M1 Introduction to the Philosophy of Servant-Leadership 2012(1)(1)

26
Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 1 JOURNEYING ON THE PATH OF LEADERSHIP Introduction to Servant-leadership School of Professional Studies, Gonzaga University ORGL 530 Course Notes -Dr. John H. Horsman Contents 1. Chapter One: Introduction a. The Leadership Crisis b. Towards a solution: Servant-leadership c. Definitions 2. Chapter Two: Serving First a. A Natural Archetype for Leadership b. Moral Authority c. Dependence Independence Interdependence d. First Among Equals e. The Universality of Servant-leadership f. Congruence 3. Chapter Three: The Philosophy of Servant-leadership a. Engaging the Conceptual Struggle b. Primary Conceptual Insights for servant-leaders c. A Perspective on the Motive for Servant-leadership 4. References Chapter One: Introduction The Servant-leader is servant first…It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead…The best test, and the most difficult to administer is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit or, at least, not be further deprived? (Greenleaf, 1977, pp. 13-14) Robert Greenleaf began writing about a "crisis of leadership" in the early 1970s suggesting that institutional administrators were choosing the wrong kind of leaders. Greenleaf argued that the leadership crisis had developed from an inappropriate focus on the importance of administrator perfection, too much attention on analytical problem solving,

description

New Idea of Servant Leadership

Transcript of M1 Introduction to the Philosophy of Servant-Leadership 2012(1)(1)

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 1

JOURNEYING ON THE PATH OF LEADERSHIP Introduction to Servant-leadership

School of Professional Studies, Gonzaga University ORGL 530 Course Notes -Dr. John H. Horsman

Contents

1. Chapter One: Introduction

a. The Leadership Crisis b. Towards a solution: Servant-leadership c. Definitions

2. Chapter Two: Serving First a. A Natural Archetype for Leadership b. Moral Authority c. Dependence Independence Interdependence d. First Among Equals e. The Universality of Servant-leadership f. Congruence

3. Chapter Three: The Philosophy of Servant-leadership a. Engaging the Conceptual Struggle b. Primary Conceptual Insights for servant-leaders c. A Perspective on the Motive for Servant-leadership

4. References Chapter One: Introduction

The Servant-leader is servant first…It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead…The best test, and the most difficult to administer is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit or, at least, not be further deprived? (Greenleaf, 1977, pp. 13-14)

Robert Greenleaf began writing about a "crisis of leadership" in the early 1970s suggesting that institutional administrators were choosing the wrong kind of leaders. Greenleaf argued that the leadership crisis had developed from an inappropriate focus on the importance of administrator perfection, too much attention on analytical problem solving,

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 2

and too much self-protection and self aggrandizement. Greenleaf’s proposed solution to the crisis was Servant-leadership. Servant-leadership focused on the "application of the philosophy of service to the practice of leadership" (Spears, 1998, p. xi), wherein the notion of service was connected to the "deepest yearnings of the human spirit" (p. xii), making the foundational value a choice to serve--to serve first. From this fundamental assertion emerged descriptions of servant-leader characteristics including listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to people, and community building (Spears, 1995, pp. 5-7). Others suggest that call should be included as a characteristic as well as humility and integrity. These characteristics along with corresponding, values, and skills are now being prescribed by many of the top leadership influencers in North America and around the world. Accordingly, core concepts of Greenleaf's philosophy appear to be fundamental prescriptions for the twenty-first century leader and much of today’s leadership literature, either directly or indirectly, advocates that organizational leaders adopt the concepts and philosophy of Servant-leadership. To explore Greenleaf’s philosophy of Servant-leadership further we begin with explanations of what Servant-leadership entails and why it appears to be an appropriate and timely leadership philosophy.

The Leadership Crisis During the 1970’s both Robert Greenleaf and George McGregor Burns wrote about a “crisis of leadership.” Burns (1978) stated: "One of the most universal cravings of our time is a hunger for compelling and creative leadership," arguing we know too little about leadership and fail to grasp the essence of leadership for the modern era (p. 1). Prior to Greenleaf and Burns' writings, the primary focus of business education was on administration and the science of management. The intention of Greenleaf and Burns' writings was to bring into awareness a need for a different kind of leadership-and it seems to be working. Since the 1970s many theories, and numerous books, have been written about leaders and current leadership issues. A recent Google search on the topic of leadership produced 150,000,000 topics and a search of Servant-leadership produced 2,010,000 results. The high interest in leadership indicates that there is certainly an interest in leadership and I believe it indicates, at least to some extent, a perceived need for a different kind of leadership. Since the 1970s leadership as a topic has become an emerging academic school of thought, and the interest has generated new leadership approaches along with new theories and justifications for why the new approaches are appropriate at this time in history; however, despite the plethora of information and practices the crisis persists.

Forty plus years after Greenleaf and Burns identified what they called a leadership crisis, the global, organizational, and leadership environment has undergone tremendous changes; yet, problems continue. Generally, models of organizations, and the way we think and talk of them, has changed very little. The leadership crisis is blamed on the entrenched traditional command and control style of leadership and dissatisfaction with the hierarchical model. Covey (1998) argued that the business community was growing more aware of the negative consequences of the traditional model but it wasn’t responding fast enough (p. 21), and Kotter (1999) reported:

For 30 years I have been studying the actions of those who run organizations. . . . After conducting fourteen formal studies and more than a thousand interviews, directly observing dozens of executives in action, and compiling innumerable surveys, I am

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 3

completely convinced that most organizations today lack the leadership they need. And the shortfall is often large. I'm not talking about a deficit of 10% but of 200%, 400% or more. (p. 1)

How is it that the Business programs throughout North America and Europe did not fully grasp the need for the kind of leadership that Kotter and his contemporaries claim was and is still needed? The reason the leadership crisis persists may not be due to a shortage of business managers, but rather a shortage of the kind of leaders who can thrive in the current complex and rapidly changing environment.

Bolt (1996) researched the nature of the leadership crisis and found "this leadership crisis is in reality a leadership development crisis" (p. 163). He stated that leaders trained to rule the mechanistic systems and institutions are not thriving in the current environment. Bolt's statement is reminiscent of Greenleaf's original assertion that the "leadership crisis" is the result of choosing the wrong kind of leaders. Authors such as Kouzes and Posner (2002) are optimistic that the situation will change, noting that the kind of leadership required is about soul, spirit, ethics, and values (a focus on the person who leads) and the need to learn to lead and to do this we must begin with ourselves: "Leadership development is self-development" (p. 390). Thus, leadership training and development programs that focus on the development of the person as well as the organization may be where we need to begin-if we are to successfully address the leadership crisis. Furthermore, we may need to step back and learn more about human development as a theoretical framework for understanding leadership development.

The leadership crisis is apparently due, at least in part, to a new organizational environment. Some authors point to the complex interrelated global organizations and is happening so quickly that leaders find themselves in need of new organizational structures, methods, and leadership philosophies and skills. Many organizations today seem to be in a continuous state of evolution and this is prolonging the crisis, as a major aspect of the problem is that traditional management training and techniques still tend to be focused on the manipulation and control of the old rational organizational structures and have not adapted to the systemic changes being called for.

Scharmer (2009) elaborates on the complexity of the problem, indicating that our educational training has not kept abreast, let alone ahead, of the increasing changes in structure and systems design, and the demands and expectations of ways to successfully lead organizations today. Where formerly organizations were built on the assumptions of the centralized structure with hierarchal governance; today we also have organizations designed on the assumptions of the decentralized structure with market focused service oriented leadership requirements. In addition, the assumptions of the network organizational structures require more dialogue and facilitative oriented leadership (governance), and the emerging innovative ecosystems structures assume an even greater capacity for collaborative and creative leadership. A major aspect of the leadership crisis is that we have all four of these kinds of organizational structures functioning in our society (sometimes in the same organization) at the same time, and each structural system has different fundamental assumptions, purposes and requirements for success. Accordingly the role, skills, values and perspectives of the leader and the leadership group can be dramatically different within each of the four different structures. With these inherent organizational differences it is no wonder that there is confusion around the various interpretations of how to lead.

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 4

Kegan (2009) adds another perspective on the need for leadership development claiming that simply having the capacity to deal with the complexity in our organizations is an immense intellectual human development problem. The work that could once be done successfully with, what Kegan calls, the socialized mind (within centralized-decentralized structures) has now shifted to a complexity that requires a self-authoring mind (centralized-decentralized-networked), with an increasing demand for a self-transforming mind (centralized-decentralized-networked-ecosystems). The demands on the human mind are rapidly increasing as we strive to adapt to our evolving knowledge, technology, and changing environments. Kegan indicates that currently our organizations need employees to be self-authoring and most employees are not. We expect most leaders to be self-transforming, and few are. Kegan claims the gap between what we expect of our minds and what our minds are actually like is quite large. Kegan’s evidence points again to a need to understand and facilitate human development as well as a great leadership development challenge.

Simply increasing traditional management techniques has proven ineffective in dealing with the structural changes. Tighter controls, greater pressure, more clearly defined jobs, and intensified supervision produces, distrust, resistance, and burnout and they are not producing the productivity gains needed in a global competitive environment. Greater transformation is being called for. A requisite to successful organizational transformation is the need for leaders to first transform themselves through self-examination and interior growth. Thus, prior to effective and lasting structural organizational changes there is first a need for personal leadership development.

The changes being called for though do not stop at the traditional leader; the traditional follower's role needs to change as well. As early as 1988, Block indicated, "Attention is shifting to the need for employees to personally take responsibility for the success of our businesses if we hope to survive and prosper" (p. xiii). Other authors draw similar conclusions, citing different but related reasons: the upheaval in organizational structure, the subsequent demise of the middle manager, and the rise of information technology has increased the need for employee participation and self-direction. There continues to be an increasing need for more responsibility, initiative, and self-direction by followers.

The result is that in this new organizational environment, as with the leader’s role, the follower’s role appears to require development-to the extent that followers also require self-examination and growth, all of which has fundamentally changed the traditional notion of organization and authority. Drucker (2000) addressed this issue when he described the kind of shift our organizations are experiencing:

In a few hundred years, when the history of our time is written from a long-term perspective, it is likely that the most important event those historians will see is not technology, not the Internet, not e-commerce. It is the unprecedented change in the human condition. For the first time-literally-substantial and rapidly growing numbers of people have choices. For the first time, they will have to manage themselves . . . . (p. 8)

The traditional notion of authority is being transformed into self responsibility and is being dispersed (delegated) down through the ranks. This transformation is significant. We are now evolving towards structures in which rank means responsibility but not authority. And in which our job is not to command but to persuade and influence. The need to authentically persuade and influence rather than command denotes a fundamental values shift that provides insight into the kind of self-examination and the development leaders and followers need to undergo.

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 5

Towards a Solution: Servant-leadership

Human development theorists have indicated that a large portion of humanity (on a global scale) is undergoing a fundamental values shift from the old mechanistic and hierarchical order to one that demands increased freedom and human dignity. This current values shift requires a personal integration of higher order complex values fostering the supportive interdependence of self-initiating and self-responsible followers and leaders with the power to act independently; a shift away from employee compliance in exchange for wages or salaries (mere transactions). This shift requires new forms of organization and new styles of leadership. Hall (1994) proposed that the values shift is creating a need for collaborative, servant, and visionary leaders. He emphasized that the development of collaborative servant-leaders, for example, was not a matter of designing and learning a different management style; it requires a profound shift in values such that a person's actual consciousness and worldview changes. Thus, self-reflection and growth stimulates an introspective shift in consciousness such that one's purpose and sense of meaning is fundamentally transformed toward a more expansive relational perspective.

Jaworski (1996) suggested there are three fundamental aspects of the shift required of the new kind of leader. First, people must shift the way they think about the world. They must move away from the mechanistic perspective to a model that is open, dynamic, interconnected and full of organic qualities. Second, they must shift their understanding of relationship. When relationships become the principle around which to organize, a respect-filled I and You relational dynamic develops. Third, a person must experience a shift in the nature of their commitment. The new kind of commitment begins with a willingness to seek and embrace one's vocation and the realization that all meaning and purpose arise out of the dynamism of vital relationships. These recommendations are similar to what the proponents of the quantum sciences prescribe.

Concepts from the quantum sciences have provided organizational theorists and leaders with new metaphors and principles quite different from the mechanistic concepts and principles. For example, if we assume that relationships are a primary organizing principle then we need to focus on how to enhance relationships. Relationships flourish when there is respect, honesty, trust, and authenticity. We find that coercion and manipulation create distrust, resistance, pain and dysfunction. Zohar (1997) explained why the mechanistic model isn't working. Mechanistic organizations "have no existing structures that allow emotional intelligence [EQ] to develop" and therefore have "no inner capacity for fundamental transformation" (p. 15). She further stated, "All fundamental transformation is ultimately spiritual transformation (SQ), spiritual in the very broadest sense of issuing from the level of reflection, meaning, and value-and this holds for individuals and for organizations (p. 18). From these statements, it is evident why leaders trained to manage mechanistic organizations are unable to create new structures from within the old paradigm. Leadership development today requires not only the stimulation of IQ but also the integration of EQ and SQ.

Leaders today require an ability to draw on the spirit – to be reflective, manifest values, derive meaning, and be creative. Leaders need to foster within themselves, and within others, a wholistic perspective and a willingness to participate, be self-responsible, and act independently and interdependently. These skills and values appear to help predispose one to

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 6

conceptualize and structure processes that are more wholistic yet flexible in order to meet the challenges of a dynamic environment. Zohar (1997) referred to servant-leaders as those who meet the criteria: "They change the system, invent the new paradigm, and clear a space where something new can be. They accomplish this not just from 'doing,' but more fundamentally, from 'being.' . . . Servant-leadership is the essence of quantum thinking and quantum leadership" (p. 146). Zohar suggests that a servant-leader predisposition reflects the capacity of beingness to make fundamental transformational change.

In the relatively short time since Greenleaf published his writings, Servant-leadership has begun to emerge as a unique and comprehensive leadership philosophy. Many of today’s business trends point towards adoptions of the concepts and characteristics of Servant-leadership. As a result it can be presumed that there are servant-leaders functioning throughout a wide variety of organizations and that the number of servant-leaders may be increasing.

Definitions

Greenleaf on Leading Leading is going out ahead to show the way . . . to those situations in which the way is unclear or hazardous, or offers opportunities for creative achievement (Greenleaf, 1996, p. 12).

On Servant-leadership The Servant-leader is servant first…It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead (Greenleaf, 1977, pp. 13-14). What separates Servant-leadership from other discussions of leadership is that fundamentally it concerns servants who lead, not leaders who serve (Prosser, 2010, p. 42). Prophet, seeker, and leader are inextricably linked. The prophet brings vision and penetrating insight. Within the context of a deeply felt and searching attitude, the seeker brings openness, aggressive searching, and good critical judgment. The leader adds the art of persuasion backed up by persistence, determination, and the courage to venture and risk. The occasional person embodies all three. Both prophet and leader are seekers first. (Greenleaf, 1996, p. 14)

Servant-leadership is a state of mind, a philosophy of life, a way of being. It is at once an art and a calling. (Beazley, 2003, p. 10) A Servant-leader is a person of character who puts people first. He or she is a skilled communicator, a compassionate collaborator, has foresight, is a systems thinker, and leads with moral authority (Sipe & Fick, 2009, p. 4). Laub (1999) designed an instrument to assess Servant-leadership in organizations. The instrument assesses six definitional constructs each with three corresponding items.

The Servant-leader:

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 7

1. Values people by (a) believing in people, (b) serving other's needs before his or her own, and by (c) receptive, non-judgmental listening.

2. Develops people by (a) providing opportunities for learning and growth, (b) modeling appropriate behavior, and by (c) building up others through encouragement and affirmation.

3. Builds community by (a) building strong personal relationships, (b) working collaboratively with others, and by (c) valuing the differences of others.

4. Displays authenticity by (a) being open and accountable to others, (b) a willingness to learn from others, and by (c) maintaining integrity and trust.

5. Provides leadership by (a) envisioning the future, (b) taking initiative, and by (c) clarifying goals.

6. Shares leadership by (a) facilitating a shared vision, (b) sharing power and releasing control, and by (c) sharing status and promoting others. (p. 83)

The Test of Servant-leadership The best test, and the most difficult to administer is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit or, at least, not be further deprived? (Greenleaf, 1977, pp. 13-14)

The Servant Organization

The Servant organization is an organization in which the characteristics of Servant-leadership are displayed through the organizational culture and are valued and practiced by the leadership and workforce (Laub, 1999, p. 83).

On Spirit & Servant-leadership Spirit in the context of Servant-leadership is the animating force that disposes persons to be servants of others (Greenleaf, 1996, p. 11).

The Philosophy of Servant-leadership Servant-leadership is a universal philosophy for leadership; its purpose is to nurture human wholeness and human flourishing. A conscious moral choice to serve arises from an innate desire for wholeness for self and for others; the desire for wholeness extends to and potentially engages all aspects of personal, relational, systems and organizational development and functioning (Horsman, 2012).

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 8

Chapter Two: Serving First A Natural Archetype for Leadership

Joseph Campbell (1986) referred to archetypical images as powerful structures of meaning that arise out of the collective unconscious through creative imagination. When confronted with a powerful archetypal image or idea, there can be instant recognition, identification, or even a profound epiphany experience (pp. 11-21). Jaworski (1996) recalled the impact of reading Greenleaf's original essay: "The very notion of servant-leadership was absolutely stunning to me, and I couldn't put it out of my mind. It was as if someone had suddenly cleansed my lens of perception" (p. 58). This servant as leader image can be startling when it awakens. In my experience, the identification with the image of the servant, or the servant-leader, has a powerful and instantly meaningful impact for a few; however, for most the insights come slower. Interestingly, the fact that Greenleaf acknowledges the idea of a servant as a leader came from an intuitive insight supports that he may have tapped into via an archetypal image (symbol).

Greenleaf (1977) wrote "The power of a symbol is measured by its capacity to sustain a flow of significant new meaning" (p. 316), suggesting that if Servant-leadership is a significant symbol, it will continue to communicate new meaning and that meaning will likelygrow and deepen with experience, knowledge and reflection. The fact that Servant-leadership has survived the last 40 some years and has actually been slowly growing and spreading on a global scale suggests to me Servant-leadership may hold greater meaning than many of us at first suspected. In other words, “that natural feeling” Greenleaf referred to,may run deep.

Jaworski (1998) proposed that for Greenleaf - Leo, in Hesse's parable, was the archetypal servant and leader (p. 259). Tarr (1995) explained, "To truly understand the servant as leader, is to unlock a secret source of energy, of legitimate power, and of the kind of toughness needed to be an effective leader today" (p. 79). Personal identification with Servant-leadership may evoke or awaken a paradigm of meaning, an awareness of internal rightness, and an affirmation of wholeness and purpose for individuals.

As we know however, the notion of servant-hood is not a new concept. The notions of servant and service are motifs that have a long history in the Judeo-Christian religion. The gospel of Mathew 20:25-28 referred to the servant model:

Anyone among you who aspires to greatness must serve the rest, and whoever wants to rank first among you must serve the needs of all. Such is the case of the son of man who has come, not to be served by others, but to serve (New American Bible).

For Christians, Jesus is the epitome of the archetype of the servant. Christians might speculate that Christ constellated (evoked) the capacity for servant-hood (that natural feeling) in the human psyche for all humanity-for all time. Other major religious and philosophical traditions recognize and value the idea of service and servant-hood. The writings of Lao Tzu, Confucius, and Buddha endorse Servant-leadership values. The Buddhist tradition teaches "one must not be egoistic or self-willed, but should cherish feelings of good will toward all alike; one should respect those who are worthy of respect; one should serve those who are worthy of service and treat everyone with uniform kindness" (The Teaching of Buddha, 1997, p. 402). The ultimate act of service in Buddhism is described as a choice to teach others "the way." Similarly, the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama conveyed, "If you seek enlightenment for yourself to enable you to

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 9

serve others, you are with purpose" (Lad & Luechauer, 1998, p. 54). Taoism also exalts the importance of service, stating repeatedly that leadership is about service to others. The words of the greatest religious and philosophical leaders on the virtue of service are in many ways quite similar. The global religious and philosophical traditions recognize servant-hood and service to others as highly admirable virtues worthy of the highest human endeavours.

Perhaps, Greenleaf evoked the symbolic power of a servant-consciousness within all of us and has insightfully articulated this in his philosophy. Spears (2002) states “Servant-leadership truly offers hope and guidance for a new era in human development and for the creation of better and more caring institutions” (p. 16). Other authors have indicated how a more relational, values driven and service approach is being called for and actualized in our organizations. Moral Authority

A fundamental precept of the Servant-leadership philosophy is that it is a moral-relational philosophy. Moral authority is another insightful way to come to understand Servant-leadership because it represents a reciprocal inter-reliance between leader and follower-as opposed to the moral view of a titular leader. “Moral authority is mutually developed and shared” (Covey, 2002, p. 6); it involves a mutual relational commitment to the creation of human flourishing. An inter-reliance that articulates a grand purpose based on the mutual understanding of basic truths,natural laws, principles, a common agreed-upon vision, and shared values (p. 6). This morally focused relational commitment is underscored through the application of Greenleaf’s best test-a standard (bench mark) to be sought.

Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit or, at least, not be further deprived? (Greenleaf, 1977, pp. 13-14)

The implication is that the moral and the relational are essentially co-related, to the effect that if unethical or immoral decisions and actions are occurring it is not likely that servant-leadership is occurring. The moral-relational focus of Servant-leadership ensures the focus is on the development of self and others for the purpose of creating mature, responsible individuals, groups, organizations and a more caring productive society. All of this requires profound respect for all sentient beings.

The need for moral authority adds the criteria of moral intelligence (MQ) to the list of developmental expectations for the modern leader. Thus, leadership programs and schools that claim to provide wholistic leadership development should focus on the integration of intellectual intelligence (IQ), with emotional intelligence (EQ), spiritual intelligence (SQ), and moral intelligence (MQ).

Dependence-Independence-Interdependence

Developmentally we experience movements of growth from dependence to independence to interdependence. The struggle to transition from a state of dependence to autonomous and responsible independence is what Joseph Campbell referred to as the (mythical) hero’s journey. As servant-leaders in training, we are called to developmentally work (grow) through our own dependence on others and learn to integrate related skills and values to become more or less independent (autonomous); all this is absolutely necessary to prepare us for the journey to authentically work interdependently in a healthy (non-codependent) way.

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 10

Learning healthy interdependent collaboration entails the integration of many skills and values that require continuous acknowledgement, practice and support. The struggle to transition from the stage of independence to responsible and moral/ethical interdependence is what Greenleaf might have called the journey to elderhood, or becoming a wise-elder.

It is natural to be dependent on others, even as adults as there are many situations where we lack skills and expertise, or are unfamiliar with procedures or cultural expectations. Learning enough to become independent is challenging. It involves learning skills, a certain amount of expertise, and it requires the integration of some universal human values. Much of the transition from dependence to independence seems to have to do with getting beyond our approval and avoidance of disapproval needs. It takes much spiritual discipline and faith (integration) to mature beyond the need for approval, where we can stand with only our integrity, creativity and declared values, against the storm-or worse, too much success.

A great example of independence can be drawn from the life of Gandhi. During the campaign for Indian independence, Gandhi once organized a national march from one side of India to the other. Tens of thousands walked with him in the dust and the heat. Midway through, he suddenly stopped and announced, "No, No, this is a mistake! Turn back." Appalled, his followers questioned his judgment and consistency. Gandhi replied, "My commitment is not to consistency. My commitment is to do what I think is right at every moment, even if it means saying that I was wrong" (Zohar & Marshal, 2004, p. 96). Zohar describes Ghandi’s independence as field independence (p. 80). To make the transition from dependence to independence, we need guidance, experience and modeling.

We all have a need for approval, first from our parents and grandparents, from our siblings, from our peers, and from others in authority positions. This natural need for approval is essential for developing our sense of self-worth. Dependence is necessary for much of our growth and learning; however, for a variety of negative reasons as adults the need may become dysfunctional in a co-dependent fear based way inhibiting our transition to healthy independence. A requirement of maturity (gaining healthy independence) is the transformation of this need for outside approval into a sense of awareness and serenity-interior integrity (based on our spiritual well-being and sense of self-worth) that provides the sustenance for us to stand in our own authenticity. Only when we have realized some sense of healthy independence will we be able to act interdependently in a purposeful, contributive and mutually supportive way.

Hall (1994) defines interdependence as: “Seeing and acting on the awareness that personal and interinstitutional cooperation are always preferable to individual decision making (p. 230). The definition conceptually envisions a complex system that requires a fundamental attitude of service. Cashman (2000) stated: "At the heart of service is the principle of interdependence" and the knowledge that relationships are most effective when mutual benefits are served (p. 126). Interdependence assumes that if our organizations and our societies are to transform in a positive way-to become kinder and more caring, as Greenleaf suggests, we must grow them together. The acceptance of the importance of interdependence and our openness to learning how to positively enhance interdependence are of profound importance to understanding Servant-leadership. Even though a strong sense of autonomy and independence is necessary for our journey, if we become stuck on independence, our journey (and the journey of some of those we influence) may end only half done.

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 11

Figure I Dependence-Independence-Interdependence

Dependence Independence Interdependence Rely on other people (self interests)

Growth

Low

Rely on self. No longer dependent on others (self interests)

Growth

Trust Continuum

Work cooperatively. Seek others’ welfare as well as our own, and the good of the organization, & society. Together we can create something much better than either of us could have created alone.

High

Mutual shared risk

Figure I depicts the dependence-independence-interdependence dynamic and how the collaborative process works for individuals and groups. Figure Ia Examples: Recognizing Levels of Collaborative Skills introduces some very basic negative and positive aspects of the dependence-independence-interdependence dynamic. As we gain competence and confidence, it feels good to rise to the level of independence. At this stage as we grow we gain trust in our own ability but may not trust others equally. Can you recall saying; “I’d rather do it myself and be sure it’s done right!” or other times when you don’t have time to teach someone else to do the job? These would be times of trusting self but perhaps not trusting others.

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 12

Figure Ia Examples: Recognizing Levels of Collaborative Skills

1. Dependence: Relying on other people a. Positive

i. Ask for assistance and guidance from others in areas where we have low skill and low confidence as in a learning situation, or when we are in position of no or lesser authority

ii. Positive supportive experiences build skill levels and personal confidence and self esteem

b. Negative (victim mentality) i. Blame others when things go wrong ii. Unable to act without someone telling or reminding them of what needs to be

done iii. Depend on others to supervise, measure performance, and enforce control

c. As each of us moves into a new job or enters a new field, we begin by being very dependent on others to help us learn. At this stage we have low trust for our knowledge and are required to have high trust for others.

2. Independence: Relying on our own sense of self. No longer dependent on others. a. Positive

i. Initiative – can work without constant direction ii. Personal responsibility – will get a job done based on personal views and

experiences iii. Many personal victories are good

b. Negative (scarcity mentality) i. Hard to trust others by delegating ii. Resistant to views and ideas of others. I will do it myself, my way, and make sure

it gets done iii. I win you lose games

3. Interdependence: Servant-leadership. Working collaboratively and cooperatively. We seek others welfare as well as our own. High gratification comes from helping the team and its members succeed. a. Positive (abundance mentality)

i. Greater diversity, better product or service because of the benefit of more perspectives & information

ii. More efficient human & non-human resource management, due to better use of skills, talents & technology where needed

iii. Grows and balances talent of each participant iv. Saves time in the long term

b. Negative i. Initially requires more time and effort ii. Initially challenges relational skills iii. Challenges system skills (adapted from a McGee-Cooper workshop)

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 13

Another example would be when experiencing conflict with other people. Insisting my organization, my position, my department’s position is right and they are wrong, may arise from a competitive mindset of “us” against “them”, item b (negative independence) while often there is a broader perspective. It is important to not expect employees to function in a highly interdependent manner if they haven’t had the opportunity to develop their own sense of independence. In other words, attempting to empower dependent employees and expecting them to perform interdependently before they have achieved a healthy degree of independence will likely result in dysfunctional relational problems. Many empowerment programs failed because they attempted to do this.

To be authentic, we need to develop in ourselves and others the skills and values of positive independence before we will be able to act interdependently in healthy ways. The challenge for servant-leaders, is to value mutual interdependence (diversity), where we recognize that each has something of value to contribute and together we can create something better than either of us could have created alone. “We come into the world to be interdependent;” furthermore, “If we do not work to serve others, we fail to act as morally intelligent leaders” (Lennick & Kiel, 2005, p. 100). As servant-leaders, our role is to call forth others from dependence to independence to interdependence and this is a challenging endeavour not only because our organizations are filled with people in all stages of development, but because many of our organizations retain an organizational structure and culture that reinforces values and skills that reward dependence.

Although Greenleaf didn’t focus on the term interdependence, it is clear that Servant-leadership is about valuing and enhancing participative and collaborative relationships. This relational and interdependent distinction is, I think critical to enhancing our understanding of Servant-leadership. Greater human interdependence calls for greater relational skills which are augmented by greater awareness, greater freedom, a greater personal commitment, and a greater sense of personal and collective responsibility.

First Among Equals

Greenleaf's (1977) professed way for servant-leadership to organize their leadership structure was based on the concept primus inter pares, meaning, first among equals-a concept he drew from early Roman historians. The concept of first among equals was proposed as an alternative to the traditional organizational hierarchy headed and controlled by one chief executive officer. What is required here is a paradigm shift in our thinking about leadership and control. First among equals implies distributed authority and leadership transference among the team or group.

For successful performance of the concept, Greenleaf (1977) proposed organizations undergo "a shift from the hierarchical principle, with one chief, to a team of equals with a primus" (p. 62). His view of hierarchy and top down control was clear: "The idea of hierarchy has been around at least since the time of Moses and is deep in the culture. It probably will be around awhile longer. Ultimately, though, it will have to go" (1995, p. 29). As radical as this prophetic statement may sound, Greenleaf foresaw a need to change some of the embedded cultural beliefs and practices of society and its institutions. Greenleaf foresaw a need to change the relationship of the leader and the followers. His idea of first among equals in effect encourages the flattening of the hierarchical structure and the empowerment of group members by promoting interdependent leadership.

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 14

The primus is the leader of the team, who the primus is in any given situation, may depend on the specific issues that arise and how they relate to the strengths and weaknesses of the people in the group, their interrelationships, and the goals of the institution. Greenleaf emphasized; however, that a primus, or group leader, should always be a conceptual leader. A conceptual leader is one who sees the whole in perspective of the organizations historical past and in light of envisioned future states; who then adjust goals, analyzes and evaluates operating performance, and foresees contingencies for the short and long term. Greenleaf purposed, the most suited to serve as the primus are conceptualizers who are skilled in persuasion and team building.

The notions of interdependent leadership and distributed power are vital aspects of Greenleaf's philosophy. A discussion of the concept first among equals can be better understood with some understanding of human development with respect to how persons grow developmentally through the stages of dependence to independence to interdependence. Zohar (2004) underscores that adaptive systems survive based on the ability of the members to act autonomously (independently) and yet congruently (interdependently). The strength of an organic hierarchy (first among equals) is in the diversity and the ability of each person to anticipate and create the future; for this to occur all members of the system must be leaders in their own right, while aligned with the goals of the organization. This notion of shared leadership and distributed power has proven effective for self-managed teams. Greenleaf's concept of first among equals appears to be especially effective for promoting shared responsibility, developing leaders, and for creative decisions in dynamic environments (Scharmer, 2009). In the future, it will be informative to study organizations that nurture healthy interdependence to see if they have more freedom to structure and restructure, and if applying the notion of first among equals creates organizational dynamism and flourishing as Greenleaf has described. The Universality of Servant-leadership Servant-leadership as a philosophy has universal applications. Servant-leaders may function for example at all stages of human development, in all leadership applications, and in all types of organizations. Greenleaf prescribed the Servant-leadership philosophy to all social institutions whether for profit or not. The inference is that most kinds of organization, regardless of the type, culture, or location, may benefit from the Servant-leadership approach. Graham (1998) stated Servant-leadership "can occur in any setting, between occupants of any organizational position or level, and in any interpersonal relationship" (p. 145). Spears (1995) reported, "Servant-leadership crosses all boundaries and is being applied by a wide variety of people working with for-profit businesses, not-for-profit corporations, churches, universities and foundations" (p. 8). Spears further states that Greenleaf's ideas and concepts have had a substantial impact on several specific areas of organizational development: Servant-leadership has become an institutional philosophy and model for leading and organizing; a theoretical and ethical basis for the training of educational trustees; a concept for leadership and management training. As a philosophy Servant-leadership has positively changed the focus of many community organizations; influenced the development of experiential education; stimulated the personal development of many leaders, and found acceptance among diverse multicultural groups such as women, and minorities (pp. 8-12).

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 15

The implication, with regards to universality, is that Servant-leadership has a broad and apparently increasing number of applications. Bausch (1998) claimed in the future the dominant form of organization would have no viable paradigm of leadership other than Servant-leadership. These kinds of statements suggest that Servant-leadership may be more than a passing fad, that in fact there is something inherently and profoundly humanistic about Servant-leadership. Perhaps it is indeed a philosophy whose time has come. Congruence

Congruence is “the capacity to experience and express one’s feelings and thoughts in such a way that what one experiences internally and communicates externally to others are the same” (Hall, 1994, p. 227). There is an obvious need for consistency in what we think and what we do and this consistency is evidenced through what we value. Our values reflect what we perceive to be meaningful. Thompson (2000) indicated that the movement towards congruity reflects a natural search for meaning in work and personal life,

…there is a need in almost all of us for a sense of connectedness and purpose in the events of our outer lives, and a deeply rooted desire for our inner lives to have a harmonious connection to a higher source of meaning and value. (p. 3)

Striving for congruity is a natural human movement towards greater and greater harmony. Another aspect of congruity could be described as a harmony between work life and

home life. Helgesen (1995) indicated that today there is much more of a flow between work life and home life compared to the compartmentalization experienced in times when the hierarchy was more rigid (pp. 30-33). Congruity reflects an alignment of our values in work life and our personal life and alignment extends to all relationships, and through the organizational vision, mission, strategy, design, policy, procedure and programming. Servant-leaders model congruity (or incongruity) through what they think, do and say.

Figure II below is an attempt to depict the power of personal and organizational

congruence. The diagram shows the congruity of word, relating, and modeling; the impact is influence.

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 16

Figure II

The Influence of the Congruity of Word, Relating & Modeling

1 + 2 + 3 =

1 = Least impact 1 + 2 =Moderate Impact Most Impact Building Community Awareness Directing Commitment to people Conceptualization Explaining Healing Listening Word Teaching-Knowledge Interpersonal Relating Congruent Modeling Telling Persuasion-Influence Foresight Selling Empathy Stewardship

People crave appreciation more than they crave bread. Who you are shouts at

-Mother Teresa me so loudly, you don’t need to say anything.

Experience makes knowledge vivid – JP II

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 17

Chapter Three: The Philosophy of Servant-leadership Engaging the Conceptual Struggle

Servant-leadership is a universal philosophy for leadership; its purpose is to nurture human wholeness and human flourishing. A conscious moral choice to serve arises from an innate desire for wholeness for self and for others; the desire for wholeness extends to and potentially engages all aspects of personal, relational, systems and organizational development and functioning.

Robert K. Greenleaf inaugurated his notions of Servant-leadership with three short

essays. While the first essay Servant as Leader (1970) was embraced by a few individuals, the two successive essays Institution as Servant (1972) and Trustees as Servant (1972) were resisted and practically dismissed by corporate leaders. Having spent thirty-eight years in the corporate world, Greenleaf was well aware that Servant-leadership was not going to be an easy sell; however, I suspect he also knew that any serious consideration of servant-leadership might kindle a greater awareness of our naturally human servant-consciousness.

The resistance to servant leadership that Greenleaf experienced continues. Every time I introduce Servant-leadership to graduate students, we begin with a struggle to overcome resistance and confusion about what they perceive leadership and Servant-leadership to mean and involve. This struggle appears to be the natural starting point for learning about Servant-leadership, and in my experience struggling through this resistance bears much fruit.

I have had to wrestle with my own resistance in my struggle to introduce and explain Servant-leadership. Through this struggle I have increasingly become aware of the simplicity and (paradoxically) the complexity of Servant-leadership. I have become very aware of how challenging it is to even identify with that natural feeling let alone consistently yearn to serve-first. I have often been humbled by the challenge to model servant-leadership in work groups, and even more so at the organizational level. I became humbly aware that knowing and believing in some principles does not make one an expert at modeling them. Eventually, I realized that I was only at the beginning of a journey, and I felt much more comfortable acknowledging that I was a servant-leader in training. So, now I invite all who are interested in taking this learning journey to also consider becoming a servant-leader in training. I have found that the simple acknowledgment that we are servant leaders in training gives us the freedom to not be perfect, to explore, struggle, make mistakes, reflect and continue to enhance our awareness as we progress on this most naturally human and yet challenging way of being in the world. In addition, I have subsequently become convinced that developmentally most of us, whether we are aware of it or not, are naturally in training to become servant-leaders.

Conceptually, coming to understand Servant-leadership is an evolving process. The more we struggle and put into practice the assumptions, concepts, perspectives and responsibilities of Servant-leadership the clearer they become. Prosser (2010) suggested that this evolution was evident in Greenleaf’s own writings. Greenleaf’s notions and writings show signs of evolving from an experiential theory towards more of a comprehensive philosophy. A similar evolution is occurring in my own understanding and I suspect with many others who are learning and teaching this philosophy.

The struggle and the evolving understanding of Servant-leadership becomes immediately evident when we review the list of the characteristics of a servant-leader; currently the list

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 18

seems to be fluctuating from about 6-15 characteristics (depending on the author). This list of characteristics is being clarified as the academic research continues; however, I believe that most scholars and practioners will agree that the characteristics of Servant-leadership are actually reflections of something more profound. I propose that the characteristics to some extent reflect an emerging integration of a developmental disposition-a servant-consciousness. So, before we begin to identify, describe and learn how to apply the characteristics, we should first attempt a greater understanding of this servant-consciousness as presumably it is the fertile ground from which the characteristics emerge. The emergence of a servant-consciousness begins, I suspect, with consciously accepting that leadership is relational and serving-first is profoundly relational. The servant-consciousness that underlays Servant-leadership is reflective of an attitudinal disposition, a way of being in the world that potentially becomes, I believe, a world view.

New world views seldom emerge easily. I find it fascinating that many graduate students with years of organizational experience initially struggle with conceptualizations of Servant-leadership. I compare this struggle to learn and conceptualize Servant-leadership to be similar to learning a complex new paradigm, such as shifting from a mechanistic perspective to a quantum perspective; where we have to hold in abeyance what we think we know, add some insights, and reorganize it all into a more expansive and integrated perspective. Wilber (2006) refers to this process as the concretizing of states of awareness into a new foundational stage of development. It seems, that coming to be a servant-leader has all the ensuing challenges associated with integrating a more comprehensive way of being, doing, and viewing the world. Stated most simply it is the great journey to elderhood.

It is not surprising therefore that the idea of Servant-leadership resonates with many people; however, on closer examination it almost always exposes predictable reactions and resistance-some typical responses follow. On first hearing of Servant-leadership many find it quite exciting and compelling, yet after engaging the topic they soon find many of their preconceptions were naïve, undeveloped, or simply wrong-there is much more to Servant-leadership than they first perceived. Others agree that Servant-leadership sounds nice and it may work in some organizations in some situations-in churches and non-profits perhaps, but certainly not, for example, in the military, or the shark pond where I work. Others assume it is soft touchy feely unrealistic drivel-simply idealistic nonsense. For even those who want to embrace Servant-leadership, barriers arise instantly: who wants to be a servant-to be servile? Servitude is not on my list of job and goal aspirations! I find it interesting, that the very thought of serving-first seems to engender resistance; we fear weakness and vulnerability, but as we move through that fear we realize Servant-leadership is really about humility.

Another more subtle kind of resistance that arises and impedes the notion of serving is the assumption that to become a servant-leader one has to become completely selfless. Selflessness is often brandished as an ideal, while the fear of completely losing one’s identity in selflessness is a barrier for many. We can pour ourselves out like emptying a pitcher of water as one way of service to others. When we are empty; burnt out; what then? This is not what servant-leaders in training have to look forward to. "acting upon the impulse to serve others does not mean one is a 'service provider' a martyr or a slave, but one who consciously nurtures the mature growth of self, other people, institutions, and communities” (Sipe & Frick, 2009, p. 38). I don’t believe the choice to serve is literally about becoming selfless it is more about humbly putting our relational needs in perspective. If the choice to serve is authentic than developmentally the intrinsic and extrinsic fruit will somehow produce greater

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 19

meaning and fulfillment, greater relational engagement, and greater human flourishing-or why do it?

First attempts to understand and conceptualize Servant-leadership are awkward because we often attempt to understand and explain it using our familiar traditional sets of values and assumptions, or we attempt to explain it in terms of values and skills we haven’t yet integrated into our own way of being. Because of this awkwardness and lack of clarity, many are tempted to reject Servant-leadership because it doesn’t fit well with their standard operating norms and expectations. Growth and learning; nevertheless, often involves engaging resistance and awkward struggles to become proficient at perceiving or doing, perhaps the same old things, in a more integrated, purposeful and efficient way.

Reflectively engaging the issues surrounding our resistance is fruitful. Experience has taught me that the barriers that arise in resistance to Servant-leadership are often the very barriers that need to be examined most closely, as they can become the gateways to the insights that change our perspective. Part of the difficulty, seems to be that comprehension requires letting go of an old mental framework and forging a new conceptual understanding. Experience with this process, suggests that we need to hold ourselves to this struggle until the insights and understandings begin to clarify and a new framework begins to take shape. Without a full understanding of the assumptions and the implications of Servant-leadership we won’t really know what is being rejected.

Becoming a servant-leader in training changes our perspective on a great many things. I am coming to understand Servant-leadership as a living philosophy, and I base this observation on the realization that from wherever we begin learning understanding and practicing Servant-leadership we find that it becomes more engaging and more conceptually and relationally challenging. Learning to become a servant-leader is a developmental process. Due to this developmental aspect, students will continue to struggle with the assumptions and implications of Servant-leadership for some time to come. I am convinced that this conceptual struggle is necessary developmentally, and is in itself evidence that Servant-leadership is more than a mere concept or a style of leadership; but rather a distinct perspective; a philosophy; an emergent world view. Primary Conceptual Insights for servant-leaders

The Servant-leader is servant first…It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead (Greenleaf, 1977, pp. 13-14). Greenleaf (1970) proposed Servant-leadership as, “a practical philosophy which supports

people who choose to serve first, and then lead as a way of expanding service to individuals (p. 1). To comprehend what Greenleaf meant we need to experience a creative re-conceptualization of our notion of leadership: we need a new insight. Greenleaf understood this. He deliberately linked the concepts servant and leader with a hyphen servant-leader because he wanted to create a paradoxical struggle. He fused the two concepts to cause a clash, hoping to crack the old leader paradigm; so a new more complex and comprehensive conceptual understanding might spark and light in our psyche. “What separates Servant-leadership from other discussions of leadership is that fundamentally it concerns servants who lead, not leaders who serve” (Prosser, 2010, p. 42). Prosser conveys, as did Greenleaf (1977), that there is a fundamental distinction between Servant-leadership and other notions

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 20

of leadership. Remarkably, Greenleaf’s notion of leading is clear, “Leading is going out ahead to show the way . . . to those situations in which the way is unclear or hazardous, or offers opportunities for creative achievement” (Greenleaf, 1996, p. 12). Greenleaf’s definition of leading simply encompasses the apex of what we may commonly consider to be leadership. Greenleaf’s notion of leading is actually quite traditional. Serving-first; however, qualifies and contextualizes the approach to leading. The “philosophy of servant leadership provides a different way of understanding the responsibility of leadership” (Savage-Austin & Honeycutt, 2011, p. 49). What I find to be most interesting about Greenleaf’s explanation is that the context for leading comes before choosing to lead-prior to the hyphen; the great difference in Servant-leadership is the natural feeling of wanting to serve; to serve first.

Notice that the motive arises through feeling rather than an idea. This is an aspect of the conceptual struggle with Greenleaf’s philosophy, we have to first identifying with the feeling of wanting to serve-first, before we can really know it and rationally conceptualize it. We have to tap into our emotional intelligence (EQ) and perhaps spiritual intelligence (SQ) before we can make sense of what is involved. Is Greenleaf essentially pointing to evidence of a servant-consciousness by indicating there is a natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first? The choice to serve first is radically different from choosing to lead for power, or recognition. Could wanting to serve be Greenleaf’s conceptualization of a more complex developmental stage? There is something profound embedded in this notion to serve-first. I suspect the term servant-leadership is even more radical and transformative than we have yet perceived.

A Perspective on the Motive for Servant-leadership

There is something subtle communicated to one who is being served and led if, implicit in the compact between servant-leader and led, is the understanding that the search for wholeness is something they share. (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 36) Coming to understand the motive to serve first is part of the struggle for servant-leaders

in training. If choosing to serve first is a legitimate pre-disposition for leading, what might be the motive behind Greenleaf’s so called natural feeling that inclines us to choose to serve first? I often ask; why be a Servant-leader? I urge students to search within themselves for the “rightness” the very personal “good fit” of Servant-leadership. What is this motivation, and what is this so called natural feeling that appears to produce a contextually different motivation than any other motive to lead? And what is the pay off? Why serve? I maintain that if there is no personal benefit than it is likely not a natural feeling (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 13) and the idea of Servant-leadership would have naturally gone extinct years ago.

Are we naturally inclined to serve at any time in any situation? Certainly, as mothers and fathers serving the needs of our young children, and our parents and grandparents seems instinctual and natural, at least to some extent. Additionally, we may yearn to serve our team, our unit, our group, our organization, our community. We may even yearn to serve a cause, a philosophy, a God. On the other hand, we may choose to work for different reasons including for mere survival, for pay, out of duty or obligation, or approval, or expediency, and sometimes because it is the right thing to do. In these times, however, whether we are doing as we are told, or as we are expected, or volunteering, or making a major sacrifice; being consciously aware of the feeling of wanting to serve-first is rarely acknowledged.

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 21

One way to begin to answer the why serve question is by enhancing our awareness. For instance, we might pay attention to and explore the natural feelings around the consequences of serving. To do this let’s reflectively call to awareness the positive internal gracious feelings that arise after we have performed an authentic act of service-an event where we freely served because it was the right thing to do. For example, our internal joy surrounding our motherhood or fatherhood. Serving acts such as these emerge from generosity, caring, and love. Generally these serving acts resonate with a sense of internal rightness-they feel good.

A second way to reflect on the why serve question is to recall the feelings of gratitude we have towards someone who has served us when we were helpless or powerless and in need. Can you recall someone who offered a comforting word, or a helping hand, or a great service when you were compromised or in desolation, and the sincere appreciation you felt for the unasked for and unexpected acts of service towards you? Our awareness and experience of the feelings on both sides of the gratitude spectrum are important and I think need to be held in our awareness and attended to-as together they affirm and enhance a balanced and humble sense of worth-fullness; a sense of affirming goodness, greater fulfillment and meaning.

Our awareness of feelings of gratitude (goodness) enhances our emotional capacity (EQ). Although there are different interpretations of what emotional intelligence involves, a general description of emotional intelligence involves having the ability to monitor, interpret and effectively use one’s feelings to compliment and provide context for our reasoning. In philosophical words, when goodness and truth are integrated a more fuller human perspective can be realized. So, at the very least, both EQ and IQ are involved in coming to understand the motive for Servant-leadership. Our emotional awareness (capacity) helps us become consciously aware of those natural feelings associated with generosity, caring, love and the corresponding reciprocal gratitude serving engenders.

A third awareness that I suspect is fundamentally involved in the natural feeling to want to serve, to serve first is somewhat similar to the abundant nature of love, in that there is an abundant nature to (healthy) serving (healthy serving = congruent modeling). What I mean by this is that there is an inherent inclination to “pass it on.” Can you recall times when you wanted to “pass it on”? For some of us, these may be feelings (awareness’s) we don’t even have a specific name for. Often I tend to wave them off, or down play them. For example, in response to someone’s gratitude, I say “forget it, it was nothing”, but it wasn’t nothing. The affirming feelings associated with love, gratitude and wanting to pass it on are the very reasons we find ourselves seeking opportunities to serve again? There seems to be something internally right about influencing people or situations in a positive way and doing good deeds-whether it is doing something for the benefit of a child, an organization, or an ecosystem. So, all this leads me to believe these gratuitous feelings are signs of a more fundamental motive beneath the desire to serve-first?

The yearning to serve-first according to Greenleaf (1977) arises from spirit as an inspiration. Zohar & Marshall (2004) claim motives are attractors for our thought patterns. The inspiration, the feelings, the thought patterns reflect our innate desire for greater wholeness, which interestingly for Greenleaf, appears synonymously with healing. Greenleaf (1977) described this in one very brief but illuminating paragraph. “This is an interesting word, healing, with its meaning, ‘to make whole.’ … one really never makes it. It is always something sought. … the servant-leader might acknowledge that his own healing is his motivation” (p. 36). With these few words Greenleaf communicated his understanding of the

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 22

fundamental purpose for serving and leading to make ourselves whole-or at least to make ourselves more whole-and for adults this involves healing.

Greenleaf insightfully proposed that greater wholeness is the motive for servant-leaders; acknowledging that the yearning for wholeness is innate, and never fully realized. Unfortunately he does not elaborate further; however, the implication is that if one is to achieve greater wholeness then the obvious way is to become aware of and respond to an inspirational yearning to serve and from our awareness of that natural feeling we choose to serve-first. Burns (2003) stated,

Humans are motivated by wants and needs that are not only material but a rich and complex mix of physical, psychological, social, sexual, wants and needs that are both inward, for self-fulfillment, self-actualization, and that also look outward for their satisfaction, through the achievement of some change in the world. (p. 15)

The motive for the servant-leader appears to be an outward movement for an inward sense of fulfillment and actualization. By choosing to serve, servant-leaders in training are consciously responding to a motive that yearns for greater wholeness. The notion that serving develops greater wholeness implies an outward movement that surpasses the desire for individual independence and extends towards greater interdependence in our relationships, such that an intentional and responsible act towards another directly or indirectly serves the good of both. A deliberate movement towards greater interdependence implies a yearning to deepen and enrich our relationships-and that may involves some healing.

Greenleaf affirms this, with his next profound and significant insight on healing and wholeness, “There is something subtle communicated to one who is being served and led if, implicit in the compact between servant-leader and led, is the understanding that the search for wholeness is something they share” (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 36). With these words, he subtly melds the motive of the servant-leader with a similar motive for those served. The choice, the intention of the choice to serve first is deeply rooted in the desire for greater individual and relational wholeness, such that intentions and acts of service may synchronically call forth a yearning for greater healing and wholeness in others.

I suspect wanting to serve firsts induces some transformative healing for the leader and the led in that the choice to serve-first arises from a socio-centric rather than ego-centric perspective. Human development research indicates that developmentally humans have the natural capacity to grow from ego-centrism towards progressively more expansive and inclusive levels of socio-centrism (Wilber, 2006). Psychologically this involves growth from a very self-centered me and mine perspective towards more expansive and ethical we and ours (ethno-centric) perspectives, and eventually to global-centrism that includes an all of us perspective. The transformation involves profound developmental changes in our values and skills as well as our relational inclusivity.

I suspect that Greenleaf was writing from a global-centric perspective, and the evidence is in his statement that choosing to serve first was a natural feeling. I doubt that an ego-centric person striving for greater independence will have much awareness of the natural feeling to serve-first; however, as the values of serving comes more into our conscious awareness serving is absolutely necessary to aide our development toward a global perspective. Developing global-centricity is about developing a serving disposition-it doesn’t come without a lot of struggle and integration of values and skills. In this sense Greenleaf’s version of that natural feeling may need to be practiced and modeled until it becomes a natural yearning. For servant-leaders in training, if serving-first seems unnatural, do it

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 23

anyway (Keith, 2008) and it will eventually become a primary way to engage the world. Serving-first is a developmental disposition that to be concretized needs to be acted on over and over again until it becomes a natural aspect of our disposition.

As servant-leaders in training, understanding the potentiality for a continuously expanding capacity for relationship is a significant insight. Let me attempt to provide a conceptual ideal (target) for this: The servant-leader consciously chooses to serve for a reciprocal relational dynamic. Imaginatively let us bring this notion to the conscious level: I humbly realize that greater relational interdependence is essential to my greater wholeness, your greater wholeness, and our greater wholeness. The relational dynamic becomes enriched synergistically when it is knowingly and mutually acknowledged by the servant and the served. This realization adds further weight and purpose to the choice to serve as it evokes choice, engagement and moral responsibility to serve for the greater good from both the leader and the led. With inspiration from Martin Buber’s I-Thou relational dynamic, let me take this imaginative perspective a little further. If I am to continue to experience greater wholeness as a servant-leader in training my service needs to be focused on my serving You (I use the 2nd person You here in reference to any person, or It-group, organization, community, society, or eco-system including our global environment). Capitalizing the y in You symbolizes a huge shift in my perspective, a shift in my perspective of relationship. This notion of equality is enriched with a qualitative appreciation; I come to perceive the dignity in You is worthy of my deepest and humblest respect such that I view Our relationship as necessary for my, your and our greater wholeness. Developmentally my I does not disappear (I do not become completely selfless) or become insignificant, rather my I metaphorically experiences a developmental clarification-a clarified perspective where self-centeredness diminishes through transformational healing, and a more magnanimous sociocentric I emerges. An I that is more authentic, transparent and humble; an I that is more available to relationship. Somewhat simultaneously my appreciation and value for you magnifies significantly as I gain a richer perspective and appreciation for You. I become aware that You are central to my further growth, your further growth, and our greater flourishing. I become more available to relationship-and potentially so do You, and together an even more dynamic relational interchange occurs. What I am saying is that I + You in effect produces a clarified and enhanced collective We relationship. Neither I nor You are diminished because of the relationship. Relationally, serving creates a greater whole: Serving each other synergistically creates a great whole. Conversely, the system whole does not become greater when we use others, or take from others, or merely transact with others. The motive that calls forth healing then, although originating in the self, replicates a similar motive in others. The natural feeling is intrinsically intended toward greater relationship; such that, there must be an acknowledged interdependent aspect to this motive if it is to be most fruitful. A natural servant-leader is one who (intuitively or openly) acknowledges, values, and nurtures relationships as opposed to manipulating, using, abusing, coercing or destroying them. The choice to serve is about enhancing our wholeness individually and collectively. Servant-leadership is about You and I becoming more fully human individually and collectively. Choosing to serve first helps bring our desire for wholeness to greater fruition. By authentically striving to serve others our wellbeing is enhanced and we often feel more fulfilled than drained, all engaged participants get back more than they give. Similar to the

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 24

notion that happiness is a by-product of right living; greater personal and relational wholeness comes as a by-product of serving. Thus, the statement serving is more meaningful and more self-fulfilling than self-serving is (Keith, 2008). Serving and valuing this healing relational dynamic is foundational to a servant-leader’s world view. “What is most important in life are the relationships we establish and maintain with other people” (Greenleaf, 2003, pp. 5-6). Each of us is intimately connected to each other, and in recognizing that connection, we are moved to greater service; to a more profound understanding, appreciation, and tolerance of one another; to an honest self-examination of our own attitudes, and behavior; and to the building of community. As a philosophy Servant-leadership assumes an-other oriented disposition; a way of being; a moral framework; and a world view for approaching and doing all personal, relational and organizational functions. With that said, Servant-leadership may well be the most challenging, the most comprehensive, and the most complex form of leadership; nonetheless, it may be true leadership.

Servant-leadership is about serving first; it is other oriented and as a result the disposition has a different trajectory, the disposition carries a different pay load of value priorities. Serving first deploys differently than choosing to lead for power or recognition, and therefore the outcomes will not only bear fruit differently, but will bear different fruit, and, over time (as the research evidence is beginning to suggest) will bear more abundant fruit than traditional leadership.

References

Beazley, H. (2003). Forward. In H. Beazley, J. Beggs & L. C. Spears (Eds.). The Servant-

leadership within: A transformative path, (pp. 1-11). New York: Paulist Press. Block, P. (1987). The Empowered Manager: Positive political skills at work. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass. Bolt, J. F. (1996). Developing three-dimensional leaders. In F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith, &

R. Bechard (Ed.), The leader of the future (pp. 161-173). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Buttom, B., & Lenz, D. (1998). Within our reach: Servant leadership for the twenty-first

century. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit and Servant-leadership, (pp. 157-169). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Campbell, J. (1986). The inner reaches of outer space: Metaphor as myth and as religion. New York: Perennial Library.

Cashman, K. (2000). Leadership from the inside out: Becoming a leader for life. Provo, UT: Executive Excellence.

Covey, S. R. (1998). Servant-leadership from the inside out. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on Leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and Servant-leadership, (pp. xi-xvii). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Covey, S. R. (2002). Foreword. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Servant Leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power & greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Drucker, P. F. (2000). Managing knowledge means managing oneself. In Leader to leader: Enduring insights on leadership from the Drucker foundation’s award-winning journal. Retrieved from http://www.leadertoleader.org/knowledgecenter/journal.aspx?ArticleID=215.

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 25

Graham, J. W. (1998). Servant-leadership and enterprise strategy. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit and Servant-leadership, (pp. 145-156). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness (25th Anniversary ed.) . New York: Paulist Press.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1995). Reflections from experience. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of Servant-leadership influenced today's top management thinkers, (pp. 22-36). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1996). Religious leaders as seekers and servants. In A. T. Fraker, & L. C. Spears (Ed.), Seeker and servant: Reflections on religious leadership, (pp. 9-48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1996). Spirituality as leadership. In A. T. Fraker, & L. C. Spears (Ed.), Seeker and servant: Reflections on religious leadership, (pp. 51-64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1996). Reflections on spirit. In A. T. Fraker, & L. C. Spears (Ed.), Seeker and servant: Reflections on religious leadership, (pp. 119-126). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1996). A lifeline of ideas. In A. T. Fraker, & L. C. Spears (Ed.), Seeker and servant: Reflections on religious leadership, (pp. 311-314). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Greenleaf, R. K. (1998). Servant: Retrospect and prospect. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), The power of Servant-leadership: Essays, (pp. 17-59). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Hall, B. P. (1994). Values shift: A guide to personal & organizational transformation. Rockport, MA: Twin Lights.

Hall, B. P., & Joiner, C. W. Jr. (1992). Management by values: Value based programs that build commitment. Dayton, OH: Values Technology.

Helgesen, S. (1995). The female advantage: Women's ways of leadership. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Jaworski, J. (1996). Synchronicity: The inner path of leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Jaworski, J. (1998). Destiny and the leader. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit and Servant-leadership (pp. 258-267). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Keith, K. (2009). The case for Servant Leadership. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. Kotter, J. P. (1988). The leadership factor. New York: Free Press. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). The leadership challenge. (3rd ed.) San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass. Lad, L. J., & Luechauer, D. (1998). On the path to Servant-leadership. In L. C. Spears (Ed.),

Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit and Servant-leadership, (pp. 54-67). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant-organization: Development of the servant organizational leadership assessment (SOLA) instrument. Doctoral Dissertation, 1999, Florida Atlantic University.

Dr. John Horsman 19/09/2012 26

Lennick, D., & Kiel, F. (2005). Moral intelligence: Enhancing business performance & leadership success. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Wharton School.

Owen, H. (1999). The spirit of leadership: Liberating the leader in each of us. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Prosser, S. (2010). Servant leadership: More philosophy, less theory. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center.

Scherer, J. (1993). Work and the human spirit. Spokane, WA: John Scherer & Associates. Scharmer, O. (2009). Theory U. Leading from the future as it emerges. San Francisco:

Barrett-Koehler. Spears, L. C. (1998). Tracing the growing impact of Servant-leadership. In L. C. Spears

(Ed.), Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and Servant-leadership, (pp. 1-11). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Tarr, D. L. (1995). The strategic toughness of Servant-leadership. In L. C. Spears (Ed.), Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of Servant-leadership influenced today's top management thinkers, (pp. 79-83). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Thompson, M. C. (2000). The congruent life: Following the inward path to fulfilling work and inspired leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wheatley, M. J. (1994). Leadership and the new science: Learning about organizations from an orderly universe. San Francisco, CA: Barret-Koehler.

Zohar, D. (1997). Rewiring the corporate brain: Using the new science to rethink how we structure and lead organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishing.

Zohar, D., & Marshall, I. (2004). Spiritual capital: Wealth we can live by. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler.