e ship from sinking? Leaders always need to make such tough decisions, many of which run directly counter to employee needs.

Moreover, if leaders serve anyone, it must be the company’s shareholders and customers. The needs of both of these groups must be put ahead of those of employees. Acting otherwise, a CEO could 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,

Servant leadership has been around for quite a while now. Not everyone has heard of it but the concept has an increasing number of devoted fans.

Servant leaders put the needs of followers ahead of their own. Instead of being domineering and self-serving, they put the needs of employees first. The idea is that doing so will motivate them to perform at a higher level and help them achieve their full potential, both for their own benefit and that of the organization.

Servant leadership originated with Robert K. Greenleaf in 1970 when he read about a group of traveling companions in a novel by Herman Hesse. The group had a servant accompanying them. At some point, the servant departed and the group soon fell apart. They quarreled and lost their sense of collegial, coordinated purpose. This led Greenleaf to reflect on the role of their servant and to view him as the group’s leader.

The merit of servant leadership is that it reminds you to be less self-absorbed. There is no question that leaders today can self-destruct if they are not highly skilled in getting the best out of others and in fostering collaboration. Leaders that are too competitive or self-interested set a bad example for everyone below them. They’re saying, in effect, that it is OK to behave in a win-lose manner with everyone around you. 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. Real teams will beat a collection of individuals any day if the activity is such that a genuine joint effort is critical for success.

In my view, however, the concept of servant is extreme. I think 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. What if there is a need to cut out some underperforming units to keep the whole ship from sinking? Leaders always need to make such tough decisions, many of which run directly counter to employee needs.

Moreover, if leaders serve anyone, it must be the company’s shareholders and customers. The needs of both of these groups must be put ahead of those of employees. Acting otherwise, a CEO could 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, t

inated with Robert K. Greenleaf in 1970 when he read about a group of traveling companions in a novel by Herman Hesse. The group had a servant accompanying them. At some point, the servant departed and the group soon fell apart. They quarreled and lost their sense of collegial, coordinated purpose. This led Greenleaf to reflect on the role of their servant and to view him as the group’s leader.

The merit of servant leadership is that it reminds you to be less self-absorbed. There is no question that leaders today can self-destruct if they are not highly skilled in getting the best out of others and in fostering collaboration. Leaders that are too competitive or self-interested set a bad example for everyone below them. They’re saying, in effect, that it is OK to behave in a win-lose manner with everyone around you. 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. Real teams will beat a collection of individuals any day if the activity is such that a genuine joint effort is critical for success.

In my view, however, the concept of servant is extreme. I think 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. What if there is a need to cut out some underperforming units to keep the whole ship from sinking? Leaders always need to make such tough decisions, many of which run directly counter to employee needs.

Moreover, if leaders serve anyone, it must be the company’s shareholders and customers. The needs of both of these groups must be put ahead of those of employees. Acting otherwise, a CEO could 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,

n that leaders today can self-destruct if they are not highly skilled in getting the best out of others and in fostering collaboration. Leaders that are too competitive or self-interested set a bad example for everyone below them. They’re saying, in effect, that it is OK to behave in a win-lose manner with everyone around you. 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. Real teams will beat a collection of individuals any day if the activity is such that a genuine joint effort is critical for success.

In my view, however, the concept of servant is extreme. I think 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. What if there is a need to cut out some underperforming units to keep the whole ship from sinking? Leaders always need to make such tough decisions, many of which run directly counter to employee needs.

Moreover, if leaders serve anyone, it must be the company’s shareholders and customers. The needs of both of these groups must be put ahead of those of employees. Acting otherwise, a CEO could 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,

beat a collection of individuals any day if the activity is such that a genuine joint effort is critical for success.

In my view, however, the concept of servant is extreme. I think 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. What if there is a need to cut out some underperforming units to keep the whole ship from sinking? Leaders always need to make such tough decisions, many of which run directly counter to employee needs.

Moreover, if leaders serve anyone, it must be the company’s shareholders and customers. The needs of both of these groups must be put ahead of those of employees. Acting otherwise, a CEO could 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,

e ship from sinking? Leaders always need to make such tough decisions, many of which run directly counter to employee needs.

Moreover, if leaders serve anyone, it must be the company’s shareholders and customers. The needs of both of these groups must be put ahead of those of employees. Acting otherwise, a CEO could 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. It is simply too vague and incomplete. To say that leaders serve employees is a much stronger claim, but hard to defend in view of the fact that they really need to put the needs of others ahead of those of employees.

So, is there anything useful about the concept of servant leadership? Or does it not sufficiently recognize the complex realities of organizational life? I think it is a passable idea in some contexts, but not practical at all in other situations. In politics, 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, there is some sense to the concept of behaving like a servant to their needs. On the other hand, even here there is a distinction to be made between the employees who work in these organizations and the membership or public who elect their leaders. You could see members as customers and say that their needs again must come before those of the employees. The usefulness of the concept is even more questionable in the private sector, however, where a CEO more clearly has to serve customers and shareholders first.

Still, servant leadership is a useful reminder of the danger of being too self-serving, too concerned to put your own needs ahead of the organization’s and its employees.