Transformational Servant Leadership -- Introduction

For the past thirty years, numerous articles and books have been devoted to leadership styles in the realm of business. Despite this groundswell of material and research, there is still no comprehensive understanding of what leadership is, nor is there an agreement among different theorists on what good or effective leadership should be. With that said, two leadership styles – transformational leadership and servant leadership – have arguably gained the ascendency in the business world.

The origins of transformational leadership can be traced back to 1973 when J.V. Downton coined the term “transformational leader” in his work “Rebel Leadership:Commitment and Charisma in a Revolutionary Process.” The maturation of the ideas behind transformational leadership can be traced back to the 1978 publication by James McGregor Burns in which he discussed the ability of leaders (in many different jobs) to inspire staff to work with more energy, commitment, and purpose. Transformational leadership is a process of transforming an organization by persuading colleagues to work together to achieve a vision (Burns, 1978). Transformational leaders are often charismatic (charismatic component). They have an ability to exceptionally influence their followers to share in the vision and to perform well beyond what is usually expected of them. Transformational leaders also have an ability to align individual aspirations and motivations to that of an organization vision (stewardship component).

The origins of modern servant leadership can be traced back to 1970 when Robert K. Greenleaf coined the terms “servant leader” and “servant leadership” (Greenleaf, 1970). The maturation of the ideas behind servant leadership can be traced to additional essays Greenleaf wrote on various aspects of servant leadership as well as works by other writers such as Laub, Speers & Lawrence, Autry, and Blanchard. "Servant leadership is an understanding and practice of leadership that places the good of those led over the self-interest of the leader. Servant leadership promotes the valuing and development of people, the building of community, the practice of authenticity, the providing of leadership for the good of those led and the sharing of power and status for the common good of each individual, the total organization and those served by the organization" (Laub, 1999). Though the organization and external stakeholders are important, it is clear that needs of the members of the organization are placed in priority over organizational success. A servant leader views leadership not as position or status, but as an opportunity to serve others, to develop them to their full potential. Greenleaf believed the final goal of servanthood was to help others become servants themselves so that society would benefit as well.

The conceptual framework for each leadership style is very similar. Both leadership styles have a charismatic component or underpinning. Both are inspirational, ethical, and moral (Graham, 1991). In other words, much of servant leadership may be subsumed within the transformational leadership model. Nonetheless, they ultimately form a distinctly separate theoretical framework because of one perceived, primary difference. The difference is reflected in the following statement by A. Gregory Stone, Robert F. Russell, and Kathleen Peterson (2003): “The principal difference between transformational leadership and servant leadership is the focus of the leader. While transformational leaders and servant leaders both show concern for their followers, the overriding focus of the servant leader is upon service to their followers. The transformational leader has a greater concern for getting followers to engage in and support organizational objectives.”

Given the information presented, it appears that both leadership styles have strengths and can bring real change in organizations. What is not clear, is the universality of transformational and servant leadership. Specifically, are both of these styles sufficient in all contexts, or do the contexts (in which the organizations exist) make one or the other of these leadership styles more appropriate? (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004)

The purpose of this brief study is to suggest that a hybrid of these two leadership styles – transformational servant leadership – leads to a leadership style that:
o Blends the strengths of both leadership styles
o Offsets the weaknesses of both leadership styles
o Has the greatest contextual appropriateness
o Avoids the need to utilize “situational” leadership

In the coming months, this blog site will explore:
o The foundation of transformational servant leadership (humility)
o The formation of transformational servant leadership (trust, empowerment, etc.)
o The facets of transformational servant leadership (heart, head, hands, & habits)
o The forces (think strengths) of transformational servant leadership
o The future of transformational servant leadership (it must be practiced, proven, & popularized)


References
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Downton, J.V. (1973). Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma in a revolutionary process. Free Press.
Graham, J.W. (1991). Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly. 2 (2), 105-119.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The Servant as Leader.
Laub, J.A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the Servant Organizational Leadership Assessment (SOLA) instrument. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida Atlantic University.
Smith, B., Montagno, R. & Kuzmenko, T. (2004). Transformational and Servant Leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Spring 2004.
Stone, G.A., Russell, R.F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 25(4), 349-361.