Summary
The servant-leadership theory is grounded in the idea that a leader is one who seeks to serve others. The term servant leadership was coined in 1970 by Robert Greenleaf. Greenleaf described servant leadership as “beginning with a natural feeling that one wants to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead”. By placing the needs of others first, an individual is able to transform into a servant leader (Greenleaf, 1977). Servant leaders focus on improving society for the greater good (Komives, 2013). The motive to put the needs of others first distinguishes servant leadership from other types of leadership theories. While other leaders may join organizations to further their own career or to acquire possessions, a servant leader first desires to help others, and then becomes a leader to do so (Komives, 2013).
The best way to evaluate the effectiveness of servant leadership is to examine the end goal. Servant leadership seeks to benefit others so that they grow, become more autonomous, gain independence and become empowered to be a servant leader themselves. Unfortunately, many critics of the theory believe these factors are too difficult to measure (Komives, 2013).
Pros
Leadership power is shared and is not a top-down approach.
Focus on building individuals strengths in order to empower them to become future servant leaders.
The betterment of society and the greater good is the focus, instead of individual achievement.
Cons
Followers are not engaged in this model and are viewed in a passive role.
There is no theoretical model to measure servant leadership.
Many do not like the negative connotation of “servant” leadership, particularly feminists.
Practical Implications in Teaching
Servant leadership as a teaching model allows students to be the center of the learning process and it encourages development in Perry’s Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development. In the servant teacher model, students play a large role in determining the content and assessment of the course. The model allows students to understand authority is not all-knowing and that the learning process should be centered in seeking truth. The servant teacher model can benefit a classroom by allowing the opportunity for “greater engagement, increased autonomy and self-direction, deepened appreciation for change, and developing skills, attitudes and understandings that transcend the classroom” (Hays, 2008).
References
Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant leadership: a journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Hays, J. (2008). Teacher as Servant Applications of Greenleaf’s Servant Leadership in Higher Education. Journal of Global Business, 2(1),113- 134. Retrieved from http://climbatgwinnetttech.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/48707524/Hays%20%20Teacher%20As%20Servant%20-%20JGBI.pdf
Komives, S.R. (2013). Exploring leadership for college students who want to make a difference. (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
What is Servant Leadership?. (n.d.) Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. Retrieved from https://greenleaf.org/what-is-servant-leadership/
Leadership Development for Higher Education | Saint Louis University 
It is interesting that one of the major cons of this type of leadership is essentially semantics. I wonder if there is a similar word that could be chosen to replace “servant” to make it more appealing. Focusing on the semantics, the lack of role for the follower is also interesting, since a servant is historically in a very passive position.
Tiffany, I agree the choice of words is a major downfall for the theory. It appears many disagree with the term “servant”, so I’m wondering if the term service, or a similar word, should replace it. While Exploring Leadership notes some view the follower in this theory in a traditional, passive role, I do think the entire idea of Servant Leadership is to empower the “follower” so eventually they will become a servant leader themselves. In my opinion, the “follower” in this theory does have the power because the “servant leader” is focusing on placing the needs of the followers first. This means the followers truly lead the direction of the servant leader. However, I based my cons of the theory on other literature.
You noted that “followers are not engaged in this model and are viewed in a passive role.” Is there anything in the literature that suggests ways to engage followers to be less passive in the relationship?
Tommy, as I wrote to Tiffany I actually think the followers do steer the direction of this theory and are encouraged to become empowered leaders themselves (if the servant leader follows the theory). However, my statement on the traditional, passive role of the follower was based on the literature from Exploring Leadership.
I believe if the Servant Leader truly serves society and individuals in need the way the theory outlines, the followers (or those who received service) would become empowered to pass along the service to others.
Thank you for your response.
I like this theory. It seems like empowered followers would greatly benefit any organization. Desire to serve others and willingness to put others’ needs before one’s own are outstanding characteristics. I wonder whether it would be a bad combination to have a servant leader and a selfish follower (or one with a different motivation); the selfish follower might take advantage of the unselfish leader. One assumption in most of our models is ethics on the part of everyone involved, but I don’t know that it is always guaranteed. I am not trying to be too cynical, but this is a potential concern with a few of the more idealistic models, which I like. Could circumstances force a servant leader to change to a different approach, at least temporarily? Perhaps we will talk about this in our class on followership.
This is an interesting theory of leadership for me because I have always considered myself a servant leader and this theory is so integrated into our campus community, Servant leadership is often associated with spirituality, so it makes sense that the model is used at many Jesuit institutions. Where I am now finding a disconnect is that other theories put such emphasis on personal values – knowing what you truly value. If your true intention is to help and serve others, first, you must know what you value and care about and then you can be effective in the leadership process with others. Fortunately and unfortunately, the Social Change Model of leadership has completely changed how I view leadership, and now that I see it as a process, some aspects of this model just don’t fit. Wouldn’t you agree that the SCM is about serving others as well? If you are creating positive social change, that is for the greater good – and it includes that first fundamental piece – you knowing yourself. Another interesting piece to me is how Komives describes this:
The motive to put the needs of others first distinguishes servant leadership from other types of leadership theories. While other leaders may join organizations to further their own career or to acquire possessions, a servant leader first desires to help others, and then becomes a leader to do so (Komives, 2013).
Doesn’t the SCM put others first – the call to impact positive social change. I disagree with that entire paragraph. I also realized that I am not in agreement with some of the characteristics of measuring the effectiveness of servant leadership. The leadership process could create major change and have an impact on a significant number of people, but not necessarily empower those same people to become servant leaders. Case in point, I have the desire to help the greater good, but I don’t think I am going to call myself a servant leader. Through reflection and aligning my personality with my soul (awareness of my true intention and the path to authentic power), I will use that power and energy to help the greatest number of people possible whether or not they adopt the same theory or methodology.