Robert Greenleaf’s “The Servant as Leader” focuses on whether someone who occupies a traditional servant role then ascends to a leadership position is the best leader. Our latest discussion focused on humility in the context of American politics, so when reading this article, I thought of the premise of servant leadership in that same context. The US President, or any elected official, is technically a servant of their country. However, they are also a servant of their constituents, the people who got them elected; because a large part of being an elected official is being re-elected, I think that politicians feel more loyalty to their constituents specifically over the nation as a whole. Regardless, they are technically still filling a servant role. But are they servant leaders? According to Greanleaf’s definition, no. He claims that a “great leader is seen as servant first,” but when reflecting on both past and present presidents, the first term I think of is not “servant.” However, I still think of presidents as fulfilling the position of great leader, which is why I disagree with Greenleaf’s point.
Before the quote mentioned above, he used Hermann Hesse’s Journey to the East as an example. In the story, the main character poses as a servant but is later revealed to be the head of the organization sponsoring the journey. He may have been seen by the characters on the journey with him as a servant prior to being seen as a leader, but he was the leader at heart the entire time. Greenleaf later says that this is who Leo actually was from the beginning, but how can you know if he was a leader or servant first? It feels the chicken-before-the-egg debate. Does the order in which your seen actually matter because wouldn’t you fundamentally be the same? Please discuss.
I think your question at the end is really interesting, and I’m not really sure how to answer it because I think that it’s hard to tell what came first. I also think politicians are an interesting case to consider when talking about servant leadership because even though they are technically serving the people they lead, they don’t seem to fit into Greenleaf’s definition of a servant leader.
I think the main difference between a leader as we have defined in the class and a servant-leader as discussed in the readings is that leaders often time want to be leaders, rather servent-leaders just want to help, and somehow fall into the title of a leader. A clear example is MLK, he was a servant, who helped the people of color in his community, in time of struggle, he then fell into the position of leadership. Unlike Obama per say, who ran for the presidency, and then looked like a servent -leader.
I really liked the point you brought up about how certain politicians are more servants to their constituents rather the public as a whole. Whether to follow party lines or personal beliefs is a internal debate that I’m sure many politicians have, but the best should in theory be able to make a decision to best serve the public. This idea of how a leader is a servant is worth more exploring.