The servant leader's driving motivation is to be of service. The very act of leading people means serving their needs according to advocates of servant leadership. To be a leader, they argue, you need to serve your prospective followers. Robert K. Greenleaf launched the idea of servant leadership in the 1970s. He had read a novel by Herman Hesse in which a group of traveling companions had a servant with them who arranged everything for their journey and looked after them along the way. However, at one point the servant left and the group fell apart. Greenleaf felt that the servant was actually the group's leader and this inspired him to develop servant leadership.
The idea of the leader as servant can be traced back to ancient times where some kings were regarded as servants of their people. It's a popular idea with Christians as well. Servant leadership works best in politics and community clubs - wherever someone is elected for the sole purpose of serving the electorate or membership. It's not such a good idea in business because success in this context requires a drive to win, almost at all costs, provided ethical and legal standards are not violated. Yes, management needs to consider the needs of employees, but they must serve the needs of shareholders and customers ahead of those of employees.
Sports managers, those who look after the needs of professional tennis players or golfers, serve the needs of the individuals they manage. But this is customer service, not leadership.. Professional sports figures are customers or clients of their managers. The person who manages Tiger Woods, for example, would never be seen as his leader. To hold down a job in any commercial context, it is first and foremost essential to serve customers, not those who work for you.
The Selfless Leader
Another way of capturing part of what servant leadership is getting at is to look at what it means to be selfless. In politics selfish leaders campaign for policies that are designed to win votes, such as cutting taxes or funding popular social programs. A selfless leader or candidate would campaign on policies that are in the best interest of the country even if unpopular. Obviously there is a fine line to be struck. No presidential candidate who campaigned on very unpopular policies would get elected.
Selfless CEOs make decisions that are for the good of the business even if such decisions are not in their own interest. Less selfless leaders would only act in ways that would be good for them personally. Political candidates who only advocate the most popular policies are naturally regarded with cynicism. We can see through their blatant efforts to buy votes and we wouldn't likely call such action leadership anyway.
Selfless leaders, by contrast, are determined to serve a higher cause. For example, CEOs of polluting companies who risk the wrath of shareholders by instituting changes that are environmentally friendly but costly in the short term risk losing their jobs but are guided by principles of right and wrong. But this idea has nothing to do with serving the needs of the organization's employees. CEOs who are dedicated to doing what is best regardless of the cost to themselves might still be highly competitive and ruthless about getting rid of employees who were poor performers.
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 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.
