In the contemporary workplace environment, leadership forms have evolved so much that the bureaucratic forms have lost value as they had before. Today, leaders and managers are not expected to order and dictate while sitting in their high offices or to threaten their workforce. This has been shown to reduce morale and impact negatively on the ability of the employees to feel a sense of ownership within the organization. In the current context and the modern world, leadership is more focused on building relationships, understanding needs, feelings, emotions, values and beneficiaries with the board, the personnel and the customers all as essential parts of the functioning and operation of the company or firm (Van Dierendonck, 2011).
Servant leadership is concerned about the being close to the persons and entities involved, working with them and acting as the servant as opposed to a master. Servant leadership has its basis on the need to serve first. When one is a servant, they gradually tend to develop an essence of leading not from the perspective of needing or wanting power but to influence those others to serve selflessly at their positions. While traditional bureaucratic leadership is focused on accumulation power and controlling people, servant leadership focuses on helping people develop, perform as well as putting their needs at the fore (Van Dierendonck, 2011).
At Starbucks, servant leadership has become a culture of the workplace. It started with the LEADER’S CHALLENGE, an initiative of the Creative Leaps International based on theatrical interludes and virtuosic music that sought to address and ingrain servant leadership in the personnel of Starbucks (Stafford, 2004). The initiative focused on the five elements of servant leadership, authenticity, accepting, vulnerable, presence and usefulness within the workplace as the key elements of becoming and being a servant leader. The initiative did not address professional development in isolation but included personal development since these two are the key ingredients on which servant-hood is built. At Starbucks, leaders are expected to take part in the basis operations of the workplace. They are expected work and develop relationships with the people around the workplace and to understand their needs, beliefs and values since an understanding of these features is essential for the development of empathy which is a key element of this form of leadership. Empathy is the ability to share the feelings and emotions of other people by assuming that those feelings are of the self (Van Dierendonck, 2011). At Starbucks, everyone is expected to ‘put themselves in the shoes of the other’ as a step towards helping others fulfills their needs as well as playing their roles well. Servant leadership is concerned with showing empathy to other people. Howard Schultz, the C.E.O at Starbucks has led several initiatives that have significantly helped augment the aspect of servant hood. On one hand the company has announced the provision of free college tuition for all their employees (Stafford, 2004). This strategy not only seeks to build the company but also seeks for the personal development of each individual within the company a strategy that has been seen to increase loyalty within the organization. In this way the company has been able to link the shareholder value to the employees’ value.
The major challenge for the servant leadership is that there is the expectation of serving without expecting compensation for all that one has to do. It is all about the selfless actions and in a situation where the top leadership and managers are more centered on profits, they may ignore the personal development of the employees. Poor remuneration, lack of incentives as well as lacking measures to facilitate personal development of the employees even at a time when profits are increasing could translate to exploitation (Stafford, 2004). In such cases, the employees tend to feel that they offer the company more than the company offers to them. While selflessness is a key aspect of servant leadership, it is expected that both or all involved parties have to show the will to give or offer selflessly on their part. However, in the event that one of the parties involved fails continually to do their part and act selflessly, the likelihood of servant leadership turning into a more bureaucratic and dictatorial leadership is very high (Van Dierendonck, 2011). Indeed, it could even conceive a slavery form of employment where the company is growing and earning significantly but the workforce or employee are poorly paid and showing little growth and development at personal level.
Organizations that adopt servant leadership have several benefits. Howard Schultz, the C.E.O at Starbucks for example notes that they are trained to lead with their hearts. That implies relying on the internal compass that should guide poor decisions making and provide a more instinctive grasp and understanding on the matters within the immediate environment of the self and that of others (Stafford, 2004). Such leadership builds commitment, passion, innovation, enthusiasm as well as creating a dedicated group of people working together for a common good and who are ready to turn up to help each other at the critical moments of need. Servant hood on the other hand generates a chain reaction such that the leader serves their employees selflessly; these employees will tend to increase their commitment as well as quality of work to return the favor of their leader by serving the customers excellently. The customers on the other hand enjoy the services and products of the company and develop a sense of ownership of the company as well as assuming more value for the company. This helps increase loyalty which leads to a greater reputation and elevated profits for the company (Van Dierendonck, 2011).
References
Stafford, Mike. (2004). Starbucks Servant-Leaders Pour Their Hearts Into It. The Servant Leader Newsletter. Retrieved from: www.greenleaf.org/Sumr04NL.pdf
Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and synthesis.Journal of Management, 37(4), 1228-1261.
