Transformational Leaders and Servant Leaders
Leaders in the New Age
Both the transformational leader and the servant leader concept have their origin in the convergence of postmodern studies on the topic of leadership and organizational development. These studies became particularly pronounced in the late 1960s and towards the 1980s and 90s. These times themselves were transformational in that social and economic upheaval was occurring in tandem with the emergence of technologies that connect the geopolitical and commerce cultures in a way unprecedented in human history.
For those who were leading in communities, organizations, and countries during those times, the demands for extraordinary skills to lead in such extraordinary times was great. In the corporate and public sectors in particular leaders were needed to not only inspire people to help them connect with their own innate abilities and to then be empowered to function in leadership capacities themselves, while also secure that the guiding presence of a more capable leader was ever present. In the community sectors and some private organizations, as an increasing blurring of lines was occurring that often brought forth egregious ethical practices, needed there was some framework that could offer leaders a way to reconnect with basic principles of morality and social justice.
It was within these conditions that transformational leadership and servant leadership were born. Both have an historical context, one based on organizational development and the other based on Judeo-Christian principles. The transformational work culture is one in which change is a constant factor but even more the underlying objective in the culture is to engage in a regiment of continual learning that will make all participants excel in the field they are in. This concept was an early fixture in the knowledge centered enterprises that came in to existence in the way of the technology explosion of the early 1990s. In this work culture there was strong emphasis on developing people because they were viewed as the organization’s most valuable assets. By developing them, the fortunes of the organization were assured, it was believed. On the other hand, the conditions that created the culture of servant leadership dates back much further in history. Indeed, these roots are an amalgamation of concepts steeped in religious history and human rights laws that have been forged down through the centuries. In more modern times these concepts have been distilled down to one phrase, “the golden rule,” which essentially espoused to do unto others as one would have others do unto you—or, in another variation, love your neighbor as you love yourself.
The leaders which emerged from these cultures are quite distinct and unique. Yet, like all leadership traits, there is some intersecting and overlap in certain areas. What follows are separate discussions on the distinct and unique qualities each of these leaders has and included will be some contrasting of their qualities and evaluation of them.
Transformational leadership. The concept of transformational leadership has its roots in the respective works of Downton and Burns (as cited in Northouse, 2007, p. 176; Jue 2004). Both wrote about a leader who emerges in an organizational environment having the innate ability to help followers connect with goals and then feel empowered to function independently to achieve them. This leader, they noted, was inspirational and was capable of stirring a strong sense of loyalty and connection to the organization’s mission and objectives. It was also noted that this leader was most effective during negative times when major transitions were underway.
Jue further noted that the work on transformational literature came about during a time of “doom and gloom” in the leadership research field. It was a time that was highlighted by a saturation of emergent theories about leadership but not much rigor or robustness in the results, he offered. Both transformational leadership and charismatic leadership concepts emerged in tandem and with them a new era in leadership study was ushered in (House, 1977, as cited by Jue).
[Charismatic leadership departs slightly from transformational leadership in that the leader is viewed as being exceptional, even superhuman, in moral and intellectual ability (Conger, 1999, as cited in Northouse, p. 177). Additionally, the transactional leader was a derivative of the Burns’ transformational leadership studies. This is someone who advances his or her own agenda by promising something to followers and in exchange the leader gets cooperation or support from the follower. An example of this would be in the providing of a pay increase in exchange for taking on more responsibilities. Burns saw this leadership style to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from transformational leadership but subsequent researchers eventually drew relationships between the two, noting that most transformational leaders will engage in some form of transactional behavior as a matter of routine.]
It should be noted that transformational leadership discussions were coming forth at a time in the knowledge culture when the concept of transformational learning itself was emerging. The basic premise of transformational learning theory is that critical reflection in a carefully directed way can prompt there to be empowered learning experiences that can change and alter, in a favorable way, a person’s perceptions, ideas, and attitudes about the future and his place in the world.
Intrinsically, this what the transformational leader does. But his gift is in being able to do this indirectly. Among the noted traits of the transformational leader, this is someone who leads by example and is highly articulate. This leader inspires confidence in followers because he is firmly connected to the vision and purpose of the organization. And having a strong sense of self assurance, this transfers to being inspirational energy that instills confidence in followers. Ultimately it is the follower who—through the leader’s influence—undergoes a type of transformational learning that enables him or her to see new and better ways to accomplish a goal. This is one of the more particularly powerful elements of the transformational leader’s abilities—to compel individuals to dig down deep and access their own innate abilities, abilities that have been dormant.
In summation, then, the transformational leader is someone who tends to have a clear vision for the organization; and there is a firm sense of direction and of being able to articulate this. This leader is also someone who can get followers to accept a new mission and direction by supplanting previous norms and values with ones more in line with the vision he is shepherding. The transformational leader is able to establish and maintain trust, particularly during times of uncertainty; there is consistency in his behavior. Last, this leader is highly self aware and works continually to let his strengths rule in his decision-making (Northouse, p. 187; Jue, 2004).
While certainly the transformational leader is someone endemic of the conditions of transition which is a hallmark of conditions throughout the world today, this individual is not without having challenges. One area is that because he is someone who brings certain innate skills present to the leadership experience, researchers are divided on the extent to which this leadership style is one that can be taught (a topic that will be discussed at length in the next section). Also, there are some in the research community who have expressed concern that this leader—by his very nature—can draw so much attention to himself that attention toward his impact on followers can sometimes be ignored. This is similar to concerns that have been raised about servant leaders; that is, the attributes of this leader are focused on so much that other areas impacted by such leadership is overlooked. In the servant leader’s case (which is addressed in more detail in the section that follows) it is in the area of customer service that critics say can be compromised while managers direct more attention to meeting the needs of subordinates. In the case of the transformational leader, critics say that not enough has been studied about how these leaders are, in fact, inspired by their followers and thus empowered to be better leaders.
The servant leader. It needs to be clear from the onset of this discussion that the concept of servant leader is derived from the seminal work of Robert Greenleaf (1970, 200?). The author, a retired corporate executive, was motivated to share this concept because he had come to an understanding that all leaders were servants; meaning that everyone who serves in a leadership role does so at the behest of the organization itself or the public or co-workers. Greenleaf believed that a leader’s highest purpose was to seek to empathize with followers and to care for them as he would care for himself. This was also understood to be the case when it came to issues of social justice. He believed that leaders had an obligation to help improve the community they worked and lived in and that they needed to be committed to social causes the advocated in these areas.
To some extent, the servant leader is given to being of an egalitarian mindset in that power shifts to those who are traditionally less empowered. In doing so these individuals are allowed to thrive and fulfill their potential in their respective endeavors. The servant leader is one who directs through an indirect approach—followers are viewed with deep respect and are given an equal voice in situations. For Greenleaf, listening and learning to do so actively and with compassion was an essential skill this leader needed. And it is from a synthesis of these activities that the leader moves forward in decision-making all the while these actions being informed by these higher ideas and principles.
The concept of the servant leader has contributed to a wide and diverse discussion in the leadership literature, some of it supportive and lauding, some questioning the underlying premise. One critical treatise of servant leadership is found in the work of Andersen (2009). The author posits that from a business management perspective, the servant leader’s focus on subordinates rather than on the clients (or customers or, in the public sector, citizens) of the organization ultimately works against organizational goals and objectives. While he acknowledged that there was value in the servant leader concept, Andersen believed that its application in the culture of high demand operation could hurt both leaders and followers in the long run because customer service can be compromised.
Andersen’s work emerged in the wake of a flurry of discussions in the literature about servant leadership. One noted author, Autry (2001) addressed servant leadership—in stark contrast to Andersen—as a value added quality that can only improve an organization’s customer service deliver. Autry believed that those being served are savvy enough to sense or observe developments in the culture of an organization and that servant leadership is something that would be respected. He saw this as a logical next step in the dynamics between employees and employers, one that would be a modern response to the decline of organized labor.
Griffin (2008) drew from the servant leader concept a treatise on its application in the ethics framework of business. His study came in the wake of several highly publicized criminal trials and convictions of Wall Street executives who had been caught defrauding investors. Griffin contended that it was only through the servant model that trust and restoration be established between leaders and subordinates in organizations. Griffin, unlike Autrey or Andersen, considered the servant leader model a critical moral component that was needed in what he believed to be an enormous deficit of values in the business culture. Toor and Ofori (2009) shared in Griffin’s call for addressing ethical issues by using a servant leader model.
Griffin and Toor and Ofori’s works are further contrasted with ancillary writings that have emerged about spirituality and faith in the workplace. These authors identify servant leadership as a framework from which they built their discussion, noting that today’s worker is increasingly embracing the opportunity to have some aspect of spirituality as part of his or her work culture (Lynn, 2009; Marques, 2009; Marques, 2007; Newman, 2009, Nur, 2009; Pawar, 2009).
Contrasting the styles of the transformational and servant leader. To gain insight in to contrasts between the styles of both of these leaders it is appropriate to draw upon basic qualities identified by founders of the theories that identified them to the research world. Burns described the transformational leader as someone who is a visionary and someone deeply passionate about moving the organization in the direction that is consistent with the larger goals and objectives that have been outlined. The servant leader, on the other hand, is—as Greenleaf noted—more immediately concerned about what impact the drive toward meeting organizational goals and objectives is having on subordinates. The transformational leader influences followers to accept new norms and values as he understands them to be consistent with the larger goals to be accomplished. The servant leader does this also and in both instances these leaders are more given to persuade indirectly rather than overtly. Herein there is similarity in both leaders regarding having compassion for followers.
It should be added here as well that Burns and others paid homage to ethics and human development theorist Abraham Maslow in designing the tenets of the transformational leader so, to this extent, there is some level of equality between that leader and the servant leader. Maslow identified a hierarchy of needs that all individuals tend to be bound by and the higher level, self actualization, is one where an individual essentially becomes selfless and wants to help others make it up this hierarchy. Transformational leader theorists believed that this leader is either at the level of self actualization over close to it (Jue, 2004). Both leaders are also much committed to social justice and fairness and are strong advocates of there being high ethical and moral standards in the organizational culture. Additionally, both of these leaders tend to be highly self aware although, while the transformational leader will work toward highlighting his strengths and trying to capitalize on them, the servant leader sees his weaknesses as instruments of learning that can better help understand the weaknesses in others.
Transformational and Servant as Leadership Development Resource
To be able to successfully develop the abilities of transformational and servant leadership in individuals a three-fold structure needs to be designed, a result of synthesizing the attributes that have been discussed. The first would involve mentoring, the second would involve a program of active transparency, and the third would be direct teaching (through both experiential and formal means) the attributes of these leadership styles. The program outline presumes that a leadership assessment instrument such as the MQ will be administered in order to assist participants with understanding where their strengths and weaknesses lie in these leadership styles.
Reverse mentoring: Learning the ways of servant leadership. Because so much of servant leadership involves empathy and being able to see the world through another’s eyes, a developing leader will benefit from this sort of mentoring. The leader would spend time with a follower functioning in a low impact, unobtrusive way, gradually learning how the day to day world is experienced by the follower. The leader would also be required to be actively involved in a community based or humanitarian effort that works directly with diverse, underprivileged populations. From this experience some of the basic tenets of servant leadership can be directly learned.
Active transparency. In this development program the attributes of the transformational leader are highlighted—but not the favorable side, the negative side. This program would involve engaging in critical study of the negative attributes of transformational leadership with the intent on helping those who have these traits to better understand how to address the negative side, and for those who do not have the trait, to better understand how they can help transformational leaders.
Direct teaching. Since both of these leadership styles share much in terms of moral and ethical positions, it would be helpful for developing leaders to have a full range classroom experience where the strengths and weakness of both leadership styles are reviewed and also case studies of leadership types are reviewed as well. And as with the transparency program, one goal of this program would be to develop an understanding about the qualities in order to help other leaders who fit in these categories to better perform their tasks and to better serve the organizations and communities they serve.
References will be provided by Friday, February 19, 2010
Both the transformational leader and the servant leader concept have their origin in the convergence of postmodern studies on the topic of leadership and organizational development. These studies became particularly pronounced in the late 1960s and towards the 1980s and 90s. These times themselves were transformational in that social and economic upheaval was occurring in tandem with the emergence of technologies that connect the geopolitical and commerce cultures in a way unprecedented in human history.
For those who were leading in communities, organizations, and countries during those times, the demands for extraordinary skills to lead in such extraordinary times was great. In the corporate and public sectors in particular leaders were needed to not only inspire people to help them connect with their own innate abilities and to then be empowered to function in leadership capacities themselves, while also secure that the guiding presence of a more capable leader was ever present. In the community sectors and some private organizations, as an increasing blurring of lines was occurring that often brought forth egregious ethical practices, needed there was some framework that could offer leaders a way to reconnect with basic principles of morality and social justice.
It was within these conditions that transformational leadership and servant leadership were born. Both have an historical context, one based on organizational development and the other based on Judeo-Christian principles. The transformational work culture is one in which change is a constant factor but even more the underlying objective in the culture is to engage in a regiment of continual learning that will make all participants excel in the field they are in. This concept was an early fixture in the knowledge centered enterprises that came in to existence in the way of the technology explosion of the early 1990s. In this work culture there was strong emphasis on developing people because they were viewed as the organization’s most valuable assets. By developing them, the fortunes of the organization were assured, it was believed. On the other hand, the conditions that created the culture of servant leadership dates back much further in history. Indeed, these roots are an amalgamation of concepts steeped in religious history and human rights laws that have been forged down through the centuries. In more modern times these concepts have been distilled down to one phrase, “the golden rule,” which essentially espoused to do unto others as one would have others do unto you—or, in another variation, love your neighbor as you love yourself.
The leaders which emerged from these cultures are quite distinct and unique. Yet, like all leadership traits, there is some intersecting and overlap in certain areas. What follows are separate discussions on the distinct and unique qualities each of these leaders has and included will be some contrasting of their qualities and evaluation of them.
Transformational leadership. The concept of transformational leadership has its roots in the respective works of Downton and Burns (as cited in Northouse, 2007, p. 176; Jue 2004). Both wrote about a leader who emerges in an organizational environment having the innate ability to help followers connect with goals and then feel empowered to function independently to achieve them. This leader, they noted, was inspirational and was capable of stirring a strong sense of loyalty and connection to the organization’s mission and objectives. It was also noted that this leader was most effective during negative times when major transitions were underway.
Jue further noted that the work on transformational literature came about during a time of “doom and gloom” in the leadership research field. It was a time that was highlighted by a saturation of emergent theories about leadership but not much rigor or robustness in the results, he offered. Both transformational leadership and charismatic leadership concepts emerged in tandem and with them a new era in leadership study was ushered in (House, 1977, as cited by Jue).
[Charismatic leadership departs slightly from transformational leadership in that the leader is viewed as being exceptional, even superhuman, in moral and intellectual ability (Conger, 1999, as cited in Northouse, p. 177). Additionally, the transactional leader was a derivative of the Burns’ transformational leadership studies. This is someone who advances his or her own agenda by promising something to followers and in exchange the leader gets cooperation or support from the follower. An example of this would be in the providing of a pay increase in exchange for taking on more responsibilities. Burns saw this leadership style to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from transformational leadership but subsequent researchers eventually drew relationships between the two, noting that most transformational leaders will engage in some form of transactional behavior as a matter of routine.]
It should be noted that transformational leadership discussions were coming forth at a time in the knowledge culture when the concept of transformational learning itself was emerging. The basic premise of transformational learning theory is that critical reflection in a carefully directed way can prompt there to be empowered learning experiences that can change and alter, in a favorable way, a person’s perceptions, ideas, and attitudes about the future and his place in the world.
Intrinsically, this what the transformational leader does. But his gift is in being able to do this indirectly. Among the noted traits of the transformational leader, this is someone who leads by example and is highly articulate. This leader inspires confidence in followers because he is firmly connected to the vision and purpose of the organization. And having a strong sense of self assurance, this transfers to being inspirational energy that instills confidence in followers. Ultimately it is the follower who—through the leader’s influence—undergoes a type of transformational learning that enables him or her to see new and better ways to accomplish a goal. This is one of the more particularly powerful elements of the transformational leader’s abilities—to compel individuals to dig down deep and access their own innate abilities, abilities that have been dormant.
In summation, then, the transformational leader is someone who tends to have a clear vision for the organization; and there is a firm sense of direction and of being able to articulate this. This leader is also someone who can get followers to accept a new mission and direction by supplanting previous norms and values with ones more in line with the vision he is shepherding. The transformational leader is able to establish and maintain trust, particularly during times of uncertainty; there is consistency in his behavior. Last, this leader is highly self aware and works continually to let his strengths rule in his decision-making (Northouse, p. 187; Jue, 2004).
While certainly the transformational leader is someone endemic of the conditions of transition which is a hallmark of conditions throughout the world today, this individual is not without having challenges. One area is that because he is someone who brings certain innate skills present to the leadership experience, researchers are divided on the extent to which this leadership style is one that can be taught (a topic that will be discussed at length in the next section). Also, there are some in the research community who have expressed concern that this leader—by his very nature—can draw so much attention to himself that attention toward his impact on followers can sometimes be ignored. This is similar to concerns that have been raised about servant leaders; that is, the attributes of this leader are focused on so much that other areas impacted by such leadership is overlooked. In the servant leader’s case (which is addressed in more detail in the section that follows) it is in the area of customer service that critics say can be compromised while managers direct more attention to meeting the needs of subordinates. In the case of the transformational leader, critics say that not enough has been studied about how these leaders are, in fact, inspired by their followers and thus empowered to be better leaders.
The servant leader. It needs to be clear from the onset of this discussion that the concept of servant leader is derived from the seminal work of Robert Greenleaf (1970, 200?). The author, a retired corporate executive, was motivated to share this concept because he had come to an understanding that all leaders were servants; meaning that everyone who serves in a leadership role does so at the behest of the organization itself or the public or co-workers. Greenleaf believed that a leader’s highest purpose was to seek to empathize with followers and to care for them as he would care for himself. This was also understood to be the case when it came to issues of social justice. He believed that leaders had an obligation to help improve the community they worked and lived in and that they needed to be committed to social causes the advocated in these areas.
To some extent, the servant leader is given to being of an egalitarian mindset in that power shifts to those who are traditionally less empowered. In doing so these individuals are allowed to thrive and fulfill their potential in their respective endeavors. The servant leader is one who directs through an indirect approach—followers are viewed with deep respect and are given an equal voice in situations. For Greenleaf, listening and learning to do so actively and with compassion was an essential skill this leader needed. And it is from a synthesis of these activities that the leader moves forward in decision-making all the while these actions being informed by these higher ideas and principles.
The concept of the servant leader has contributed to a wide and diverse discussion in the leadership literature, some of it supportive and lauding, some questioning the underlying premise. One critical treatise of servant leadership is found in the work of Andersen (2009). The author posits that from a business management perspective, the servant leader’s focus on subordinates rather than on the clients (or customers or, in the public sector, citizens) of the organization ultimately works against organizational goals and objectives. While he acknowledged that there was value in the servant leader concept, Andersen believed that its application in the culture of high demand operation could hurt both leaders and followers in the long run because customer service can be compromised.
Andersen’s work emerged in the wake of a flurry of discussions in the literature about servant leadership. One noted author, Autry (2001) addressed servant leadership—in stark contrast to Andersen—as a value added quality that can only improve an organization’s customer service deliver. Autry believed that those being served are savvy enough to sense or observe developments in the culture of an organization and that servant leadership is something that would be respected. He saw this as a logical next step in the dynamics between employees and employers, one that would be a modern response to the decline of organized labor.
Griffin (2008) drew from the servant leader concept a treatise on its application in the ethics framework of business. His study came in the wake of several highly publicized criminal trials and convictions of Wall Street executives who had been caught defrauding investors. Griffin contended that it was only through the servant model that trust and restoration be established between leaders and subordinates in organizations. Griffin, unlike Autrey or Andersen, considered the servant leader model a critical moral component that was needed in what he believed to be an enormous deficit of values in the business culture. Toor and Ofori (2009) shared in Griffin’s call for addressing ethical issues by using a servant leader model.
Griffin and Toor and Ofori’s works are further contrasted with ancillary writings that have emerged about spirituality and faith in the workplace. These authors identify servant leadership as a framework from which they built their discussion, noting that today’s worker is increasingly embracing the opportunity to have some aspect of spirituality as part of his or her work culture (Lynn, 2009; Marques, 2009; Marques, 2007; Newman, 2009, Nur, 2009; Pawar, 2009).
Contrasting the styles of the transformational and servant leader. To gain insight in to contrasts between the styles of both of these leaders it is appropriate to draw upon basic qualities identified by founders of the theories that identified them to the research world. Burns described the transformational leader as someone who is a visionary and someone deeply passionate about moving the organization in the direction that is consistent with the larger goals and objectives that have been outlined. The servant leader, on the other hand, is—as Greenleaf noted—more immediately concerned about what impact the drive toward meeting organizational goals and objectives is having on subordinates. The transformational leader influences followers to accept new norms and values as he understands them to be consistent with the larger goals to be accomplished. The servant leader does this also and in both instances these leaders are more given to persuade indirectly rather than overtly. Herein there is similarity in both leaders regarding having compassion for followers.
It should be added here as well that Burns and others paid homage to ethics and human development theorist Abraham Maslow in designing the tenets of the transformational leader so, to this extent, there is some level of equality between that leader and the servant leader. Maslow identified a hierarchy of needs that all individuals tend to be bound by and the higher level, self actualization, is one where an individual essentially becomes selfless and wants to help others make it up this hierarchy. Transformational leader theorists believed that this leader is either at the level of self actualization over close to it (Jue, 2004). Both leaders are also much committed to social justice and fairness and are strong advocates of there being high ethical and moral standards in the organizational culture. Additionally, both of these leaders tend to be highly self aware although, while the transformational leader will work toward highlighting his strengths and trying to capitalize on them, the servant leader sees his weaknesses as instruments of learning that can better help understand the weaknesses in others.
Transformational and Servant as Leadership Development Resource
To be able to successfully develop the abilities of transformational and servant leadership in individuals a three-fold structure needs to be designed, a result of synthesizing the attributes that have been discussed. The first would involve mentoring, the second would involve a program of active transparency, and the third would be direct teaching (through both experiential and formal means) the attributes of these leadership styles. The program outline presumes that a leadership assessment instrument such as the MQ will be administered in order to assist participants with understanding where their strengths and weaknesses lie in these leadership styles.
Reverse mentoring: Learning the ways of servant leadership. Because so much of servant leadership involves empathy and being able to see the world through another’s eyes, a developing leader will benefit from this sort of mentoring. The leader would spend time with a follower functioning in a low impact, unobtrusive way, gradually learning how the day to day world is experienced by the follower. The leader would also be required to be actively involved in a community based or humanitarian effort that works directly with diverse, underprivileged populations. From this experience some of the basic tenets of servant leadership can be directly learned.
Active transparency. In this development program the attributes of the transformational leader are highlighted—but not the favorable side, the negative side. This program would involve engaging in critical study of the negative attributes of transformational leadership with the intent on helping those who have these traits to better understand how to address the negative side, and for those who do not have the trait, to better understand how they can help transformational leaders.
Direct teaching. Since both of these leadership styles share much in terms of moral and ethical positions, it would be helpful for developing leaders to have a full range classroom experience where the strengths and weakness of both leadership styles are reviewed and also case studies of leadership types are reviewed as well. And as with the transparency program, one goal of this program would be to develop an understanding about the qualities in order to help other leaders who fit in these categories to better perform their tasks and to better serve the organizations and communities they serve.
References will be provided by Friday, February 19, 2010
posted by Robert McTyre Sr. at 11:56 AM
0 comments
