Robert K. Greenleaf: Servant Leadership Analysis

Servant leadership isn’t applied or adequate to only one type of culture or even one type of culture. Servant leadership can actually be applied to all walks of life and all parts of the world. For example, the culture of the Japanese and the religion of the Hindu people both embrace a sense of what we call servant leadership. All religions and cultures have their own unique way in which they apply servant leadership, either based on their beliefs, history, or lifestyles. The significance of servant leadership is demonstrated in different ways within each culture and religion even when some cultures are not aware that what they are implying is servant leadership. As religions and cultures change and expand through time the concept of servant leadership is adapted and applied in different ways.

The type of leadership most noticeable in the service activity was servant leadership. Servant leadership was first introduced in 1970 by Robert K. Greenleaf in the essay “The Servant Leader”. In his essay Greenleaf says “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. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature.” (Greenleaf, 1970) Greenleaf essentially

Servant Leadership is a leadership style that primarily focuses on the people side of leadership. It was developed by Robert Greenleaf in the early 1970s.

Servant Leadership is defined as a leadership that is based on serving others altruistically. Servant leaders put the wellbeing of their followers ahead of their own needs in order to see them grow to their fullest potential. The leader makes sure that their followers grow as persons, become wiser, healthier, freer, and more likely to become servant leaders themselves (Northouse, 2013).

From the group Biblical Integration Paper, it was understood that servant-leadership is not only a gift of purpose that God places in the hearts of His people, but it is also a calling in one’s life to truly touch the lives of others in need. Living a successful life, as a servant-leader is not one that focuses on self-fulfillment, rather it is in seeking a fulfillment that comes from Christ when one pours him/herself out for the sake of others. It is through servant-leadership that one is able to bring hope into hopeless situations (Group Integration Paper,

Servant leaders puts their followers first versus the goals and objectives of the organization, which limits organizational strategy and processes and lacks continuous improvement of core competencies; therefore, there is no research to date that proves this leadership style increases organizational performance (de Waal & Sivro, 2012). In contrast, as a positive, communication strategies of servant leaders are rewarded with employee loyalty and decreased staff turnover which increase patient outcomes and satisfaction due to staff feelings of appreciation and compassion from the servant leader (Marquis & Huston,

Eastern Culture is highly influenced by two key schools of thought, Confucianism and collectivism. Confucianism is based on the teachings of the Chinese philosopher Confucius, which emphasizes societal roles and hierarchies that exist within organizations. Collectivism is a more modern thought that is based on the Confucian idea of harmony for the collective good. Both these philosophies play important roles in the emergence and presentation of transformational leaders in many Eastern cultures. Confucianism is based on an establishment of five relationships which emphasize the importance of hierarchies as well as the leadership role as paternalistic and benevolent (Spreitzer, Perttula & Xin, 2005). The relationships outlined in Confucian thought, as well as the outlined conduct, come together to establish the conduct of leaders within modern organizations.

The follower-first philosophy is unique in that the focus or service is rooted in the well-being of the follower first to advance the organizations objectives. “Servant leadership embraces the notion that if the followers are maximizing their potential, this will directly translate to the potential of the organization, or, in other words, organizational performance” (Gandolfi, Stone, & Deno, 2017, p. 353). Servant leader engagement of the follower-first philosophy comes in the form of development of the follower. “Servant leaders prioritize followers’ growth and development and build a positive culture of continual learning where everyone engages in a developmental trajectory from their first day in the company” (Sendjaya, 2015, p. 108). Gandolfi et

Servant leadership is a selfless leadership philosophy that exists in practice. People who are servant leadership are willing to become servants and serve as leaders. Servant leadership encourages cooperation, trust, listening, and power. Servant leadership is very different from the general leader. The leaders who are in servant leadership style cherish the good sentiments of service. They would use prestige and aspiration to inspire people and establish leadership.

Servant-leaders must reinforce these important skills by making a deep commitment to actively listening to others. Servant-leaders seek to identify and clarify the will of a group. They seek to listen receptively to what is being and said (and not said) among others. By listening with intent, followers feel understood and valued, even under pressure, the servant leader demonstrates a sense of empathy and compassion by taking the time to understand what one's body, spirit, and mind are communicating.

Here, Greenleaf describes a relationship that is centered on the selfless nature of the leader. While servant leadership prioritizes serving other’s without benefiting personally, it should be questioned if this is truly possible. This is because it is not likely to act as a servant-leader without receiving something in return. An example of this would be a person volunteering for a cause

Being a servant leader can by definition empower your followers. Attending to the needs of your employees and creating a nurturing environment can create trust. Yukl (2010) states, “The servant leader must stand for what is good and right, even when it is not in the financial interest of the organization. Social injustice and inequality should be

Servant leadership is a type of leadership whereby the leader serves the needs of the people, empathizes with them, and involves them in solving their needs. Servant leadership is all about involving the people you are leading in your decision making, being ethical and caring for the people to enhance their personal growth at the same time improve their life. A servant leader does not simply delegate roles; he starts the work and energizes the others to join him and get the work done. According to Spears (2004), the servant leader as defined by Greenleaf is one who gets the natural feeling of wanting to serve first and then a conscious choice brings him/her to lead. This leader makes sure that other people’s highest-priority needs are take

Several reviews have been conducted to provide insight into servant leadership as a theory. Parris and Peachey (2013) state that Russell and Stone reviewed the theoretical framework of servant leadership and listed nine distinct character traits of servant leaders, namely; integrity, honesty, vision, service, trust, modeling, pioneering, appreciation of others and empowerment. Parris and Peachey (2013) appreciate the conceptual framework in the work of Russell and Stone yet they note that it lacks a methodology.

Empathy. “The servant-leader strives to understand and empathize with others. People need to be accepted and recognized for their special and unique spirits. One assumes the good intentions of coworkers and does not reject them as people, even if one finds it necessary to refuse to accept their behavior or performance” (Spears, 2004).