Category: Uncategorized

I strongly agree with the notion that the best leaders start off as a servant or under a leaders wing. It is extremely rare that we see people go straight into a leadership position without learning the roles and renditions of a good leader. The type of servant to lead is more natural and attains the qualities of a great role model. These servant leaders are better leaders in the sense that they are able to relate and connect with their followers due to the simple fact that they were once in the shoes of their followers. To begin with a humble outlook on your position, the role comes much easier. Humility is attained a lot easier and with less effort and is pertained better.

In Hesse’s story, Journey to the East, this fictional story obtains the idea of Leo as a servant joining them. When their “journey” begins to go in a different direction than expected he is there and ready for the fall. This is because of his energy and overall charisma that he brings. He has an energetic stigma attached to him in a positive manner that makes him show signs of potentially being a good leader in the near future.

3 Comments

As I was reading the article with the list of servant leadership traits, I couldn’t help but think about those traits and how they interact with community service. That is what I think of when I hear servant leadership, community service. It teaches you a lot of the characteristics or at least makes you a better person. I’m not saying that if you do community service that you will be a good leader, but I believe that if someone has experiences with people of all different socioeconomic status, race, gender identity, and everything else that can create divisions between people, they will have a better view of the world and how their decisions might impact more than just the people and the community they grew up in. Greenleaf’s article talks about servant leadership and how “It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead”. It is drastically different from the people who choose to lead first. Like I said earlier, I know that I have and I’m assuming other people have learned something when serving others. Volunteering and community service is a big part of my life and I believe that everyone should do it because it gives you a different perspective on life. Personally, it made me more appreciative of what I have but also taught me that you can find joy anywhere. There is no situation that is completely hopeless which just really changed my view of the world and I am grateful for that.

This interacts with leadership because I think that the valuable lessons that my experiences with service have taught me would give me some of the skills I need to prepare myself for leadership. It taught me humility and awareness. I grew up in an affluent area and had never really been faced with anything else until I went on a mission trip to Belize. I was astounded by the joy of the community despite the hardships they experience on a day to day basis and it taught me that other people have different experiences than me and that taught me how to listen. I am excited and willing to listen to others in order to learn more about the world. Sorry, I’m kind of going on a tangent, anyway I think that service can improve the leadership qualities of our leaders and that service leaders have a more well-rounded view of the world that we live in. Therefore they can make better decisions and be a superior leader.

2 Comments

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?

 

6 Comments

I definitely agree that the best leaders start as a servant or a role that is similar rather than someone who goes straight into a leadership position that has never been under someone else. These type of servant to leader people are more natural in the position. They can relate to their followers and have a better connection with them making their bond stronger because they have humble beginnings. This relates to the idea that humility is an important trait to have as a leader. The servant as a leader has humility without even trying or forcing it.

Even though Hesse’s story Journey to the East is fictional, the idea of Leo joining them as a servant, but when he was no longer there and the journey falls apart is realistic because they needed his presence and energy there all along. When a person brings great energy and positive presence to a group they are not appointed to lead in the first place, shows great potential for that person to eventually become a good leader.

4 Comments

I agree with the idea that the best leaders start off as servants first. It is much easier to follow someone who you can relate too or to follow someone who you think you could become one day. it gives you motivation and can make your relationship with the leader better. I also agree that servant-leaders are more likely to understand humility, unlike non-servant leaders who worry about their personal goals more than the common good. I also find Greenleaf’s use of the prophet interesting. It makes me think of religious times. I think Jesus would be a perfect example of a servant leader. Jesus began as a carpenter which is a humble job before he became a leader. Jesus understood what it was like to be a servant and often helped others who were at the bottom. Greenleaf uses Leo as another example of this but I think Jesus is just as good of an example.

3 Comments

The Servant as a Leader

I agree with the theory that the best leaders are those that emerge from servant positions. It is best to follow someone who knows what it is like to be in your shoes. Greenleaf describes servant leadership as something that “begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first”. Then Greenleaf proceeds to add that then a “conscious choice” is what brings a servant to desire to lead.

It is sadly common that many leaders today lack humility. They do not truly desire to serve. Some leaders truly believe that everyone else is at the pleasure of the leaders. Non-servant leaders have agendas but their goals do not necessarily always have the common people in mind. Servant-leaders are created from people that intrinsically like to serve. This means that when they become leaders they are simply now using stature and prestige as a resource to further serve the people.

Greenleaf ends the article after empowering individuals and ideologies. It is discussed that for any great change at least one brave individual is needed. Not only this but an individual with a servant mentality must come second to a dream. For the “United” States of America, a dream is very much present but we need someone with a servant mentality to come and make this dream accessible to everyone.

5 Comments

Robert Greenleaf, in his journal piece, initially implies that there is a distinction between one being a servant and one being a leader. He then goes on to pose the question of whether or not a person can play both roles at the same time. Can a servant-leader hybrid be just as productive? 

Once again (I think I do this with every class topic and discussion), I could not help but compare Greenleaf’s point-of-view of “Leo”, the central figure of Hermann Hesse’s Journey to the East, to a religious point-of-view. I find that “Leo” having been first a servant before becoming a noble leader mirrors that to Jesus Christ’s role on Earth. Greenleaf provided a quote, “the great leader is seen as a servant first”. Jesus, during His days on Earth, worked as a carpenter… which was and still is one of the lowliest and humble jobs that anyone could take. It was not until later on that Jesus was regarded as a “noble” leader. Jesus and Leo were both destined to be leaders from the start, however, they knew deep down that they were servants first.  

Greenleaf mentions one problem of accepting the alternatives to fusions of servant and leader: the contradiction in the servant as leader. I don’t think the two contradict, per se, yet there is more of a balance between the two. It seems that service and leadership do fall on opposite sides of the spectrum. Yet, it is best to find the way that these opposites complement each other. It would be most productive and serene to find the ways in which being a servant connects to being a leader, rather than ways in which they are divided. 

Larry Spears’ “Ten Characteristics of Effective, Caring Leaders” should include his suggestions but not be limited to them. After an in-depth look at “humility” and what it means in leadership, I believe Spears could add “humility” to his list of characteristics. In terms of effectiveness, a humble leader is able to not only acknowledge strengths but is able to acknowledge weaknesses as well, or something the leader can not do. This maximizes effectiveness because too much time nor energy would be wasted on a leader trying to figure out how to do something without having a clue on how to do it. Next, the amount of care that a leader has will follow effectiveness. This would really be a test of whether or not the leader truly cares for the people or for her/his own pride and reputation. 

1 Comment

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

7 Comments

In both of these articles, Spears and Greenleaf discuss the concept of a “servant leader.” This is someone who has a natural inclination to serve first, and then because of their inclination to serve, leadership is bestowed upon them. Spears notes that this concept can be quite contradictory, but Greenlead argues nonetheless that our country is in a leadership crisis and needs more servant leaders. I think Greenleaf brings up a great point about education and the impact it can have on cultivating the servant leader. Educating students about world politics and problems, and what they can actually do to make a difference will equip young people with the tools to serve first and then lead. As discussed in class, these two positions are not often used together, as we tend to think of leaders as decisive, strong, and unwavering. Often times, emerging as a leader can require great confidence and ambition, making it unlikely that a leader remains humble and chooses to serve the people.

Both Spears’ and Greenleaf’s arguments made me think of the statement released by The Business Roundtable, some of the most powerful business CEOs and chairmen in the world, who believe corporations have a different purpose than their lifelong promise to answer to shareholders and shareholders first. CEOs like Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos are redefining the purpose of a corporation, arguing that more attention must be given to the quality of life of employees, environmental impacts of the business, and addressing the needs of the customer. This is a huge shift in the way CEOs have thought and is a contradiction of fundamental principles of capitalism that stress maximizing profits and keeping shareholders happy above all else. It is possible to argue that as the wonders of globalization and technology reduce our conceptions of time and distance, and climate change becomes an increasingly important issue, powerful business leaders must see themselves as stewards of the world’s environment, its people, and its resources. These are very big ethical implications, implications that are traditionally left out of economics. However, judging from the wealth inequality in the US and realizing how much money and influence companies like Apple, Google, and Amazon have, it would be nice to believe that future business leaders will follow the model of servant leadership. Hopefully that’s not too idealistic.

2 Comments

Spears points out something very interesting the idea of servant leadership is very new. This was intriguing to me as it is now a fairly widespread idea that a leader should possess Spear’s 10 characteristics of a good leader. All the characteristics are something I see that everyone should strive for, leader’s especially. But looking to leaders, at least the ones in the limelight today, I’m not sure how many of them actually embody these characteristics. It seems like Trump and Pelosi among others do not personify these characteristics but tend to lean toward how Machiavelli says to portray them: through appearance. 

Robert Greenleaf does a very good job framing the servant leader as well. He makes a great distinction by saying that a servant leader focuses on putting others needs before his own. This is a quintessential part of being a leader. To help and grow those who put them in that position. It should not be their goal to only profit from it as a leader but to be a servant leader and better the community around them.

3 Comments

I find the idea of servant leadership is very interesting. I thought it was very interesting that Greenleaf said a servant leader must start out a a servant then come into a position of leadership. This brings into question of a servant becomes a leader. I think a servant starts as serving and becomes an example for people and gain a following. They show others how to serve and share their goals with their followers.

I also found it interesting to look at the list of characteristics of a servant leadership compared to the list of charismatic leadership qualities. Both mention the idea of listening to their audience. Listening in regards to a servant leader involve growth of them selves and their followers. Where as a charismatic leader listens to their audience more so by reading it and adapting to it. Both use veriations of persuasion, foresight and many other similar qualities with their audiences. This makes me wonder is a person can be both a charismatic leader as well as a servant leader.

1 Comment

The idea of servant leadership is very interesting, as both readings discuss, it is more about first being a servant and wanting to serve and then coming into a leadership position. In Greenleaf’s article he discusses how a natural servant “is more likely to preserve and refine a particular hypothesis on what serves another’s highest priority needs than is the person who is the leader first and who later serves out promptings of conscience of in conformity with normative expectations” (84). I find it to be a unique take on what is most effective in leadership because this theory is more about how someone already wants to serve the people and the greater good before they have a leadership position, and how that is the better form of a leader. This reminded me of Donald Trump and how he does not fit the servant leader at all because he was not a servant first, he was a leader first; not to mention that he does not possess many of the characteristics of a servant leader.

I found that the 10 characteristics of a servant leader in Spears’ article were very similar to the traits of a charismatic leader as well as a humble leader. Through what we have been learning in class, I am finding that listening and empathy are two of the most important traits in effective leaders. What was also intriguing to me was the fact that in Spears’ article, he talks about the servant leader as becoming more common in companies and institutions, and this leaves me wondering if a servant leader is better suited for those types of leadership roles rather than political ones.

1 Comment

The idea of being a servant-leader is much more different than that of Divine Right leadership. Divine Right is the notion that God has chosen the monarchs/rulers; therefore, they have the right to ascend to the throne, justifying their leadership. A servant-leader comes with being a servant first and wanting to serve, then deciding to lead. A servant-leader always wants to make sure that their followers’ highest priority is being fulfilled. This can go the other way around too with a leader-servant. This is a person who wants to become a leader due to selfish reasons, to gain power or material wealth, then choose to serve after gaining that leadership position. It seems like there is a good number of leaders in our world who follow this path. I liked Greenleaf’s analogy of the servant and the wheel. No one wakes up in the morning thinking that they want to reinvent the wheel. A servant, however, is always searching for the next, better wheel to emerge.

I agree with Greenleaf’s statement that more servant leaders are speaking up for injustice in our society, however, not all are in political positions. One person who particularly stands out to me is Greta Thunberg and all of the other children fighting for climate change activism. There are many things that a leader needs, both inspiration and to initiate, whichever of his leaders trust him will be the ones who follow. Leaders also need to establish a goal with their followers, either a goal they set themselves or decided on collectively with their followers. The person must have followers who trust them to be able to achieve their goals. To gain their trust they need to be confident in themselves and their qualities like their values, intelligence, ability to lead, etc. This reminds me of the threshold of narcissism a rule must have to be a competent leader. Yet, these leaders need to know the perfect balance between confidence and cocky, so that they are able to remain humble.

4 Comments

In the introduction to Greenleaf’s article, the character of Leo reminded me of how a lot of higher up business people tend to higher assistants or helpers and those people tend to do a lot of the managing and organizing and without them, the life of the boss would be way more complicated and stressful. A lot of times that assistant is just starting out too and can then go to get a job higher up and the cycle may sort of repeat but it still exemplifies the idea of servant first, leader second. Greenleaf also talks about how remembering history and keeping it in context of present and future events is vital because it helps to create these new positions. There is also mention of how if someone has known the past, they are reluctant to change with the present and we see that a lot today, maybe even more than back three decades when the article was written because in some places, a lot of older people are still very set in their ways from precedents of their family or just what they have lived through and people are afraid of change sometimes or they do not want to accept that they may have been wrong or at least not all correct in what they have believed for their whole lives.

The second article when explaining the ten characteristics of a servant leader seems to relate a lot to what we read about humility and charismatic leaders because you have to listen to others and have a goal to put their needs first to better the community as a whole. There is an emphasis on being one with their followers so that you can better help them with their troubles. The beginning talks about how positive character traits can be taught and learned and that takes me back to the very beginning when we talked about if you could learn how to be a leader or if you are just born with those traits and I think it is more obvious after this article to say that leaders arise due to the situation, but of course they have specific qualities that benefit them in leading others.

Leave a Comment

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.

3 Comments

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

On Tuesday (September 24th) I attended the first event in the Sharp Viewpoint Series. The speaker of the evening was Sarah McBride. She is the press secretary for the Human Rights Campaign which is the largest LGBTQ advocacy and lobbying group in the United States. She is a graduate of American University, running for Delaware state senate and she is also a transwoman.

Sarah began her speech with telling her own story of how she came out to her family and her university. She came out to her school in an op-ed in the school newspaper and shared that the support was overwhelmingly positive which she also recognized was not the norm for many LGBTQ people, especially people who are trans. I never though about it this way but Sarah said that people in general are less accepting of trans people than gay people because most people know how it feels to love someone or love someone they are not supposed to, but most people do not full understand the identity crisis trans people go through. Her story was very moving and she spoke with such eloquence and passion it was easy to follow her emotions both in the moments she was retelling and during the speech.

One quote from the event that really stuck with me was when Sarah said people claim being anti-LGBTQ under the guise of religious freedom but religious freedom should not be a “sword to harm already marginalized people”. This is an example of intersectionality we talked about in class. Transpeople, especially trans women are subject to transphobia, homophobia, misogyny, sexism and more.

Sarah left the audience with two very powerful pieces of advice. One: there is no wrong way to be you. And two: you are powerful. Everyone has insecurities but if you accept and replace those insecurities with pride, bullies will see that power and become jealous.

Sarah is a great example of a leader. She has not only taken on local leadership but has taken her personal experiences and beliefs to the national level through her work with the Human Rights Campaign and her campaign for Delaware senate. She is an example of a charismatic leader who recognized her circumstances and rose to be the voice of people like her and people who support her.

Leave a Comment

I believe humility is an important characteristic for all people to have or at least understand. After reading Ruscio’s piece on humility, I now see how humility is one of the most important characteristics to good democratic leaders. Kennedy, Washington and Lincoln are some of the most recognized democratic leaders and they for sure embodied humility at some point during their terms.

I think that humility is a forgotten virtue in civilian life in general bus especially in the political sphere. Today we want political leaders to have new ideas, be firm, decisive, strong and powerful. Strong-willed people can still be humble however it is becoming less and less common to have both. In a world where people must fight and be their own advocates, humility is more often replaced with confidence and pride, sometimes in excess.

We have talked at length about perception in this class. In relation to the perception of confidence with charismatic leaders, what matters more: how we see leaders or how they see themselves? With confidence and charisma, it matters that we perceive the leaders to be confident even if they see themselves as self-conscious. However Ruscio claims that with humility, it matters only that leaders see themselves as imperfect. I disagree with this statement because a leader’s personal belief of humility can and probably is different than what the public perceives as humility. If Trump thinks he is humble, does that mean it does not matter what the rest of the country thinks? Perception plays an important roll in all leadership characteristics but I think it is more important in the case of humility than charisma.

6 Comments

In this reading, the concept of Humility is explored. This concept is focused on here and it is used to show how this trait or ability to harness humility is quite powerful. When people talk about soft power and charisma, I feel that Ruscio puts this trait up there in being important. Humans inherently arent perfect so those who make the most of their imperfections and try their best to make up for imperfections make their followers understand and bond with their leader which is oftentimes very important. This reminds me a lot of the fear vs Love concept because humility allows more interpersonal communication with followers which can lead to a sort of love whereas those who do not embrace humility enjoy standing out in a godlike persona who wants to be feared. This reading really explores the idea of not exerting power and rejecting power. Ruscio points out “Historians frequently point to this episode as indicative of Washington’s innate ability to establish a bond, a trait that ultimately led him, in more significant historical moments, to acquire authority and legitimacy, not by exerting power over those he led, but by rejecting formal power.” This clearly was more effective than being tyrannical with power and had a better overall effect it seems.

6 Comments