Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant...
My dear, dear punker Laurie Ruettimann (who I love) recently had a post and thread on servant leadership over at Punk Rock HR in which she, and many others, portrayed it as a weak, soft and touchy-feely sort leadership that really wasn't wanted or needed in businesses that need to get results, drive revenue or be successful. She says:
Here’s my message to anyone who calls himself a servant leader.
- You want to demonstrate empathy, bring out the best in people, and facilitate personal growth? Go home and spend some time with your kids.
I don’t need that kind of emotional baggage at work, yo.
The detractors of servant leadership preferred someone who only cared about results and didn't try to "serve" them in any way shape or form. Too "nanny state"! Servant leaders nurture bad employees and keep them around too long others said. Oh, read the comments on that thread and you will see it all.
The word SERVE and SERVANT are automatically associated with indecisiveness, weakness, subordinate and a bunch of other terms. When the term SERVANT, and by extension the auto-associated terms, are combined with a power word like LEADER or LEADERSHIP it seems to be a paradox and people's brains malfunction trying to make sense of it. Instead they just "got to guns" and start hammering away at what some might call the "softer" aspects of servant leadership while ignoring the essence of strength imbedded in the execution of servant leadership. True servant leaders are, in fact and by definition, strong, decisive and results oriented. At heart, the individual is a servant first, making the conscious decision to lead in order to better serve others, not to increase their own power.
The idea of servant leadership is not new. Sadly, so few leaders actually have the courage to lead in this way. The leadership model of today's business is wrong. In fact, it has always been wrong. The prevailing top down leadership model is a very old concept borrowed from centuries of war, military hierarchy, dictatorships and monarchies. In most company's it looks like the chart on the right.
Look who's on the bottom? Customers!
In this traditional model the only logical conclusion to draw is that customers are the enemy. With this model you could argue that many companies are at war with their customers.
In close second to the customer (enemy) are employee's. Guess who tends to spend the most time closest to the customer? If the customer is the enemy in this model then the employees are in the trenches. They are the front line infantry. In this traditional model everyone is focused on, indeed looking up at, the boss and away from the customer. Ask most employee's who they are trying to please and the answer often comes back loud and clear - the boss. It should be the customer.
While everyone is focusing on making the boss happy, who is focusing on the customer? Your competitors are, that's who.
Likewise, in this traditional model, the majority of leaders are looking up to their superior and away from the employee. Kissing arse, smoozing and jumping over their peers to get recognition from their boss while those that are doing the work on their teams suffer. While front line, mid-level and senior managers are focused on making the next up happy, often at the expense of the employee.
Who is focusing on the highest performing employees? Headhunters (third party recruiters), that's who.
If you want different results you have to do things differently. That said, let's flip this antiquated model on its head. Now we put the customer at the top. This makes the employee's ultimate goal to serve the customer. In this new model, employees must stop looking up at, and trying to figure out how to please, their boss and get focused on pleasing the customer. Then the front line supervisors have to turn employee's into customers and meet their needs and so on down through the model. It's the thinking and approach that have to change not just the organizational chart but flipping the chart and publishing it this way changes the approach of everyone and visually helps them to know who they are serving. It would look like the chart on the left.
The role of the leader is not to rule and lord it over the next layer down. Rather, the role of the leader is to serve, support, develop, prepare, coach and sacrifice for the team. Then know to get out of the way once that is done and let them do their job.
Act as an advisor when required and act as a manager when necessary.
In this model, visually and literally, the most weight and responsibility for the success of the organization is on the leadership. Notice how top heavy it is for the CEO. He owns the role of serving and getting results from everyone. No one bears a bigger burden or must be stronger. What was that about servant leaders being weak?
The role of any leader is to make sure their team's needs are being met so they can produce greater results. (Reference Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs) So why use the term servant? I know that servant leadership is often associated with Christianity and Jesus Christ (who I believe to be the ultimate servant leader) and so some want to drop it from use even if they agree with it in practice. "Call it something else" they say. Well, sorry! using the word servant servant is an ego buster and puts the leader the proper frame of mind to truly execute well. It humbles the leader by definition and sets the tone for how to lead.
Top down leadership is antiquated and needs to go. As we emerge from economic turmoil in this country (we are emerging right?), talent within organizations will crawl out from their hibernation and beging to look around after a long winter of dicontent. When they do, part of how they will evaluate their readiness and willingness to make a change will depend in large part on their leader. People quit and leave leaders and managers not companies (or at least rarely).
Robert Greenleaf is recognized as the father of servant leadership. He was the first person that defined the term “servant-leader” and he wrote about its implications for individuals, organizations, and societies. Greenleaf described servant leadership in this way:
It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead…The difference manifest itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer, is: do those served grow as persons, do they grow while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?
As we face economic challenges of monumental proportions, identifying and retaining top talent is the single most critical strategic initiative in corporate America. Retaining top talent pretty much lives or dies with the strength of leadership. The traditional top down leadership model, ruling over and lording over employees and customers, has always been wrong and does not resonate with Millenials and Gen Y. Why do you think survey after survey of these two vital labor pools tells us they don't want to work in corporate America? In part its the lack of autonomy and strong leadership. As we will see, creating autonomy for the team is mission critical for a servant leader. How much longer will corporate leadership continue to subscribe to an ineffective and counterproductive leadership model?
Unlike leadership approaches with a top-down style, Servant Leadership instead emphasizes collaboration (which does not mean decision stagnation - the leader must be decisive), trust, empathy, and the ethical use of power. What employee doesn't want those character and leadership traits in their leader? At heart, the individual is a servant first, making the conscious decision to lead in order to better serve others, not to increase their own power. The objective is to enhance the growth of individuals in the organization and increase teamwork and personal involvement.
Want a little more proof that servant leadership is not weak? Though I am not a fan, Donald Trump has a reputation for being fearless, aggressive, decisive and results focused as a leader. Though I have not worked for him I would not describe him as a servant leader. Mr. Trump did choose Kelly Perdew as the winner of The Apprentice 2 in 2004. Kelly is a 1989 graduate of West Point. He was a Firstie (Senior) when I was a Plebe (Freshman). I don't think Mr. Trump would choose a soft, weak, indecisive, bad employee nurturer to win his show and run a portion of his business. This is why the leadership teachings and model at the United States Military Academy at West Point work. A new Cadet starts in Cadet Basic Training (affectionately known as Beast Barracks) and first learn to serve. During four years at the academy (5 if you are General Patton) a cadet will advance through various levels and aspects of serving and following until prepared and ready to lead. That experience as servant and follower provides keen and valuable insight into the heart and mind of the volunteer soldier which is one of many reasons why leaders with West Point backgrounds are so highly sought after, often more succesful, more well respected and more liked in corporate America. Oh, and for those of you who think servant leaders can't be decisive tell that to the next West Point graduate you meet. I am sure you will be in for an interesting discussion.
>
