When “Managing Leadership” was published, I sent copies to people I had mentioned in the book. One of these was Kenneth Blanchard, referred to for his effective and successful popularization of the idea that leadership’s primary role was to serve – not to be served. Recognizing that one of the targets of my own book was the false pomp and self-importance of the great individual leader, he sent a note back offering the encouraging observation that the term “servant leader” was gaining currency.
An unspoken but deeply ingrained concept within the intellectual and organizational structure of modern military leadership, this idea remains, despite Professor Blanchard’s irrepressible optimism, insufficiently appreciated, and even radical, among civilian organizations. The basic idea can be pictured by upending the traditional leadership pyramid, in which the leader sits atop an organization of followers expressing his or her will. The servant leader, rather, supports a pyramid of fellows stretching above and beyond him or herself, struggling to enable and facilitate their efforts in pursuit of organizational goals.
While the principle aim of “Managing Leadership” was to argue that organizational leadership isn’t properly to be understood as an individual characteristic at all, it must be granted that the weight of millennia of habit make that a tough sell. After all, the modern concept of sovereignty existing widely in the people is barely two centuries old, and the age of organizations, as the principle threads from which society is woven, has earned little more than a few generations of experience. Needless to say, the practice of professional management is somewhat younger than all that, if indeed we have attained it yet.
Accordingly, we still conflate leadership with rule, mastery, even innate privilege, with the rest of us left to aspire to be mere expressions of that greatness. But it is true, as well, that there are those who reject this antideluvian concept, and who work to bring leadership into step with the facts of modern life. And if we are unable to separate leadership from the individual at the top, at the very least we can learn to relieve that concept of its quasi-royal accoutrements, and place that great personage alongside us in our collaborative endeavors.
Chief among those engaged in this undertaking are the supporters of the concept of servant leadership. It has even gained a foothold in academia. Strictly speaking, this does not apply to the welcome fact that, as we have noted here recently, some business schools are attempting to redesign courses on ethics and general professionalism into their curricula. This is a promising sign, and we hope that it doesn’t generate into mere window dressing designed to deflect critical attention.
But there is at least one post-graduate business program that is designed specifically around the concept of servant-leadership. Offered at Viterbo University in La Crosse, Wisconsin, it is dedicated specifically to producing a cadre of managers who understand their role in modern organizations and society from this perspective. As a substantial part of the effort to afford the concept a wider currency, the faculty also author the Servant-Leadership Blog. Please do visit this site to keep apprised of their thinking, at the forefront of this important advance, and significant improvement, in the concept of individual leadership.
Note: in view of yesterday’s post on the Servant-Leadership Blog, it bears noting here that this article, above, was pre-scheduled for publication today, without reference to that event (as appreciated as it is!).
—
Thank you for visiting, today. If you enjoyed your visit, please ensure more by subscribing today!
Technorati Tags: servant leader, military leadership, leadership pyramid, Servant-Leadership Blog, Managing Leadership, Training, Education, Kenneth Blanchard, Viterbo University
Sphere: Related Content
re: “The basic idea can be pictured by upending the traditional leadership pyramid, in which the leader sits atop an organization of followers expressing his or her will.” (Jim)
Good posting. Though, I believe the servant leader need NOT be the position at the top of the hierarchy. I believe someone low in the hierarchy can practive servant leadership. The most important characteristic is a desire to serve. The servant leader listens, empathizes, and supports the growth of others.
In fact, sometimes the humblest position in any organization, maybe an entry-level clerk, is the person who most lifts an organizational unit to success by his or her caring service to others. Many of us in organizations don’t break a sweat when an upper manager leaves, but fall into disarray when the kindly, supportive, always-there-for-you clerk goes to another job.
Jim,
I like Chris’ observation about the organization falling into disarray when a clerk takes another job. I can think of more examples of that happening than organizations buckling as the result of a CEO or VP moving on.
Servant leadership to me has always been an issue of the heart and represents an entire way of life that an individual chooses to adopt. It recognizes the power in acknowledging one’s limitations while, at the same time, understanding the power in lifting up and supporting others.
The selfless nature of servant leadership is, of course, inconsistent with traditional Western culture, especially in the U.S. Yet when I think of highly successful military leaders–Eisenhower and the AEF, for example–I see an exemplification of servant leadership.
To close, I’ll join with Chris once more: we need to pay more attention to the servants who are lifting our organizations in the eyes of our customers every day. At the lower levels of our organizations there’s a lot more to lift.
Thank you, Chris and Steve, for your terrific comments.
Chris, I agree with you that the servant leader need not – ought not – be simply the top boss – it is a philosophy of “leadership” that is supposed to be exhibited by everyone who is in a formal leadership position in an organization.
But especially, like Steve, I really like your comment about what many might consider the unexpected influence of such an entry-level clerk as you describe. I think this observation is very perceptive, and touches on two important points: one is that a well-managed company ought to be able to survive the absense of its managers – the other is the presence in all organizations of an “unofficial” chain of command or, even, institutional personality (never mind culture). This latter point actually is getting pretty close to the main issues addressed in the book I refer to in the post.
In fact, I’ll probably be altering my posting schedule to publish a few thoughts on these topics, so I appreciate your bringing them up so effectively!
Steve, your observation about the influence of Western culture on leadership – particularly in its peculiar contrast with the organizational culture of Western military formations – is perfect.
Your call for us to pay more attention to the presence of this kind of influence at all points, especially the “lower” levels, of our organizations is an important one. I hope it is heeded.
Thank you both for some very thought-provoking observations!
Note that Robert K. Greenleaf who formalized the idea of servant leadership with his essay, “The Servant As Leader” acknowledges he started thinking about the idea from the novel “Journey to the East” by Herman Hesse. Hesse’s novel describes a mystical journey by a group who are lifted and energized by their seemingly humble servant, Leo. When Leo leaves the group, the group begins to falter, and we realize the contribution made by the servant.
In the purer form of servant leadership, I also think the organization’s goals are secondary. Scary thought, I know, for the company that wants to try servant leadership as the management flavor of the month! Primary for the servant leader is caring for others.
Consider a servant leader supervisor in a work group. His motivation of listening, empathy, and caring for his workers is not the organization’s goal of producing a thousand more widgets. His goal is serving others. I agree that it’s likely the outgrowth will be maybe an organization that creates TWO thousand more widgets. But that’s a byproduct, not a goal.
This servant leader supervisor would be just as happy if the workers says, “You know, you’ve helped me discover that my fulfillment in life is not producing widgets, but instead I want to become a world class violinist.” Or something like that.
Steve is right on when about heart being the key factor of leadership. There are so many great leaders out there, but most eventually fail not because of results but because of a lack of heart.
I think Blanchard hits it on the head in his book, “Lead Like Jesus”. He divides up leadership into 4 key areas; head, hands, heart, and habits. Most leadership books do not deal with the heart, but instead deal with ethics.
We can learn how to think like a leader and manager, but how do you learn to have a heart of a servant?
Thanks, Billy, for joining in and contributing your thinking to this interesting discussion.
You and Chris both have interesting perspectives about the characteristics of a “leader” and his or her role in an organization. I think they relate in important ways to the relationship between the larger scope of leadership as you are viewing it, and its role, or purpose, in organizations, which, after all, is what generates its presence and force.
A discussion of this is the third entry on my list of new posts items generated by this discussion – thanks to all of you!