs, even if it’s different than the group’s need? And the group’s needs will be left to the “transformational” leader?"
My thoughts are based on my experiences in 12 Step groups. These are groups that have a primary focus of existing so that the individuals that make them up can become and maintain their health. So in this case, at the core, the group and the individual have the same basic need, a need to become and remain healthy. It's really about focusing on needs and not wants. The other thing about these groups is that the leadership position is a rotational position. The rotation occurs from individual to individual during a given meeting. The so called leader of a particular meeting may really not be the leader, but some one simply performing a function (keeping an agenda or format) so the actual leaders have a forum in which to lead from.
One thing I picked up on in the link you provided was the importance of charisma to the transformational leader. This is a concept that is discouraged in 12 Step groups by the Twelve Tradition which states "Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities." So from my perspective, I believe that the principles that the group believes in, its core focus, needs to come above the individual wants of the members, which in the end is really focussing on the needs of the group.
I think I am pretty much just rambling here, so will put an end to this for now. I will try to touch on some of the issues you brought up as I continue my ramblings on the Traditions.
Thanks once again for sharing your insights on the topics. They always encourage me to dig deeper into it (or dig myself deeper in a hole).
Tom
Thank you. I don't consider myself any kind of leadership theory expert. If any wiser minds can weigh in here, I would appreciate it.
When I first was exposed to the idea of servant leadership, I couldn't completely grasp what differentiated it from other ideas of leadership.
What helped me were those papers at Regent. I started thinking about it like this:
Transactional Leadership---The leader's attitude is, "Hey followers, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' by leading you somewhere profitable for the both of us." Maybe Steve Jobs and Apple employees working on unique personal computer technology is an example.
Transformational Leadership---The leader's attitude is, "Hey followers, I have a great vision that will lift us all up. Let's all work together to achieve it." Maybe Martin Luther King or Gandhi fit this.
Servant Leadership---The leader's attitude is "I must serve my followers to make each of their lives better. That's my overriding concern, not necessarily a group vision." Maybe a Peace Corp leader in the Third World is an example. He or she isn't there to make a lot of money helping people, or isn't there to build a democracy. He or she is simply there to improve lives.
These all can mix in any leader or any civil or social issue, etc. You probably can't easily find a pure form of any of them.
But what drew me to servant leadership was this idea that it was only focused on the improvement of the other person.
Gray and clear as mud, huh? Thank you for triggering some good thinking for me. Please keep going with your great topic.
Thanks for more clarification. Your examples of the three leadership styles make sense. After reading them a couple of thoughts came to mind.
Your example of Gandhi as a transformational leaders versus a servant leader is a good one. When I first learned about servant leadership, I thought of Gandhi as an example of servant leadership, but there were certain aspects of his leadership style that didn't seem to fit with servant leadership. Greenleaf cleared this up in his essay "Coercion, Manipulation, and Persuasion" from the book on BECOMING A SERVANT LEADER. In the essay Greenleaf defines coercion as "Do as I say, think like I do, speak as I wish - or else." He points out that Gandhi's tactic of "fast unto death" was equivalent to "if you don't do as I say, I will commit suicide" and he goes on to theorize how these tactics were ultimately responsible for much of the violence that occurred (and still occurs) in the region after independence from Britan was achieved.
Your example of the Peace Corp leader in the third world as a servant leader triggered some hesitation on my part. I think that this could be an example of servant leadership, but I think a better example might be some of the examples from Don's recent post about the people of South Africa helping the people of South Africa.
My personal experience with service work (which is pretty limited) is that if I go into it with an attitude that I am going to help those that I serve, it takes something away from the service. This attitude can place me at a higher place than those I intend to serve, and in essense creates a heirarcical type relationship where I am there to do the helping and those who I help are there to gain from my elevated position. That is no longer what I understand servant leadership to be about. When I go into the service work with an attitude that I am actually going to come out of the relationship with more then I had before, (and I don't mean from a material basis, but more of a potential to learn something from those I serve, or to grow spiritually) then I really get the true power of the service. The reality is that I never really know what it is I will come away with, and sometimes it may be something I didn't expect or didn't want, but in the end it is something that I need.
More rambling. Thanks again for sharing.
After reading all the comments here, I was very glad to read Chris' breakdown into 3 examples of style. They really rang true.
In fact, Tom, I would go so far as to suggest that Peace Corps -as practiced by thousands of people in the field- is precisely what you later describe as going into service "to come out of the relationship with more than I had before."
I've met a number of the (mostly younger) people serving as Peace Corps volunteers in Romania. That describes them perfectly. There's some vague feeling they "can help" but it's interchangeable on every level with "enter service" and each one I met definitely felt they as though they were getting the better end of the bargain by learning more from those they came into contact with.
If servant leadership is really a matter of service, it would seem the Peace Corps is a very good model indeed.
Romer!can,
You have much more real experience with the Peace Corps volunteers then I do and I appreciate your corrections and input. I did not mean to imply that the Peace Corps organization or the volunteers do not do servant leadership work.
My biggest concern with the example is that we people in the “developed” nations seem to have a need to “help” those folks in the “undeveloped” nations become “developed.” At least that has been our history in “saving” so-called “undeveloped” folks and often that “saving” came at a big cost to those we “saved.” Often times it seems the need for “saving” comes because of actions we “developed” have taken to use the “undeveloped” for our own gain. My question is who is really in need of saving?
I think that when we in the “developed” countries invite reciprocal volunteers from “undeveloped” countries to come and teach us their ways, then we can improve our model.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Tom
Commenting by HaloScan
