Servant leadership has been popular since the 1970’s. Adherents are very committed to this way of thinking about leadership. The question is whether this is the real meaning of leadership for the 21^st century or a fad with little enduring substance. It is important to take an objective, balanced view of this concept, though this is difficult given the passion of its true believers.

 The Meaning of Servant Leadership

The servant leader puts the needs of followers first. Instead of being domineering and self-serving, servant leaders put the needs of employees ahead of their own in order to motivate them, both for their own benefit and that of the organization. Leadership, on this view, means serving others. It is shown by helping others meet their needs, not by championing a radical or unpopular cause.

Servant leadership originated with Robert K. Greenleaf in 1970 who read about a group of traveling companions in a novel by Herman Hesse. The group had a servant with them who attended to their needs and organized their journey. When the servant departed, the group fell apart. They quarreled and lost their collegial purpose. This led Greenleaf to view the servant as the group’s leader.

The Pros and Cons of Servant Leadership

The merit of servant leadership is that it reminds us to be less self-absorbed. Self-centered leaders set a bad example for others. They’re saying, in effect, that it is OK to behave in a win-lose manner. As long as you get what you want, everyone else can look out for themselves. This attitude is a recipe for disaster in today’s highly integrated organizations. Strong teams will beat a collection of individuals any day wherever a genuine joint effort is critical for success.

But surely the concept of servant is extreme. The same laudable actions that servant leadership advocates can be fostered by talking about partnerships between leaders and followers. Surely leaders cannot serve the needs of followers if that means putting them ahead of the business, their customers or shareholders. What if there is a need to cut out underperforming units to keep the whole ship from sinking? Leaders need to make such tough decisions, many of which run directly counter to employee needs.

Any CEO who really put the needs of employees ahead of customers or shareholders would soon be out of a job. Some defenders of servant leadership argue that it’s not so much about serving followers (employees) as it is about being of service to a higher cause. Well, the higher cause had better include the needs of shareholders and customers or, again, the CEO might have to look for work elsewhere. Also, we are trying to understand what it means to be a leader. To say that leaders have, as one of their qualities, a desire to be of service, in general, doesn’t really tell us much. This is because the same could be said of all professionals, i.e. doctors, charity workers, public sector employees, etc. In other words, being of service doesn’t tell us much about how leaders differ from other professionals. To say that the meaning of leadership is to serve employees is a much stronger claim, but hard to defend in view of the fact that they really need to put other stakeholders ahead of employees.

Servant leadership makes sense in contexts like politics because, to get elected and stay in office, you need to serve the needs of your electorate, your followers. Similarly, if you are running a country club or an association where your only constituency is your members, you should behave something like a servant to their needs. The usefulness of the concept is questionable in the private sector, however, where a CEO has to serve customers and shareholders.

Servant Leadership and Selflessness

Perhaps the key point is not about serving the needs of others as in the Hesse novel but rather a matter of being selfless. This trait implies putting others or some external purpose ahead of your own. Selfless leaders drive themselves to make their organizations successful without selfish motives. They aren’t in it for the money or personal glory; they are simply dedicated to doing their best at all times. But, then this is a very different idea. Servant leadership says that the very act of leadership consists in serving the needs of followers. Serving is the meaning of leadership on this view. If we switch to selflessness, we are saying that this is just one of many important leadership traits, along with integrity, courage and influencing skills, for example. We are not saying that the essence of leadership is to be selfless. We can encourage leaders to be more selfless while still maintaining some other definition of leadership, such as to say that it shows the way, provides direction or gets things done. Actually, the same is true of managers of community clubs. They serve the needs of the members who elected them, but again this is customer service not leadership. What about the employees who work for the community club manager? They in turn must provide a service to the same customers but their boss is also an important customer for them. Thus, it is truer to say that employees must serve the needs of their boss, not the other way around.

Leadership and Sacrifice

True leaders demand sacrifices of their followers. Any leader who promotes green policies, for example, is asking followers to drive their cars less often, live in smaller houses, stop using so much air conditioning, eat less red meat, among many other things. This is true leadership because the leader is challenging the status quo and taking the risk of being rejected. This leader is selflessly championing what he or she thinks is right regardless of personal risk. The political candidate who only campaigns on what voters want is taking no personal risk. The needs of voters may be served by such candidates but they are effectively buying votes not showing true leadership. The true leader who takes risks by asking for sacrifices is much more selfless, less self-serving than candidates who only advocate what will win them votes. In this case, leadership clearly does not amount to serving the needs of followers. In other words, selflessness does not necessarily entail serving the needs of followers. Advocates of servant leadership seem to see only two alternatives: either leaders serve their own needs or they serve the needs of followers. The example above shows that true leaders serve neither their own needs nor those of followers but a higher cause or deeply held values.

In conclusion, the concept of servant leadership is very popular and it has some applicability in the public sector but it has no relevance for business except in the sense of selflessness. The image of the leader as servant is the other end of the spectrum from leaders as tyrants but it is still an extreme position. Moving from tyrant to servant is an over reaction. It is much more productive to think of leaders and employees as partners. A total focus on serving anyone's needs is paternalistic. Partnership implies a more adult-adult relationship. Even the idea of partnership, however, is stretching the truth a bit. For example, Toyota is well known for fostering partnerships with its suppliers, but Toyota is still a customer of its suppliers who need to serve Toyota's needs, not the other way around.

Copyright Mitch McCrimmon 2008. See his latest book for more on this topic: Burn! 7 Leadership Myths in Ashes, 2006, available through Amazon.