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?
I also found it interesting to consider where the leaders would be coming from. I’m not so sure Greenleaf was so much suggesting that the population goes to seek the leader as opposed to potential leaders seeking within themselves to find that urge to serve.
I found it very interesting how you were able to connect the idea of considering where a leader is coming from to our democracy today. I agreed with what you said about how since we elect our leaders that is technically us “seeking them”. It is interesting to look at our past, and present, and see who we have chosen to lead us and how some of our presidents were not servant leaders in the slightest.
The idea of traditional leader and a servant leader is something that caught my attention as well. I think that a traditional leader is someone who is almost percieved as selfish and the driving force for their leadership is themselves. For Servant leaders their driving force is almost natural and they are doing something for the greater good.
I love all of the questions that you asked. I definitely do agree that as a country we rarely elect the servant leaders and our current political climate is definitely the result of us not choosing a servant leader. The question I wonder would be how do we find true servant leaders or empower those who are servant leaders without tainting their intrinsic motivation in the process.
I also found what Greenleaf said about where we find our leaders interesting. I think it ties into the idea we talked about in class that reluctant leaders are better leaders because they aren’t motivated by ego/ambition. I think that MLK would be a good example of a servant leader.
I find your question interesting because as the definition of a good leader in a democracy includes humility, which is closely aligned with the definition of a servent-leader, I do not believe it is possible to shift the elections to find servant -leaders. The only way I find this to be possible is if the country went to total ruins and a reluctant leader someone like MLK would rise up in efforts to help the people suffering the consequences.