Leadership is no more an archaic act of dictating and instructing the subordinates. Gone are the days when dictators found their space in corporate business settings. Changing business contours have shifted the emphasis from supervision and control to employee motivation, engagement, and satisfaction. As such, present-day leadership is like navigating the whitewater where varying employees' expectations may horn locks with organizational goals and objectives. As such, leaders may need to assume different traits at the same time to ensure seamless flow of operations.
The topic of leadership is much coveted now as the role and significance of leaders grows immensely. Research studies have revealed the role of leadership in high engagement, low turnover, and increased operational efficiency. Gradually, several models have been developed to discern types and traits of different leaders. Popular among these models include transformational, transactional, servant, situational, and bureaucratic leadership styles.
This paper is a leadership critique and discusses multiple dimensions in detail. Two leadership styles i.e., servant and situational leadership have been elaborated so as to make a holistic comparison between these two. The author of this paper sides with the situational leadership model and finds servant leadership too naive to be implemented. This conclusion has been supported by relevant literature so as to reduce the scope of subjectivity and pep up generalizability of the results.
Servant Leadership
The principle of servant leadership dates back to 1970s when Greenleaf coined the term in 1971. However, it is since a decade back that the concept has been seeping into the consciousness of scholars, academicians, and savants. Simply, servant leadership means serving the needs of others. Greenleaf defined a servant leader who is a servant first and a leader later. Famous personalities including Jesus Christ, Mother Teresa, and Martin Luther King Jr. well embody the principle of this leadership style.
As the concept of servant model started gaining ground, few scholars swung into action to put forward their opinion and perceptions. Building on the original concepts of Greenleaf, they expounded their ideas further. Nevertheless, the available literature is minimal yet unanimous on its characteristics.
A servant leader is a good listener, relationship builder, empathetic, and persuasive. He is able to foresee outcomes, is committed to the personal and professional growth of followers, and is a community builder. Followers are the priority for a servant leader, and he/she can even sacrifice his pursuits, prowess, and power for the development of followers.
Apparently, the paradigm of servant leadership stands in stark contrast to the traditional top-down leadership approach that was in operation since long. Traditional leaders literally ruled and dictated their subordinates. Gradually, people became wary of instructions, command, and control. They started asking for a rule-free ambiance where they could steer their own performances. They wanted not to be dictated, but to be listened to and be informed of what was going in the organization. These changes, at the individual and group level, perhaps catalyzed the notion of servant leadership and forced the scholars to rethink on leadership principles.
Characteristics of a Servant Leader
Having conjoined oxymoron, i.e., 'servant' and 'leader', scholars tried to make-up a revolutionary leadership style. The foundation of servant leadership is based on putting others, including customers, employees, and community, as number one priority. Servant leadership is a sharing of power that leads to a shared growth of the community as a whole. The primary role of servant leaders is to prepare leaders at all levels, to make themselves outmoded for the benefit of the organization.
Placing employees at the top, the model is altruistic enough to emphasize a moral sense of concern. Clearly, complexities arising out of the clashes between the personal desires and pursuits of followers do not find a place in this setting. Servant leaders only describe the realities, do not 'create' them for their own benefit, and show gratitude in all conditions. The authority of a servant leader 'stems from the subordinates' and his/her values find a place in human-centrism.
A close analysis of the model reveals its high pursuits, yet impractical dimensions. Theoretically, the concept seems valuable, but I doubt its practicality and applicability. In substance, the model is in conflict with my experience and understanding.
First of all, servant leadership does not look feasible and even the introducer, Greenleaf, mentioned the concept "too naive to be applicable in reality." This leadership style seems paradoxical with two conflicting words "servant" and "leadership."
Secondly, the examples of servant leaders cited as Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr. are just a few in numbers. More so, they only 'served' the people without any desire and intention. These figures appear as epic and it's hard to have such people in organizations, one of the most discussed settings with context to leadership.
Thirdly, the model of servant leadership seems more philosophical than practical. It rests on altruism and ignore the instructive dimensions that are 'must' for a leader in the real-world setting, be it companies, politics, and society. The model ignores the varying skills and capabilities of followers that may require clear goal setting and strict directions from the leader.
I feel that it is a passive style of leadership, something that does not suit the ever-changing real-world scenario. Undoubtedly, a leader must have compassion and a zing to develop the followers, but it must not be at the cost of desired outcomes. It seems that the only aim of servant leadership is to serve people. In this sense, it is just service, not leadership at all.
Finally, this leadership style is among the least discussed. Greenleaf leads the area with the literature, but most of it was written in the seventies. Things have colossally changed since then and ideas that were valuable that time come nowhere in a world of competition. Even Greenfield has accepted the redundancy of thoughts and acknowledged that most of the criticisms are in place. The model does not seem applicable and practical.
However, it is important to note that the model as a whole seems impractical, but its individual characteristics are not redundant. For instance, stewardship, compassion, and foresight are universal leadership characteristics that do find a place in other leadership models. It is the overemphasis on 'service' that makes the model somewhat doubtful and far-fetched. It can be concluded that this model was one of the earliest notions of leadership literature and scholars did not have well-developed ideas. Nonetheless, initial opinions only paved the way for refined thinking in later years that led to the development of advanced leadership traits.
All in all, my opinion also goes against servant leadership. There are many other types of leadership styles including situational and transformational leadership that fascinate me. I feel that inspiring and motivating the followers is more important than serving them, as far as leadership is concerned. Reading through the characteristic of servant leadership gave me the impression of a social worker, rather than a robust leader who is capable enough to turn the corner in the time of crisis. I am neither in sync with servant leadership nor want to be a leader of this sort in the future.
Situational Leadership
Expounded by P. Hersey, K.H. Blanchard, and D.E. Johnson, this model explains leadership as the interplay between the task and relationship behaviors. Task behavior assumes center-stage when the leader needs to impart directions and coaching to the followers. Relationship behavior come to the forth if the subordinates are capable of carrying out tasks independently, and the leaders only need to support them.
Simply, the model states that there is not a 'single' way to lead and influence the followers. How a leader should act depends on various situational factors including the followers' readiness, their maturity and ability to develop themselves, and the overall environment. In army terms, the model holds that the leadership style will be based on the readiness, skills and capabilities of the unit as well as individual soldiers. For example, a leader may delegate some authority if the follower is an engaged self-starter. Conversely, task behaviors including guidance, training, and instructions will take a forefront with the follower who is sassy, timid, and uncertain. In this sense, it is the followers who determine the leadership style of the leader.
Relationship Among Leadership Variables
Figure 1: Source:
Experts have expounded four primary styles under the ambit of situational leadership. A brief description of these is exhibited in the table below.
These categories describing followers' behavior help the leader in selecting the most effective leadership style in the given combination of subordinates' competence and commitment.
Situational leadership well recognizes the fact that one size does not fit all conditions. It is, perhaps, because of this proposition that I find this model quite interesting to apply in the work scenario. Though I am also obsessed with transformational style, the question of its applicability in different business scenarios kept my pensive. How can a leader inspire followers who are not ready for that? How can a leader share authority with the members who do not posseses required skills? It was the answers to these questions that shifted my stance towards the situational leadership theory.
In substance, acknowledging the importance of the environment is one of the biggest strength of the situational theory. With many leadership traits harping on buzzwords as inspiration, motivation, support, delegation, and power-sharing, situational leadership goes a way ahead to describe various conditions in which these buzzwords are applicable. For instance, delegation may be possible with the workforce of high competence and commitment but not with the people who score low on these qualities.
Furthermore, I feel that this leadership model lays the foundation for the effective development of followers as well as the leader. A leader, while selecting the befitting leadership style, may optimize the outcomes thereby enriching his/her chutzpah. At the same time, he can shake off followers' empowerment by imparting the appropriate level of support and guidance.
Finally, situational leadership is a pointer to the flexibility, one of the most desired traits in the dynamic business scenario. A transformational leader, how effective he/she might be in the approach, is unlikely to transform the workforce if they are not receptive to his ideas. Rigidness, in this case, may put the skids under him thereby leading to an overall loss for the organization.
It goes without saying that flexibility is the key to effective leadership and situational model is perhaps the only one that stresses on this aspect of leadership style. It is because of these notable reasons that I find this concept quite convincing, practical, and feasible to implement.
A Brief Comparison of Servant and Situational Leadership
These two leadership styles stand in stark contrast with each other. One is philosophical and imaginary, the other is quite realistic. One seems impractical to apply, and the other is high on feasibility and practicality scores. In substance, some features of servant leadership might find a place in the situational model when it talks about supporting, guiding, and coaching the followers. Conversely, servant leadership is absolutely ignorant of the situational factors and hold a myopic view regarding leadership.
It goes without saying that leadership involves critical aptitude to motivate and guide followers. Situational model is appropriate in discussing the role of subordinates in deciding the style of the leader. Servant leadership, by contrast, emphasizes on altruistic content, i.e., serving the followers, without having to understand and acknowledge different situational variables in place. As such, these two are poles apart and do not comply with each other.
Nonetheless, it is apt to mention that the time span between these two models is very large. Servant model was developed in the 1970s and situational style one among the latest, developed in 2000s. As business scenarios have changed significantly in 30 years, it is automatic to assume sharp variations between these models. It does not, though, mean that servant style is absolutely out of place. It does exist in the social parlance, and the leadership characteristics mentioned in the model are universal and commonly applicable.
Conclusion
The paper is an expansive panorama of situational and servant leadership styles. The detailed discussion has duly highlighted the relevance of these models in present day business contour.
Servant leadership is altruistic enough and recommends a selfless service of the followers. Little does it realize that the primary task of leadership is to direct, guide, and support the subordinates so as to motivate them to achieve desired results. Apparently, servant leadership model looks like a philosophical manifestation of ideas than actually the leadership style aimed to optimize professional outcomes. Still, the model cannot be considered outmoded because it talks about valuable leadership characteristics. Foresight, compassion, and empathy are some of the much desired leadership traits be it politics, society, and business. Still, servant leadership does not have much scope as a whole.
As such, I find situational leadership quite convincing and suited to the changing business scenario. The model aptly imparts enough scope to flexibility and stresses in determining leadership styles depending on the subordinates' level of competence and commitment. I must say that there can be more factors than just competence and commitment and these not covered in the model. Still, no leadership trait is perfect and so is the case with situational style. Considering all propositions, I find it one of the most interesting and befitting models in the present business scenario.
References
Douglas, M.E. (2005) 'Service to Others', Supervision, vol. 66, April, pp. 6-10.
Field Manual (2006) Army Leadership: Competent, Confident, and Agile.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1977) Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, Nahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H. and Johnson, D.E. (2001) Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources, Upper Saddler River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Johnson, C. (2001) Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Kim, S.-J. and Kyoung, S.K. (2014) 'A Literature Review of Servant Leadership and Criticism of Advanced Research', International Journal of Science, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business, and Industrial Engineering, vol. 8, no. 4.
Lynn, H.S. (2005) Critical Analysis of Servant Leadership Theory, University of Wiscounsin-Scout.
Sims, B.J. (1997) Servant-hood: Leadership for Group Effectivess, University of Pennsylvania.
Spears, L.C. (1995) Insight on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant- Leadership, New York: John Wiley & Sonss.
Yukl, G. (2006) Leadership in Organizations, Upper Saddler River: NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
