In my opinion, Robert Greenleaf’s paper is well-reasoned and makes a great case for the newly-developed concept of “servant leadership”. He begins his essay with the anecdote of Leo in Journey to the East, defines servant leadership, states the problems/contradictions with it, and applies the term on a micro and macro level. In a modern context, I think our class discussions and many studies on leadership focuses on political figures, so I was a fan of this paper because Greenleaf shifts away from solely focus on politics but applying to all sorts of leaders. Servant leaders and followers are “always searching, listening, expecting that a better wheel for these times in the making” (Greenleaf 80-81) and are able to apply these skills to create a better society. There is a difference between verbalizing what you believe in and being all talk, but Greenleaf really drives the point that servant leaders actually take action against injustice. With prior experience of being a civil servant (i.e. through a nonprofit, campaigning for legislation, etc.) followers can trust that as servant leaders, they can make changes.
I was intrigued by Spears’s article as well because of the parallels his characteristics of servant leadership had with charismatic leadership. Some examples include the intersections of “foresight” with being visionary, “awareness” with emotional expressiveness, and “commitment to the growth of people” with enthusiasm and drive. While I don’t believe charismatic leadership and servant leadership are the same thing, I don’t believe they are mutually exclusive and a leader could exhibit both leadership methods.
Anna Marston
I agree with you in that a servant leader is more capable of applying their skills into creating a better society. With this in mind, servant leaders have a better connection to their followers, as followers are better able to trust someone who has been in their own shoes.
I like how you tied in charisma with this topic because in my opinion, good charisma can be associated with servant leaders in a way. By this I mean that charismatic leaders have a will to help and inspire their followers, along with nurturing them, which servant leaders do too. The idea of serving first allows for the servant leader to understand how to be help others and they can translate this into assisting their followers with their wants and needs.
The charisma point is a good one. Being a follower under a charismatic leader helps expose followers on how charisma works in leadership.
I like your point about how interconnected charisma and servant leadership are. The parallels of foresight and visionary as well as “awareness” with emotional expressiveness or even responsiveness lead me to think that maybe servant leaders are charismatic but not all charismatics are servant leaders.
(ignore this one…I did not think this one went through) ((see other comment below))
I think the parallels between charismatic leadership and servant leadership are particularly important. I agree that may of the characteristics seem to overlap: the servant leadership “foresight”compared to the charismatic visionary, the servant leadership “awareness” compared to the charismatic emotional expressiveness or even responsiveness. This makes me wonder whether most servant leaders are charismatic but not all charismatics are servant leaders, or is we can even make that assumption.
Yes, I also believe that there are different types of leaders but that doesn’t necessarily mean that one is better because they have different traits. In some places, servant leaders are more effective and some places charismatic leaders may be more effective but servant leaders can be charismatic and vice versa.