My main takeaway from Greenleaf’s article is that servant-leaders are the most effective. According to Greenleaf,
“The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served”
I agree with that. I believe that individuals that begin as leaders can often lose sight of the needs of their constituents, as opposed to a servant-first leader whose number one priority is fulfilling the needs of the people. It is not to say, however, that all leaders must start as servants in order to accurately serve their people because that is not that case, but I do believe that there is value in someone serving others in a lower position before arising as a leader.
Another aspect of servant-leadership that I agree with is when Greenleaf claims that a servant
“…is always searching, listening, expecting that a better wheel for these times is the making”
This desire for something better is also a valuable trait in a leader, but even more important is their drive and initiative to create this. Greenleaf believes this is something found in a servant-first leaders as they are the ones who are always seeking for new opportunities and possibilities.
A question I have about this article however, is how do account of the great leaders that serve their followers diligently and did not start off servants? How do we consider their effectiveness?
To answer your question I do not think that leaders have to start off as servants, just like you said, and all that matters is that they are serving their followers diligently. There is a possibility that their effectiveness could have been even greater, but there is no way to know this.
I agree that to be a servant first plays into a leader’s humility. It is important for a leader to understand their power is not natural and thus should not be taken advantage of through arrogance.
In regards to your question, I think the answer goes back to the concept we talked about on the first day of class: different leaders are needed for different situations. While being a servant leader may be advantageous in some instances, there may be others where it’s not necessary.
I agree that servant leaders are very important, however, it is more important to note when exactly each type of leader will be better and for what situations.I think that leaders can still be very effective without being one specific type.
I also agree that servant leaders are very important but as I read the other comments I also agree that leaders can still be effective even if they are not all the same type of leader. I think this is important and also shows how defining great leaders is hard.
I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that servant-leaders are much more inclined to be much more focused on “other people’s highest priority needs…being served.” With regards to the final question which you posed, I think it is definitely possible that a leader can be effective and incredibly responsive to his constituency’s highest priorities and not be a servant leader – it is just significant to think about the differences in these two types of leaders’ motivations.