Tag Archives: Servant Leadership

A Leadership Model for the 21st Century

COMMON PROBLEMS FACING TODAY’S LEADER

In today’s fast-paced and turbulent environment, as a leader you struggle with the demands and burdens of assuming the mantle of leadership. You truly want to be a dedicated and effective leader, but you feel on the verge of burn-out as you face ongoing challenges which never seem to end. Your employees don’t seem as motivated, they’ve lost their commitment to the larger vision, and they’re not as productive as you’d like them to be. You’re also tired of putting out fires and wish people would stop complaining, and just do their work.

And to make matters worse, you often feel isolated and believe that nobody really appreciates what you’re going through. You ask yourself – who can I trust to share my burdens with? Where can I go for help to turn things around?

If you can relate to these issues, then I have a provocative question for you: Have you ever considered that your basic assumptions about leadership may be contributing to your struggles?

Let’s examine some current leadership models and their limitations, and then propose a model that more effectively addresses the common problems confronting today’s leader.

CURRENT LEADERSHIP MODELS

Our culture has no shortage of leadership theories and models. There is charismatic leadership, situational leadership, and transformational leadership to name only a few. Each theory has its own focus as to what makes for an effective leader, whether it be the sheer appeal of one’s personality, the context in which leadership occurs, or the needs of the organization. In effect, they all attempt to answer the question: What leadership style must a leader adopt in order to maximize his or her effectiveness with followers? However, leadership style is really not the most fundamental issue to consider. Effective leadership has more to do with one’s intentions or motives for leading. Put succinctly, the question is: Whose interests are you ultimately serving as a leader? How you answer this question determines not only your effectiveness as a leader but also the success of your organization.

THREE TYPES OF LEADERSHIP:

Autocratic

If your honest answer to the above question is: “I’m really serving my own interests,” then you’ve likely adopted our culture’s prevalent value system in which power, status, and/or wealth are the primary motivators driving one’s leadership.

A leader who embraces this model of leadership is known as the autocratic leader (OLAGroup.com). This type of leader uses power to coerce followers into complying with his or her own needs. In effect, the autocratic leader is a dictator who treats followers as servants. Autocratic leaders de-value and even abuse their followers which results in devastating consequences for the organization such as loss of trust, low morale, decreased productivity, suspiciousness, and fear.

We’ve all heard stories of leaders who abuse their power and whose organizations suffer tremendous hardship as a result. Enron, WorldCom, and Arthur Anderson are just three examples of blatant abuses of power. Autocratic-led organizations usually experience high turnover rates because workers do not feel valued or appreciated for their efforts, and they eventually burn out and leave.

Paternalistic

There is another type of leadership which is less toxic but more common in today’s organizations. According to extensive research conducted by Dr. Jim Laub, Professor of Leadership Studies at Palm Beach Atlantic University, paternalistic leaders are those who view themselves as parents and their followers as children. They tend to place the needs of the organization above the needs of their employees.

Paternalistic leaders can be either nurturing or critical but what they share in common is their belief that followers are not truly adult partners in the leader-follower relationship. This type of relationship results in mere compliance rather than true internal motivation. Although willing to delegate responsibility for some tasks, paternalistic leaders retain the right to make the most important decisions for the organization. Laub’s research (OLAGroup.com) has revealed that most of today’s organizations are paternalistic in their leadership practices.

Servant

The third type of leadership is known as servant leadership. The term, initially coined by Robert Greenleaf, refers to placing the legitimate needs of followers above one’s own self-interest. Servant leaders treat their followers as adults and are willing to collaborate, share their power, and commit themselves to others’ growth and development. They are also willing to grant decision-making authority to followers in order to foster a deep sense of commitment and investment in the organization. Furthermore, servant leaders value and seek to foster a strong sense of community among all stakeholders within the organization.

Character development is also a priority for servant leaders as they seek to display honesty, integrity, humility, authenticity, and accountability in their personal and work relationships. They are willing to take risks to stand by their convictions and muster the needed courage to “do the right thing.”

Continue reading

Demystifying The Six Misunderstandings About Servant Leadership

1. Servant leadership is a new age movement.

The concept of servant leadership isn’t new, and most certainly, it isn’t the product of our age and generation. It is as old as human history. In ancient times, many philosophers, poets, and writers admired the serving kings and masters.

In the beginning of the first century, Jesus of Nazareth underlined the importance of serving. He embodied servant leadership by serving the physical, emotional, health, and spiritual needs of his followers. At one point, he even washed the feet of his students.

In recent history, leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela dedicated their lives in serving the social and freedom needs of others. Leaders like Mother Theresa left their comfort zone and devoted their lives to serve the physical, health, and emotional needs of the needy.

However, the father of modern era servant leadership who first coined the term in the late 60’s and early 70’s is none other than Robert K. Greenleaf. He advocated the leader as a servant in his classic work “The Servant as Leader”.

2. Servant leadership is irrelevant to the corporate world.

Servant leadership has been well embraced within the religious, academic, and research circles. It attracted a great deal of interest from leaders, scholars, and students from these circles. Unfortunately, some reports show that servant leadership hasn’t gained the attention and priority it deserves, especially from the corporate world.

Nonetheless, though their number is fairly small, there were and still are some great corporate leaders like the former CEO of Herman Miller- Max DePree. In his extraordinary book ‘Leadership is an Art’, Depree said, “The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you. In between, the leader is a servant.” There is no wonder why employees of this wonderful company take ownership and serve it back with great commitment and delight.

Like Herman Miller and other similar corporations, today’s businesses should adopt servant leadership as one of their leadership styles, and enjoy its full benefits. However, in order to experience the full-scale benefits that come from adopting servant leadership, the following requirements and more should be met:

 

  • Service should be one of the shared values of the organization
  • The corporate culture should be able to create conducive atmosphere for servant leaders to flourish.
  • Training and development programs should incorporate the theme servant leadership.
  • The promotion system should consider serving as one of the important parameters.
  • The incentive system should favor the serving leaders, and more

 

3. Servant leadership is all about meeting the physical needs of people.

Some people limit the scope of servant leadership as if it is all about meeting the physical needs of people. Some even narrow it down to washing feet. In many parts of the world, unlike in the agrarian era, the contemporary generation doesn’t have this need every night. I am not criticizing the act of those who practice feet washing as a sign of humility. I rather admire their commitment and they should continue to do it but here, I am putting things in perspective, that is, servant leadership’s scope should go beyond meeting the physical needs of people.

The real needs of the generation are beyond meeting physical needs. The 21st C generation is overwhelmed with so many new challenges specific to the information age, and therefore, servant leaders should also serve the intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual needs of their constituencies.

4. Servant leadership is serving once and then getting service forever.

Some people think that you should first serve (follow) before you take leadership. Leadership begins in our childhood, the moment we take some responsibilities in our family. We shouldn’t wait forever to take leadership, and become a servant leader. On the other hand, there is no scenario where someone follows (serves) once and then remains a leader afterwards. Following someone’s lead continues in the life of the leader. As much as the latter has people under his influence, he is also a follower of someone somewhere. That is to say, there is no precedence, and tit for tat in servant leadership. It is a lifetime commitment where a servant leader serves throughout her leadership journey.

5. Servant leadership is about extinguishing any fire of need that comes on the servant’s way.

One of the invaluable services in an urban setting is its fire department. Wherever there is a need to fight fire or accident, they are there to serve. I watched some episodes that allowed me to appreciate the critical roles firemen play. In some circles, they believe that servant leaders are fire extinguishers. They should be where there are needs. Such servants will quickly burnout. A servant leader should serve from his strength. The firemen had lots of choices to make but they chose a particular service for which they have passion and strength. A servant leader doesn’t mean she goes out to serve everyone, everywhere, and on everything. A servant leader should know her mission, and that should dictate whom & where to serve, and the kind of service she should render.

6. Servant leadership is about feeding/serving others first.

Servant leadership is a selfless style of leadership but can a servant leader undermine his/her own needs and go out to meet the needs of others without a consequence? Can that kind of approach remain sustainable and relevant in the long run? I like Tim Elmore’s metaphor entitled “The starving baker”. This baker is a servant who is busy feeding others while neglecting to eat himself, and in turn ended up starving. In order to generate lasting impact and serve continually, servant leaders should also look after their own needs, especially their personal development needs.

Assegid Habtewold (Dr.) is the lead coach, consultant, and facilitator at Success Pathways, LLC. He is also the author of “Redefining Leadership: Navigating the Path from Birthright to Fulfillment in Life!” For more information about his book, please visit http://www.successpws.com/?page_id=25


Article Source: https://EzineArticles.com/expert/Assegid_Habtewold/1218809

 

What Is Leadership?

With a title like that you might think I bit off a little more than I can chew. You might be right, but because there are literally thousands of articles, blogs and websites dedicated to discussions of leadership, I wanted to offer a logical definition of it in a thousand words or less. Here goes…

Despite the multiplicity of interpretations we read every day, leadership can be defined simply as:

“Organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal”

A leader can be anyone. There is no need for any formal authority to lead. A person simply needs to have the will, the courage, the charisma and the ability to capture the imagination of one or more followers in order to be considered a leader.

Centuries ago, it was assumed that good and powerful leaders had naturally occurring leadership traits that set them apart from others…Hence, the term, “leaders are born not made”. However, more recent studies have made it clear that given the right set of circumstances and with the appropriate motivation, most people can become true and effective leaders.

Some of the naturally occurring traits that make leadership ability come more easily to some people are:

 

  • Intelligence
  • Assertiveness
  • Diligence
  • Openness
  • Courage

 

When those instinctive traits are combined with learned skills and natural talents, variable levels of leadership ability may be reached. Without all of those traits, effective leadership is possible but much more difficult to achieve.

“It is important to note that one can lead much more effectively when the leadership endeavour involves something that the leader has good expertise in so that he or she may set an example”

It must also be something in which the followers have a need for or an interest in being lead in. For example: An expert tennis player might make a great tennis coach but a lousy sales manager. In addition, there would be no point in trying to lead someone to better customer service skills when he or she works in the depths of a coal mine.

As trite as those examples might seem, it is not unusual that people are put into leadership positions that they are not capable of handling simply because they have done well in another unrelated area. Also, self-promoting or toxic people who have no business trying to lead will often attempt to influence or lead coworkers in inappropriate directions. Both situations will create poor results.

“Good and powerful leaders need to have self-awareness and a solid grip on their own emotions”

Leadership skill necessarily includes the ability to set a mood or tone for the team. Leaders unavoidably telegraph their moods and attitudes to their followers who will adopt the preeminent emotional tone of the leader and carry it throughout the organization.

“One must not assume the only way to achieve financial success or even team success is through servant leadership, participative leadership, or compassionate leadership”

Given the right impetus and favourable circumstances an autocratic, command and control leader can drive his team to success both in the business world, on a sports court or on a battlefield. In the twenty-first century, we tend to reject that style of leadership, but it can be an effective (albeit, potentially negative and harmful) form of leadership nonetheless. If the team is not engaged and motivated, a strong autocrat might be the only leader who can create the environment needed for success.

Modern leadership lecturers and writers also reject the term “management”, since it seems to imply a lack of compassion and favours transactional or task orientation as opposed to transformational or people-oriented leadership. In reality, all organizations have some form of tasks and a specific number of people so it is evident that management may still be an integral part of the leadership cycle in many cases.

“In essence, even bad leadership is a form of leadership”

The efficacy of any leadership style can only be measured in results. In other words if the team meets or exceeds all of its goals, under the direction of its leader, those who benefit from those results may assume that the leadership was good regardless of the leader’s style. However, it is important to note that bad leadership in any form is usually short-lived.

The best and generally, most effective form of leadership occurs when a leader is able to maintain a high level of concern for his or her people while simultaneously keeping high-level performance paramount in the minds of all participants. This form of leadership often goes a step beyond servant leadership because it allows the leader to accurately control production and monitor results for maximum success. A leader who can juggle tasks and people without sacrificing integrity for either is a great leader indeed. That leader will almost always turn out better performance, more production and measurable growth while presiding over happy, well-engaged employees.

“It is important to recognize that groups of working people are assembled primarily to create some sort of product or service”

Great leaders are able to create buy-in to the vision of the organization while accepting and embracing the direction of its leaders. The key to buy-in and strong followership is communication.

Great Leaders are Great Communicators!

Continue reading

Leadership – Motivation From the Heart

“Whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.” (ASV, Mt. 20: 26-28).

Are you a leader? What type of leader are you? Why?

Many management books point out various types of leadership styles based on achieving organizational goals as well as provide guidance to leaders on influencing followers to meet and exceed those goals. Some leadership books teach people leadership transformation by providing practical, “how-to” sections, such as changing behaviors or attitudes. Although researching and writing these books is certainly a noble endeavor, real leadership change occurs from the inside–out. The leader looking for actual leadership style transformation must first explore his or her intrinsic motivations from the heart and, then, acknowledge the behavioral impacts on the people and the organization.

Organizational Leadership Styles

Many types of leadership styles used in organizations achieve outcomes with the hope of producing effective results. For instance, charismatic leadership may produce loyalty to the leader and his passionate ideals; transactional leadership may achieve urgent project goals through the use of bonuses; while humane-oriented leadership, preferred in Southern Asia, shows achievement based on collaboration. Regardless of which leadership style is socially and culturally accepted, leaders are influenced both by their own intrinsic motivations, as well as perceived outcomes, when operating within organizational parameters trying to achieve “effective results.”

Whether an individual or a group achieves effective results is a subjective opinion laced with cultural, personal, and ethical biases–one manager may demand fast-paced task completion to achieve goals, while another manager may discourage the intense pace because he considers it employee hounding. According to author Peter Northouse, balancing both types of leadership styles, task-oriented and relationship-oriented, make it possible to achieve organizational goals. However, Northouse’s research does not show “a consistent link between task and relationship behaviors and outcomes such as morale, job satisfaction, and productivity.” Therefore, it is doubtful employees operating with low morale, mediocre job satisfaction, and average productivity generate effective results. Is this effective leadership?

Consideration: the Heart of the Matter

Although management and leadership books champion effective leadership, surprisingly, researchers “have not been able to identify a universal set of leadership behaviors that would consistently result in effective leadership,” according to Northouse. Gary Yukl, leadership scholar and author, purports “the only strong finding about leadership styles is that leaders who are considerate (emphasis added) have followers who are more satisfied.” In essence, this satisfaction encourages follower motivation, which, in turn, produces desired organizational outcomes.

Merriam-Webster defines consideration as: continuous and careful thought; thoughtful and sympathetic regard, esteem; an opinion obtained by reflection. Imagine a self-centered leader with greed as his motivation trying to have real “consideration” for other people. It just does not work. Consideration is rooted in thinking about others and, therefore, a heart-felt value not instantly attained by reading about leadership behaviors in a book. Trying to change leadership behaviors on the surface may produce short-term results; however, people see right through somebody acting insincere and inconsiderate. Therefore, a leader attempting to transform leadership style without transforming values in the heart, still finds it difficult to reach organizational goals.

Change of Heart, Attitudes, and Behaviors

Author Bruce Winston believes a leader who embraces the leadership values and behaviors as described in The Beatitudes of the Bible ultimately achieves leadership effectiveness. A person striving for this type of values-based leadership operates in a continuous self-reflective mode, filtering feedback from others, whether followers, peers, mentors, or other leaders. According to leadership consultants Chris Watkin and Ben Hubbard, “the willingness to engage personally and change as a result of feedback is what differentiates the best leaders from the rest.”

Once a leader makes a decision for heart transformation, changes in attitudes and behaviors evolve based on embracing a new or transformed set of values. Followers notice because the leader exhibits true behaviors on the outside reflecting internal motivations. Christians believe values engraved in the heart eventually come out in spoken words, whether good or bad, in healthy conversation or heated debate. Further, although leadership experts and organization development theorists group people by leadership style labels, every leader has a unique moral foundation and, therefore, a different leadership style.

“Consider-Others” Leadership

Many moral values exist within religious and social belief systems. The Buddhists believe in “Right Intent,” a commitment to ethical and mental self-improvement, such as the intention of harmlessness, meaning not to think or act cruelly, violently, or aggressively, and to develop compassion. Hindus believe in “karma,” a moral law of cause and effect, and “moksha,” a realization of the unity of all existence–perfect unselfishness and knowledge of the Self. Muslims embrace Islam by accepting, surrendering or submitting to God. Christians believe in loving one another, loving your enemies, and loving your neighbor as yourself. One aspect stands out among all these religions–a dying to self. A type of selflessness that puts the believer last and the other person first–true consideration.

Jesus believed in serving others; what leadership experts consider a “servant-leadership” style. Robert Greenleaf first coined the term “servant-leadership” in an essay: “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first; perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types.” Leaders, motivated by a deep sense of consideration, look at others first and not at their own interests, and this shapes their personal leadership style.

Motivate Your Leadership Style

Leaders motivated by consideration from the heart courageously and genuinely exhibit outward behaviors of honesty, trust, respect, friendliness, and helpfulness, regardless of social norms or what others say. Once leaders embrace heart-felt consideration, then motivation is directed toward achieving organizational goals using transformed leadership styles. Followers experiencing consideration through their leaders transformed leadership style exhibit increased job satisfaction and higher morale that enables motivation, which, in turn, produces desired organizational outcomes.

Once a leader recognizes his or her leadership style is based on intrinsic motivation, achieving effective organizational goals suddenly seems much easier.

What motivates your leadership style?

LISA R. FOURNIER is a doctoral student in the Doctor of Strategic Leadership (DSL) program with the School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship at Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Lisa is also the President of Idea Evolutions LLC, a consulting company serving entrepreneurial leaders.
Email: lisafou@regent.

Continue reading

Leadership and Adversity – The Shaping of Prominent Leaders – Leadership and How it is Identified

What is the best definition of Leadership? I grew up in the 1950-s and 1060’s as a “baby boomer.” As I was growing up, my idea or definition of what leadership was consisted of a combination of role models gleaned from dozens of biographies, including those of political and military leaders, captains of industry, robber barons, and sports coaches.

I read with real interest biographies and autobiographies of the “titans of industry,” with their amazing “rags-to-riches” tycoons of the 19th and early 20th centuries, such as Carnegie, DuPont, Edison, Ford, Goodyear, Huntington, Morgan, Stanford, Vanderbilt, as well as those of moguls of the middle 20th century like Watson (IBM) and Sloan (General Motors).

I eagerly read the political biographies of Winston Churchill, Jefferson Davis, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, George Washington, and Woodrow Wilson. I also devoured biographies of military leaders such as the larger than life US Generals: George Patton and Douglas MacArthur.

I as an Eagle Scout, was especially take with the biography of Lord Robert Baden-Powell, the British General, who distinguished himself in the South African Boer Wars, who turned down the honor to be the Commandant of the British Military Academy to focus on founding and building the World Boy Scouting movement.

I studied the current leaders in news magazines, books, and witnessed as a new breed of business leader emerged on television, including the Bass Brothers, Henry Ford II, Howard Hughes, Lee Iacocca, J. Willard Marriott, H. Ross Perot, and Sam Walton.

I enjoyed watching great actors, such as Charlton Heston, Gregory Peck, George C. Scott, Jimmy Stewart who brought to life the characters of Moses, Michelangelo, Douglas MacArthur, George Patton, and fictional characters like “Mr. Smith” or “George Bailey.” I observed the success and admired coaches like, John Wooden and Vince Lombardi. They coached well, build successful teams, but were true leaders and builders of young men, because they encouraged their players to become upstanding total persons and true team players, not just outstanding individual basketball or football players.

All of the biographies, magazine articles, movie portrayals, and television coverage of leaders helped to shape my mental model and my definition exactly what is leadership. The stories of successful leaders who overcame adversity provided me with an insight as just how these leaders coped with the setbacks, the trauma of life, then succeeding in spite of adversity, obstacles, or challenges.

President John Kennedy’s life and his famous book (1956) provided profiles of courageous leaders. This book and the other biographies gave me a real insight into courage to succeed, no matter what the adversity and to become a strong leader. These stories may have subconsciously influenced my interest in Horatio Alger-type stories.

The biographies, my personal experience of over 30 years of senior leadership experience, and my doctoral studies in leadership, led me to the selection of my topic focused on Leadership and Adversity. My reading studies provided insights into a refining of my definition of leadership, as well as to the lives of leaders who overcame obstacles or dealt with adversity. These early influences laid the foundation for my admiration of those leaders who had succeeded despite having to overcome obstacles, tragedy, or adversity.

Leadership is more than just a word, it is the act of leading. True enlightened “Leadership” is guiding, leading by the right example, demonstrating genuine and deep caring for those they lead, team building, and have a clear vision of the task to be accomplished.

To provide an insight of my definition of leadership and the impact of overcoming adversity, I will supplement my personal views and leadership definition with a short literature review on leadership and the classic definitions.

I will also review the overcoming adversity literature review as the underpinning and foundation for an examination of the possible relationship between overcoming adversity or overcoming obstacles in the shaping and development of prominent leaders.

Leadership and How It Is Identified by scholars and the world

There is no one actual or accurate definitive definition of leadership. Rost (1991) presented the idea of “defining leadership,” yet noted that there is still no real agreement about what leadership is (p. 6).

The word, Lead, as a verb, comes from the Old English word leden or loedan. Some have attributed various meanings to the word “lead” such as “to make go,” to “show the way”, or “to guide.”

The noted and well-respected university scholar, academic researcher and phenomenologist van Manen’s (1991) offer a closer practical definition stating that “leading means going first, and in going first you can trust me, for I have tested the ice” (p. 38). Cronin (1980) offered a simple and succinct definition, when said that Leadership can be defined as the “capacity to make things happen that would not have otherwise happened” (p. 372).

Leadership implies that some leads, guides, directs, or orders someone else to do something that they might not otherwise do. Leadership has many types: Situational Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Servant-Leadership, Principal Centered Leadership, Command-Control Leadership, and many more types. Each type has a distinct and different definition, so one definition of leadership does not fit all type.

Howard Edward Haller, Ph.D.

Chief Enlightenment Officer

The Leadership Success Institute

http://www.TheLeadershipSuccessInstitute.com

HowardEdwardHallerPhD@gmail.com

Continue reading