Critique
of Servant Leadership
Reply to objections
in defense of Servant Leadership
Some people
have objected strongly via email to what they see as my overly narrow
conception of what a servant does. They say: ''Does not the servant
leader serve the organization's needs as well?'' Yes, but this is
not the original concept of servant leader who focuses on the needs
of followers.
More importantly,
saying that a leader is a servant in the sense of serving the organization
or some broader objectives adds nothing to what it means to be a
leader. The problem is that it doesn't help us distinguish what
it means to be a leader from what it means to be a manager. Actually,
this is also true of the notion of servant leader as serving the
needs of followers. Managers also do this, so we are no further
ahead in trying to differentiate them.
In fact,
you could say that all dedicated professionals are servants - doctors,
teachers, public servants. Anyone who is dedicated to serving some
higher cause beyond immediate gratification or selfish motives is,
in this broader definition, a servant. Is this not true of leaders
also? Yes, but then we have watered down the concept of servant
so much that it tells us nothing that is distinctive of leadership
as leadership. Certainly, a good leader shares a dedication to serve
along with all and sundry other dedicated professionals. In trying
to understand the nature of leadership, however, we want to understand
what differentiates leadership from other professional roles. This
watered down notion of being a servant is simply unhelpful in this
quest while the narrower definition of servantship is simply false
as a portrayal of leadership. An analogy would be: suppose someone
asks you what is an elephant and you reply: a mammal. This is true
but, by itself, this does not say what differentiates elephants
from other mammals, which is the more interesting question. |