From the two readings, it seemed like the biggest difference between the traditional leader and the servant leader is the motivational force driving the leader into a leadership position. For the servant-leader it is the “natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first” (Greenleaf 83). The desire of the servant-leader is to serve the community they are representing it, rather than the traditional leader, who may be more focused on their image/vision of leading the community. This idea also ties into tyranny related to how focused a leader is with themselves vs. the followers.
I think the idea of the servant-leader and humble leadership tie closely together. In Spears, ten characteristics were attributed to servant-leadership: listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community (Spears 25). These characteristics align closely with the idea of humble leaders, because healing, awareness, listening, and commitment to the growth of people all require a leader to carefully consider and shift values to align with those of the followers.
What interested me the most after reading the two articles was about where these servant-leaders would be coming from. It seemed like Greenleaf was essentially calling for the population to find these servant leaders, because it is the “seekers, then who make prophets” (Greenleaf 80). However, as a democracy, we elect our leaders, so theoretically, we are already seeking our leaders. Despite that, I do not believe Trump falls close to the categorization of a servant-leader. How do we shift the focus/process of our elections so that we can raise leaders to office who are closer to servant-leaders, and not as narcissistically driven?
6 Comments