The term servant brings about the wrong impression when referring to leadership. When I think of a servant I see a butler or housekeeper. They are running from room to room to care for the spoiled masters of the home. These people are often lazy and lack motivation. The “servant” cares for everyone and everything in the home.
The irony is that the servant leadership approach is completely contradictory to my prior opinion. This is the leader that I want. Someone that is attentive to the concerns of the follower (Northouse, 2013, p. 219). This person identifies the fact that the satisfaction of the group is paramount and can care for that in order to achieve organizational success. What a unique concept in a society that is quickly becoming self-centered. Too many people are more concerned with their own individual acknowledgments and not enough about the success of the company.
This approach to leadership has some major concerns. Have you ever been so dedicated to the happiness of another that you find yourself at their beckon call? You rush to meet every one of their needs without thinking of yourself? Is this really the best approach to a team concept? How can you keep your team from doing the same thing? You have to be able to direct people through tough times. Without a sense of mutual respect, you lose the relationship required for success (Northouse, 2013, p. 235).
It seems that this approach is merely a supportive approach, not a single theory that can be implemented. Let’s look at the characteristics of the servant leader. Listening skills, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people and a sense of community (Northouse, 2013, pgs. 221-223). These are all traits that a person exhibits or skills that can be taught. This is better served as an explanation of how leaders are both born and trained.
This idea is interesting in the fact that everyone can agree that a good leader should possess these traits. However, how can we gauge the success of this style (Northouse, 2013, p.235)? Is it not better measured by the explanation of other theories? I do not know if it is the title or the description of this theory, but I struggle in understand how one can obtain the respect of the team when you are only concerned with their happiness as compared to the overall success of the organization.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (Sixth ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.