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 Arouses and changes 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, p. 3). They impose their own ideas judiciously and certainly not at any cost (Simic, 2003, p. 52).
o Avoids slow consensus and leverages acquired trust to expedite required changes.
o Creates 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. In our opinion, the leader has a trustee role, one in which individual growth and development are goals in and of themselves. The key leader drivers, as shown in Figure 1, are valuing people, developing people, building community, displaying authenticity and sharing leadership. Possible impacts of these drivers could be: higher skilled people, more ethical people, better communicators, strong interpersonal relationships, creation of shared visions, and clear goals. It is argued here that these outcomes in conjunction with the leader initiatives that produce them create the spiritual generative culture. 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 Leader emerges from a different motivation base. Where the servant leader has a sense of egalitarianism, the transformational 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. Under the transformational leader model, as seen in Figure 1, the main leader initiatives are idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. These initiatives lead to: role modeling, high ethical standards, concern for the needs of others, communication of expectations, shared visions, innovations, risk taking, and questioning of practices and systems. Together with the leader initiatives, 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. In Figure 1, both models of leadership are included in a chain of relationships. Contextual forces and/or situational factors would define the leader's motivation in these relationships. As stated earlier, applications of the servant leadership concept include not-for-profit and community leadership organizations where the environment can be characterized by low dynamism and slow change processes, relative to many modern business environments that face global competition. In the low dynamism situation, a leader's motivation "to serve first" is effective. The "black box" of an organizational system will interpret the leader's philosophy and resulting initiatives into a culture that we would describe as generative and spiritual. This type of culture works on creation of a harmonized, cooperative internal environment where spiritual awareness and growth represent the core values of an organization. Such a culture is likely to be more passive in introducing changes and more persistent in preserving its status quo. Given the specifics of an appropriate external environment, an organization with servant leadership based culture will succeed. In the case of transformational leadership, the external environment is usually more dynamic and challenging, thus requiring quick decisions and correct reactions. Here a leader's motivation is to lead first, to get an organization into the shape necessary to adapt effectively to external requirements. Leader initiatives are designed to place strong emphasis on inspiration and intellectual stimulation of every member in organization. It is suggested the resulting organizational culture is the projection of a leader's behavior through organizational communication and reward systems, and is characterized as empowering and innovative, dynamic, and receptive to possible changes. We would argue that the servant leadership model works better in a more stable external environment and serves evolutionary development purposes, whereas transformational leadership is the model for organizations facing intense external pressure where revolutionary change is a necessity for survival. Here, the importance of the time factor comes into play. 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 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. Thus, the time factor is accounted for in the transformational leadership model.
o Motivates individuals and organizations to, for example, 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). Through these sorts of means, transformational leaders encourage their followers to imagine and contribute to the development of attractive, alternative futures (Bass, Avolio, Jung & Berson, 2003, p. 208).
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.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Book Review: Love is the Killer App
Tim Sanders makes the bold suggestion that business success can best be achieved by becoming a “lovecat.” Sanders defines the love business as “the act of intelligently and sensibly sharing your intangibles with your bizpartners.” Those intangibles are our knowledge, our network, and our compassion. By knowledge he means everything you have learned and everything you continue to learn. By network he means your entire web of relationships. By compassion he means that personal quality that machines can never possess – the human ability to reach out with warmth, whether through eye contact, physical touch, or words.
I wish I had read the book back when it was first published in 2002. Because many of the lessons he learned, I learned the hard way in the past years. I can strongly endorse the practical advice he provides as much of what I have been doing for the past 12 months agrees with his advice. I would challenge each of you to seriously apply his advice of “intelligently and sensibly sharing” your knowledge, network, and compassion with your business partners. Pick up the book and learn numerous ways that he “intelligently and sensibly” shares his intangibles with his business partners.
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0 to 5): 3
I wish I had read the book back when it was first published in 2002. Because many of the lessons he learned, I learned the hard way in the past years. I can strongly endorse the practical advice he provides as much of what I have been doing for the past 12 months agrees with his advice. I would challenge each of you to seriously apply his advice of “intelligently and sensibly sharing” your knowledge, network, and compassion with your business partners. Pick up the book and learn numerous ways that he “intelligently and sensibly” shares his intangibles with his business partners.
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0 to 5): 3
Book Review: Winners Never Cheat
“Circumstances may change but your values shouldn’t.” So begins the introduction to Huntsman’s book – “Winners Never Cheat.” Huntsman updated and re-issued this book to address the ethical lapses that he saw during the most recent economic downturn. The book makes a strident appeal for all business persons (and businesses) to maintain the highest ethical standards. He sets forth how one has learned these standards, how one knows right from wrong, how one overcomes the temptations to ignore these standards, and a variety of suggestions (surround yourself with ethical team members, operate the business as if they’re family owned, etc.) to increase the likelihood that the standards will be adhered to. Huntsman provides many real-life examples of the benefits and costs of maintaining the highest standards. The book is a very easy read and worth considering for a companion on a plane flight.
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0 to 5): 2
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0 to 5): 2
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Transformational Servant Leadership -- 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 is a child of God. 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?
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 is a child of God. 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?
Monday, March 1, 2010
Transformational Servant Leadership -- 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 (see Federalist Paper #51) 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? It was because James Madison recognized that the “heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it” (Jeremiah 17:9). Or, 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).
References
Armour, M. (2007). Humility and Leadership: No Laughing Matter. LeadershipPerfect Newsletter: August 15, 2007.
Baldoni, J. (2007). Humility. www.johnbaldoni.com
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. 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.
Madison, James. (1776). Federalist Paper #51.
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.
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 (see Federalist Paper #51) 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? It was because James Madison recognized that the “heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it” (Jeremiah 17:9). Or, 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).
References
Armour, M. (2007). Humility and Leadership: No Laughing Matter. LeadershipPerfect Newsletter: August 15, 2007.
Baldoni, J. (2007). Humility. www.johnbaldoni.com
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. 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.
Madison, James. (1776). Federalist Paper #51.
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.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
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.
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.
Book Review: The West Point Way of Leadership
“West Point takes leadership very seriously. They must: military leaders literally hold lives in their hands. Living up to such critical responsibilities takes courage, determination, integrity, self-discipline – and the highest performance in each of these areas. This book takes the reader inside one of the most demanding and unusual leadership programs anywhere. Raw recruits at West Point are stripped of everything experience has taught them about success and motivation and teamwork. They spend every waking moment learning the toughest lesson of all: character. They are taught how to live by their word and they discover why that is a leader’s most powerful single action. A leader who lives by his word can be counted upon to choose ‘the harder right’ – that is, put the needs of the organization ahead of personal considerations – in every instance.” (Col. Larry R. Donnithorne (Ret.), "The West Point Way of Leadership")
Why makes this book worth reading?
The core of West Point's program is more than a strategy or vision. It's a philosophy and practice of a set of values. It examines in practical detail the roots of sound leadership (be it for civilian or military purposes): moral principles (such as justice and beneficence), high-minded values (loyalty, integrity, consideration for others), and selfless service.
What are some of the lessons learned from studying this book?
You will learn the four passes of leadership – followership (0), teamwork (1), face-to-face leadership (2), indirect leadership (3), and executive leadership (4). You will learn that 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. You will learn that the beginning of followership is getting to zero: realizing that you don’t know, and then opening yourself to the possibility of being remade into something more. You will learn that leaders of successful organizations make sure their followers are proud to be part of the company. For this to happen, the followers as individuals, and the organization as a whole, must have values in common. You will learn that the shared values of the organization are a more important bond than loyalty to one’s peers. You will learn that a leader can foster double loyalty – to a team and to an organization – by inspiring in subordinates the sense that they are the organization. That the company is not “it” but “us.” You will learn that weak leaders think of their team members as merely extensions of their own hands and feet. You will learn the difference between functional (its end is a goal whose achievement is important not just to each individual in the group, but to the group collectively) and dysfunctional (competition by creating goals in which members of the team are forced to compete against each other for bonuses or promotion) competition. You will learn the difference between managers and leaders. You will learn that the primary leadership responsibility of executive leaders inside their organizations is to continually inspire their members to move toward the larger goals of the institution.
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0 to 5): 2
Why makes this book worth reading?
The core of West Point's program is more than a strategy or vision. It's a philosophy and practice of a set of values. It examines in practical detail the roots of sound leadership (be it for civilian or military purposes): moral principles (such as justice and beneficence), high-minded values (loyalty, integrity, consideration for others), and selfless service.
What are some of the lessons learned from studying this book?
You will learn the four passes of leadership – followership (0), teamwork (1), face-to-face leadership (2), indirect leadership (3), and executive leadership (4). You will learn that 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. You will learn that the beginning of followership is getting to zero: realizing that you don’t know, and then opening yourself to the possibility of being remade into something more. You will learn that leaders of successful organizations make sure their followers are proud to be part of the company. For this to happen, the followers as individuals, and the organization as a whole, must have values in common. You will learn that the shared values of the organization are a more important bond than loyalty to one’s peers. You will learn that a leader can foster double loyalty – to a team and to an organization – by inspiring in subordinates the sense that they are the organization. That the company is not “it” but “us.” You will learn that weak leaders think of their team members as merely extensions of their own hands and feet. You will learn the difference between functional (its end is a goal whose achievement is important not just to each individual in the group, but to the group collectively) and dysfunctional (competition by creating goals in which members of the team are forced to compete against each other for bonuses or promotion) competition. You will learn the difference between managers and leaders. You will learn that the primary leadership responsibility of executive leaders inside their organizations is to continually inspire their members to move toward the larger goals of the institution.
Transformational Servant Leadership Score (0 to 5): 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)