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.” Transformational leadership is a process of transforming an organization by persuading colleagues to work together to achieve a vision (Burns, 1978). 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).

Servant leadership seems to be all the rage these days. Every company wants “servant leaders”, but few seem to know much about servant leadership. 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). "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, trustworthy, ethical, egalitarian, and focused on mentoring. 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 presentation 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 Avoids the need to utilize “situational” leadership
o Has the greatest contextual appropriateness

To better explain transformational servant leadership, let us consider its:
o Foundation
o Facets
o Forces (think strengths)

Its Foundation
Humility is not taught in management courses or in many leadership courses, for that matter. Organizations want their leaders to be visionary, authoritative, confident, capable, and motivational. Yet, humility is the primary requirement for leadership. Or stated in a different manner, humility is the foundation of leadership. Why is humility essential (i.e., foundational) to leadership (including Transformational Servant Leadership)? It is because humility:
o Acknowledges our sinfulness,
o Comprehends our creatureliness, and
o Authenticates our humanness.

1. Acknowledges Our Sinfulness
The Psalmist writes: “Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults. Also keep back Thy servant from presumptuous sins; then I shall be blameless, and I shall be acquitted of great transgression” (Psalm 19:12-13).

The first reason that we need humility in leadership is because we are sinners. (Note: To those who object to this statement, I ask that you be patient and consider the other arguments for the importance of humility.) We have deceitful hearts. We truly do not realize the depth of sin. As such, it is important for us – in humility – to acknowledge our sinfulness.

This acknowledgement of man’s sinfulness has been a foundational principle of all successful governments. For example, this acknowledgement led our founding fathers to build into the very fabric of our governmental structure, a separation of powers. Each branch of government – executive, legislative, and judicial – is bridled by a series of checks and balances. Why? As Lord Achton expressed in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” A similar statement was expressed by William Pitt in 1770: “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.” Whenever governments have acknowledged man’s sinfulness, liberty and freedom have quickly followed.

2. Comprehends Our Creatureliness
The second reason that we need humility in leadership is because it comprehends our creatureliness. The word “humility” itself comes from the Latin word humus, which means "dirt" or "earth." Behind the concept of humility is the realization that life inevitably ends with a return to the earth, "from dust to dust," as the expression goes. Since this inglorious end awaits all of us, it hardly behooves us to be boastful or full of ourselves. Ultimately we all turn into dust. Thus, true humility never lets us lose sight of our human mortality with all of its limitations (Armour, 2007).

Colonel Larry R. Donnithorne (Ret.), in his book “The West Point Way of Leadership,” captures this fact: “Every leader is a follower. No one commands an organization without restraints. For every leader, no matter how ‘supreme,’ there is always a higher authority who must be answered.” The employee answers to the manager. The manager answers to the director. The director answers to the CIO. The CIO answers to the CEO. The CEO answers to the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors answers to its shareholders. Even the shareholders answer to somebody. Why? We are creatures, not the Creator.

3. Authenticates Our Humaness
The third reason that we need humility in leadership is because it authenticates our humanness. Or as John Baldoni states in his article entitled “Humility”: “Humility is a strand between leader and follower that underscores one common element – our humanity.” We humans are frail creatures. We have our faults. Recognizing what we do well, as well as what we do not do so well is vital to self-awareness and paramount to humility. Humility keeps us attuned to our frailty, our inadequacy, and our vulnerability (Baldoni, 2007).

Most successful leaders understand that a sense of humility is essential to winning the hearts and minds of followers. Humility is a visible demonstration of concern and compassion, as well as authenticity. Leaders who are to be followed must be leaders who understand the human condition, especially their own. Those in authority who are blind to their inner selves are likely to do stupid things, like invade Russia (Napoleon), invade France and Russia (Hitler) and invade Kuwait (Saddam). On a less serious note, managers out of touch with reality put their own interests first - Ken Lay, Richard Scrushy and Dennis Kozlowski come to mind. None of these supposed leaders demonstrated one iota of humility, and, in the process, ran their businesses into the ground. By contrast, leaders such as Colleen Barrett of Southwest Airlines, along with her leadership team, have created a culture of humility, one that springs from concern for others as a means of building a people-centric organization. Humility is an approach to life that says "I don't have all the answers and I want your contribution." For some people, that is no problem. For people at the top, that may seem akin to saying, "I am naked." Or close. Humility is a form of nakedness, but not a form of exhibitionism. Rather, it's a demonstration of acceptance as well as resolve. Humility is acceptance of individual limitations - I cannot do it alone - coupled with a sense of resolve to do something about it - I will enlist the help of others. That is the essence of leadership (Armour, 2007).

Its Facets
Having considered the foundation of transformational servant leadership, let us now consider its facets. It is a transformational journey that encompasses (borrowing a framework from Blanchard and Hodges, 2005):

o The motivation of the heart
o The perspective of the head
o The behavior of the hands
o The practice of habits

Let us quickly look at each of these facets.

1. The Motivation of the Heart
Most leadership books and seminars focus on the leader’s behavior and try to improve his/her leadership style and methods. That is, they attempt to change leadership from the outside. That objective is misguided. Effective leadership starts on the inside. It is a heart issue. If one does not get the heart right, then we simply won’t ever become transformational servant leaders.

The primary question you have to ask yourself is: “Am I a servant leader or a self-serving leader?” That is, “Do you seek to serve or be served?” Self-serving leaders never bring themselves to subjugate their own needs to the greater ambition of something larger and more lasting than themselves. Work will always be first and foremost of what they get – fame, fortune, power, adulation, etc. Work will never be about what they build, create and contribute. Secondly, self-serving leaders do not invest in succession planning. They view such an investment as a threat. Finally, self-serving leaders think they should lead and others should follow.

Transformational servant leaders, on the other hand, have a completely different motivation. They view their leadership as an awesome responsibility that affords them a position of trust and stewardship to take care of those entrusted to them – their staff and the company they work for. They build, create, and contribute to something that is larger and more lasting than themselves. Finally, they realize they came into the world with nothing and will leave with nothing.

Jim Collins mentioned this “heart” in his seminal work -- “Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't.” In this book, Collins examined companies that went from good to great by sustaining 15-year cumulative stock returns at or below the general stock market, and after a transition point, cumulative returns at least three times the market over the next 15 years. Among the many characteristics that distinguished these companies from others is that they all had leaders that directed their ego away from themselves to the larger goal of leading their company to greatness.

2. The Perspective of the Head
The journey of transformational servant leader starts in the heart with motivation and intent. Then it travels through the head, which is the leaders’ belief systems and perspective on the role of the leader. Transformational servant leaders have a specific point of view related to themselves and to others.

o View of Self
A transformational servant leader, first, dies to himself/herself. They sacrifice themselves to a higher good or yield to a legitimate authority. Quite often it means doing what you don’t want to do. Sometimes it means going down with the ship so that others may live. Second, they realize that the beginning of followership is getting to zero. That is, it is realizing that you don’t know everything and open yourself to the possibility of being remade into something more (Donnithorne, 1993). Third, a transformational servant leader is capable of performing a self-analysis in order to know their strengths and weaknesses. They “know” their mistakes, but see them not as failures, but as learning opportunities.

o View of Others
A transformational servant leader also has a specific point of view related to others. They believe everyone has dignity. Everyone deserves respect. Everyone deserves to be elevated. Secondly, they do not consider themselves to be superior to those underneath their authority. Thirdly, they avoid the trap of being proud for getting to where they are at. They know that they didn’t get themselves here. They know that others helped them, encouraged them and assisted them to get to where they are now.

3. The Behavior of the Hands
That which is in the heart and in the head, must be practiced. Your motivations and beliefs must affect your actions. What are some examples of how one can “practice” transformational servant leadership?

o Invite feedback. One of the operative principles of coaching is giving feedback. Managers need to turn the tables on themselves and invite their employees to give them feedback, too. But before they can do this, they must spade the ground. Asking for feedback from subordinates without proper preparation is akin to pulling a knife on them. Of course they will tell you what you want to hear. Leaders must make it safe for their people to offer criticism as well as advice. When done properly, it builds trust.
o Encourage dissent. Part of feedback is dissent, a disagreement with the central point of view. For leaders, dissent is a good gut-check as well as a lesson in humility. As with feedback, when you make it safe for people to voice a discordant note, you get other points of view. Accept dissent as a form of humility.
o Temper authority. Power comes with rank but you don't have to pull it to make it work for you. You can encourage others to make decisions by delegating authority and responsibility. Encourage your people to write their own performance objectives and set team goals. Allow them to make decisions. Your authority comes in the form of imposing order and discipline.
o Acknowledge what others do. Few have said it better than legendary Alabama coach, Paul "Bear" Bryant. "If anything goes bad, I did it. If anything goes semi-good, we did it. If anything goes really good, then you did it. That's all it takes to get people to win football games for you." Practice that attitude always, especially when things are not going well, and your team will rally together because they want you to succeed. In short, humility breeds humility.
o Turn failures into lessons. Mistakes give rise to the need for humility. Instead of trying to cover mistakes up, leaders need to publicize them. Not for the sake of retribution, but for the sake of education. According to the Wall Street Journal, Eli Lilly, the pharmaceutical company, took a second look at a cancer drug that had failed in human trials. Researchers at Lilly understand that the scientific method involves a degree of trial and error as well as failure analysis. The result is that mistakes can be turned into successes; the failed drug was modified and is now used to treat another form of cancer.
o Expect humility in others. Humility breeds humility. A good example of this practice is a Buddhist monastery. There all the monks work in support of the community and in pursuit of a oneness with their humanity and their spirituality. A sense of personal humility is a key to self-understanding that in turn leads to greater awareness of the wholeness of life. In other words, if you show humility, you can ask and expect others on your team to do the same.
o Demonstrate confidence. Too much humility can erode self-esteem. Ego is essential to leadership because it breeds self-confidence. If anything, leaders must demonstrate confidence, a sense that they can do the job. What leaders need to realize is humility need not be oppositional to confidence but rather supportive of it. Confidence is not simply about self, but can grow to embrace the entire team. That is, leaders can, and should, feel more confident knowing they have the support and the resources of others with which to do the job. And if the team is not right, then it is the leader's job to make it so through job training, personal development and augmentation of people with other skills.
o Don’t be first. First is not necessarily a bad thing, however being first can come across as competitive, self promoting or demoting of others. None of those things are common for a humble person. In a group or workplace, if you don’t be first to speak, participate or get involved, you give others a chance to be first. This can be very humbling for several reasons. You may see that others have better or smarter ideas than you had in the first place, you’re not the only one capable of the task or message and that you aren’t necessarily needed as much as you would like to think you are. These are very humbling realizations so if want to learn to be more humble, next time you have a chance to be first, don’t!

Jim Collins supports this truth in his best-selling leadership book Good to Great. According to Collins, when things are going well for typical self-serving leaders, they look in the mirror, beat their chests, and tell themselves how good they are. When things go wrong, they look out the window and blame everyone else. Great leaders, on the other hand, are humble. When things go well, they look out the window and give everybody else the credit. When things go wrong, these servant leaders look in the mirror and ask, What could I have done differently to allow these people to be as great as they could be?

4. The Habits as Experienced by Others
Now that your motivations and beliefs affect your actions, make sure that you renew your daily commitment (as a leader) to serve rather than to be served. It is very easy to be consumed by the rat race and the pressure of life. Good leadership habits are not a permanent characteristic. They can be lost or gained since human virtues are imperfect representations of the ideal. As such, all of us need to develop strategies and habits that will help us stay on purpose. For example, we should:

o Establish a habit of reading 2-3 books a month
o Set aside “quiet time” to think about leadership
o Be in prayer on a daily basis
o Join an accountability team/group
o Etc.

Forces
Having considered the foundation and facets of transformational servant leadership, let us now consider its forces (or strengths). Transformational servant leadership is really just a version of servant leadership that is transformational. That is, it imbibes the strengths of servant leadership while overcoming its weaknesses. Like servant leadership, it shares the following strengths:

o Both inspire others to follow.
o Both have high ethical standards.
o Both have a sense of egalitarianism.
o Both practice coaching/mentoring.
o Both have a concern for the needs of others.
o Both are effective in communicating expectations.
o Both engender trust. These forms of leadership require that leaders engage with followers as ‘whole’ people, rather than simply as an ‘employee’ for example.
o Both build confidence in those that work underneath them (SL – in how they are cared and treated; TL – as a foundation for accepting radical organizational change)

Transformational servant leadership also overcomes some of the weaknesses of servant leadership. This includes:

o Broadening and elevating (Bass, 1990b) the interests of their employees beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group.
o Providing more initiative/risk-taking to revitalize processes. The servant-leader model does not stress risk-taking behavior as an essential attribute of organizational success. In transformational leadership, on the other hand, the leader's initiative is strongly associated with risk taking as the necessary element of future success, as well as with the willingness to switch to the more effective practices and systems (or revitalizing organizational processes).
o Arousing and changing our followers’ awareness of problems and their capacity to solve those problems (Bono & Judge, 2004; Kelly, 2003). Transformational leaders question assumptions and beliefs and encourage followers to be innovative and creative, approaching old problems in new ways (Barbuto, 2005). They empower followers by persuading them to propose new and controversial ideas without fear of punishment or ridicule (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003).
o Avoiding slow consensus and leveraging acquired trust to expedite required changes. Servant leadership stresses collaboration and integrity, where communication and persuasion skills become extremely important. Decision-making processes involve most of the organizational members and generally results in consensus. The time factor is not considered crucial, which allows for groups to make mutually acceptable decisions. Transformational servant leadership, in contrast, gives the leader some initiative in decision making, for example, to take a certain risks or to drop obsolete practices. This, however, does not guarantee that the decision made will be completely accepted by followers, but the charismatic influence and inspirational power of a leader will support the faith in the correctness of a leader's actions.
o Creating an “empowered dynamic culture” (whereas servant leadership leads to a “spiritual generative culture"). Under the Servant Leader model, the leader's motivation to lead arises from an underlying attitude of egalitarianism. In other words, the leader's belief system says he or she is no better than those who are led. All members of the organization have equal rights to vision, respect, and information. The leader's role is to facilitate the emergence of a community within the organization. A spiritually generative culture is one in which members are focuses on the personal growth of themselves and others, and the organizational systems that facilitate that growth. It is further suggested that, while this culture is satisfying to organizational members, it results in followers who are passive to the external environment and unlikely to want to upset internal conditions which might require substantive changes in the status quo but is conducive to generating internal personal growth. The Transformational Servant Leader emerges from a different motivation base. Where the servant leader has a sense of egalitarianism, the transformational servant leader is motivated by a sense of mission to recreate the organization to survive in a challenging external environment. The transformational leader's motivation base has a more macro focus. Individual growth and development are not unimportant but must be related to the organization's success in the external environment. This leader approach produces the empowered dynamic culture. Organizational members in this type of organization not only have high skills but also have high expectations placed upon them. The leader models high performance. A reading of the descriptions of servant leadership reveals no calls for risk taking and innovation, while this is a key element in a transformed organization. Clearly some of the outcomes of the transformational model are similar to the spiritual generative culture. For example, the call for high ethical standards and concern for the individual are apparent in both. It could be suggested, however, that in servant leadership one arises from a belief in human dignity as a primary organization goal; while in the transformational organization these virtues are valued because to be successful the organization as a whole depends on a strong "virtuous" foundation.
o Motivating individuals and organizations to follow a new idea. Transformational leaders make clear an appealing view of the future, offer followers the opportunity to see meaning in their work, and challenge them with high standards. They encourage followers to become part of the overall organizational culture and environment (Kelly, 2003; Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2003, p. 3). This might be achieved through motivational speeches and conversations and other public displays of optimism and enthusiasm, highlighting positive outcomes, and stimulating teamwork (Simic, 1998, p. 52). Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech and US President John F. Kennedy’s vision of putting a man on the moon by 1970 stand out as exceptional examples of this characteristic (Yukl, 1989, p. 221).
o Tying individual growth/development to organizational success.

Merging servant leadership with transformation leadership also overcomes some of the weaknesses of transformational leadership. For example, it:

o Avoids the possibility of dictatorial behavior by the leader. A key criticism of transformation leadership is it’s potential for the abuse of power (Hall, Johnson, Wysocki & Kepner, 2002). Transformational leaders can choose to motivate followers by appealing to strong emotions regardless of the ultimate effects on followers and do not necessarily attend to positive moral values. As Stone, Russell and Patterson (2003, p. 4) observe, transformational leaders can exert a very powerful influence over followers, who offer them trust and respect. Some leaders may have narcissistic tendencies, thriving on power and manipulation. Further, as Bass (1997) notes, transformational leadership lacks the checks and balances of countervailing interests, influences and power that might help to avoid dictatorship and oppression of a minority by a majority. In the absence of moral rectitude it is self-evident then that transformational leadership might be applied for less-than-desirable social ends.
o Lets us treat even difficult people with such respect that we help them feel worthwhile. People do not typically invest their trust in someone who makes them feel invisible or insignificant.
o Leaves us open to what others can teach us, no matter what their station in life. As a result we learn and develop wisdom more quickly, because we let everyone be our mentor.

References
Armour, M. (2007). Humility and Leadership: No Laughing Matter. LeadershipPerfect Newsletter: August 15, 2007.
Baldoni, J. (2007). Humility. www.johnbaldoni.com
Barbuto, J.E. (2005). Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(4), 26-40.
Bass, B.M. Avolio, B.J., Jund, D.I. & Berson, Y. (2003). Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), pp. 207-218.
Bass, B.M. (1997). KLSP: Transformational Leadership, Working Papers http://www.academy.umd.edu/publications/klspdocs/bbass_pl.htm
Blanchard, K., Hodges, P. (2005). Lead Like Jesus. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Bono, J.E. & Judge, T.A. (2004). Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901-910
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Donnithorne, L.R. (1993). The West Point Way of Leadership. New York: Currency Doubleday.
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.
Hall, J., Johnson, S., Wysocki, A. & Kepner, K. (2002). http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu
Leadership Quarterly. 2 (2), 105-119.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The Servant as Leader.
Kelly, M.L. (2003). The Mentor. from http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/030101mk.htm
Laub, J.A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the Servant Organizational Leadership Assessment (SOLA) instrument. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida Atlantic University.
Simic, I. (1998). Transformational Leadership. Facta Universitas, 1(6). p. 52.
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.
Yukl, G.A. (1989). Leadership in Organizations (2nd ed.). p. 221

Managing & Developing Your Employees

Howard Dean tells the story of an instructor on his staff that had been explaining leadership to a class of police recruits. Calling a man to the front of the class, he handed him a piece of paper on which was written: "You are in charge. Get everyone out of the room without causing a panic." The recruit was at a loss for words and returned to his seat. The second man summoned tried: "Everybody outside. Go!" No one moved. A third man (when given the chance) glanced at the instructions, smiled, and said: "All right, men. Break for lunch." The room emptied in seconds.

Sports franchises, sales teams, and IT Departments all desire to assemble the best set of talent possible. How does one assemble such talent? Much like the story in the introduction, the best “talent” is creative and successful. And if you assemble such talent, how do you ensure that you develop them? Many sports franchises have assembled talented teams only to see a less-talented team take the title. And if you develop them, how do you retain them?

I would like to take a stab at answering these questions. For I believe that the key to managing and developing your “team” as a CIO, is to embrace three inviolable (or sacrosanct if you prefer) principles:
o Don’t settle when hiring employees
o Never stop coaching employees
o Do everything you can to retain great employees

Let us consider each of these inviolable principles.

TO BE CONTINUED