In the beginning, Greenleaf (2002) introduced the philosophy of servant leadership through Hesse’s protagonist, Leo the Servant. The story of Leo showed how one might function both as a servant and leader but with an intrinsic desire to serve first. This notion to serve first can also be viewed as antithetical to lead first; moreover, Greenleaf (2002) viewed these as extremes on a continuum with variations between (loc 347). Nevertheless, this does not permit one to choose to serve at the expense of leading. The two must exist in tandem; one must serve and lead simultaneously. Dierendonck and Patterson (2015) acknowledged this as an intriguing challenge and a “dilemma incorporated in the term servant leadership” (p. 120). The juxtaposition of these two images, serving and leading conjures a paradoxical image.
This paper utilizes this paradoxical image to explore potential explanations for how people have defined, interpreted, and misused servant leadership. Furthermore, distinctions will be drawn regarding how academics, practitioners, and everyone else engage this paradoxical image. From there, this paper will provide two key paradigms by which people relate to the term servant leadership and some potential ramifications of these paradigms.
Metaphors
Problem-Solving
Servant leadership is a metaphor and, therefore, the root of its paradoxical image. Using metaphors is normative in describing leadership types. For example, situational leadership, transactional leadership, transformational leadership, transcendent leadership, and toxic leadership, just to name a few, are all metaphors that conjure images in the mind that help depict leadership assumptions (Gardiner & Walker, 2009). Morgan (1980) referred to these assumptions as paradigms (or a way of viewing reality) and considered metaphors powerful tools for examining paradigms; furthermore, he argued that a metaphor’s potential depended on the degree of difference between the subjects involved. A good metaphor would, therefore, strike a balance between the two subjects; however, when metaphors utilize subjects that are too alike or too different, they result in nonsensical or weak imagery (p. 611). Metaphorically, since servant and leadership are two very different subjects, servant leadership does not pass this test.
Nonetheless, researchers have found the metaphor ideal for problem-solving and examining the implications of being a servant-leader; specifically, how is it possible to be both a servant and a leader?
Reality-Shaping Influencers
Although metaphors can help analyze paradigms, they can also be used to create and influence paradigms. For example, Amernic, Craig, and Tourish (2007) examined the CEO letters of Jack Welch to General Electric’s stockholders and found five metaphors: Welch as a pedagogue, a physician, an architect, a commander, and a saint, which he utilized to communicate and shape reality as he saw fit. His metaphorical rhetoric served as a tool to motivate and shape other perspectives toward his own organizational goals. Furthermore, although organizational metaphors can define a leadership focus, according to Grahn (2009), more often, the leadership focus drives the metaphors leaders choose. In other words, a person’s innate leadership bent typically drives the metaphors a leader chooses.
Greenleaf (2002) chose the term servant leadership. However, as a metaphor, servant leadership is not exempt from being used by leaders to reshape reality toward their own objectives. For example, Frost (2019) took issue with politicians who self-described themselves as practicing servant leadership. After a brief overview and acknowledgment of Greenleaf’s intentions, Frost assailed the term saying, “That might be the aim, but its pleasing meaninglessness—as bland as mashed potato, and just as easy to sculpt into dreamy, amorphous clouds—has made it ripe for use and misuse” (para. 8). Put more nicely, although a key tenant of servant leadership is putting people and their potential before organizational goals, this itself does not guarantee leaders will not misuse the metaphor for their own personal or organizational gain. Moreover, something about the terminology of servant leadership clearly prevented Frost (2019) from fully appreciating its relevancy.
Defining Servant Leadership
Although Greenleaf termed servant leadership, according to Berger (2014), he did not develop a theory of it; rather, he encouraged research studies. This resulted in a plurality of theories, conceptual frameworks, and measurement instruments. Furthermore, whereas other traditional leadership philosophies have primarily focused on the actions of leaders, servant leadership also concerns itself with leaders’ character and commitment to serve others (Parris & Peachey, 2013), which complicates developing models capable of explaining both what servant leaders do and why. Specifically, since Greenleaf focused primarily on the position and the outcomes of servant leaders, academics have sought to clarify what happens in-between (Dierendonck & Patterson, 2015). For better or for worse, much of the research has produced complex hierarchical and conceptual lists to describe servant leadership.
Academics, Practitioners, and Everyone Else
Whereas the metaphorical nature of the term servant leadership should help researchers and practitioners depict these complexities, Parris and Peachey (2013) noted that numerous theories continue to leave “researchers, students, or practitioners to ponder what servant leadership theory is” (p. 380). Berger (2014) also addressed and complained about the confusing state of servant leadership, citing the differences in use among scholars compared to consultants and practitioners. He argued that researchers’ multiple paradigms welcomed diverse perspectives but muddied the waters; moreover, practitioners and consultants further complicated matters by promoting servant leadership’s popularity through prescriptive and anecdotal accounts.
Everyone Else
In a review of the literature, a third group exists everyone else – an enormously large group that pertains to anyone who has never heard of Greenleaf. Maybe they have read an article citing him. More importantly, anyone outside this group typically presumes this group can infer the meaning and nature of servant leadership. For instance, according to Dearth and West (2014), the United Methodist Church (UMC) advocated employing servant leadership by those in leadership positions. They even included it in their annual governing book, yet for almost ten years, the UMC never provided any references to define servant leadership. Unfortunately, although this group (everyone else) is typically enlisted to take surveys and participate in qualitative studies on the characteristics of the leaders they follow, they are often left to depend on a contextualized definition of servant leadership.
If, for over three decades, researchers and practitioners have struggled to define servant leadership, then would it not be wise to recognize how everyone else might perceive the term servant leadership?
Good Metaphor Bad Metaphor
To reiterate, as a metaphor, servant leadership does not pass Morgan’s test; instead, it metaphorically works for researchers and practitioners because they seek to clarify how one might be a servant and a leader simultaneously. Arguably, everyone else does not innately recognize this puzzle. For this reason, Wallace (2007) argued for the importance of using a hyphen in servant (-) leadership literature, noting the grammatical significance between servant-leader versus servant leader and servant-leadership compared to servant leadership. In the former, servant-leadership is considered a compound noun; in the latter, there are two nouns, with the first serving as an adjective upon the second. Put simply, the compound noun, servant-leadership, conveys the paradox, whereas the adjective does not. Without a hyphen, the emphasis starts with the importance of leadership. The same would apply to the wording servant leader.
Level 5 Leadership
Another compelling argument comes from naming Jim Collins’ Level 5 leadership. In addressing humility as a virtuous trait of servant leadership, Dierendonck and Patterson (2015) mentioned how humility was also an essential element of Collins’ Level 5 leadership and highlighted how the research team “considered calling the good to great phenomena servant leadership” (p. 124). Since then, servant leader advocates (Patterson, Redmer, & Stone, 2003; Reid, West, Winston, & Wood, 2014) have sought to distinguish the similarities between servant leadership and Level 5 leadership. Although the similarities prove interesting, what is more fascinating is although terms such as selfless executive and servant leader were suggested, Collins (2001) mentioned that “members of the team violently [emphasis added] objected to these characterizations” (pp. 30-31).
“Then Eve Li suggested, ‘Why don’t we just call them Level 5 leaders? If we put a label like selfless or servant on them, people will get entirely the wrong idea. We need to get people to engage with the whole concept, to see both sides of the coin. If you only get the humility side, you miss the whole idea’” (p. 31).
Those on Collins’ team recognized something inherently limiting with using the term servant (or selfless) leadership. Fascinatingly, Li immediately associated these terms with only the humility side of the leadership concept they were advocating. Furthermore, by referring to selfless or servant as labels, she did not identify a metaphorical construction; instead, she only saw the adjectives.
The Servant Adjective
If servant leadership (or servant leader), without the hyphen, places the primary focus on leadership and the adjective used conveys an antithetical descriptor (servant), then leadership will plausibly be imposed with a negative connotation. As a compound noun, both words are endowed with positive meaning; without the hyphen, only servant gets the positive connotation.
| Adjectival | metaphorical | |||
| servant leadership | servant-leadership | |||
| positive | negative | positive | positive | |
Put another way, the adjectival form focuses on what leadership is, whereas the metaphorical form seeks to understand what servant-leadership is. For example, although Graham (1991) utilized a hyphen, the underlying assumptions emphasized the potential negative side of leadership: the inherent fallibility of humanity, the tendency of high-level positions to encourage narcissism, and the tendency of habituated subordination in low-level positions to lead to excess humility (p. 111). According to Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), Graham was the first to identify notable characteristics of servant leadership. These included humility, relational power, autonomy, moral development of followers, and emulation of leaders’ service orientation. Fascinatingly, relational power with its service ethic as well as humility were all immediately listed by Graham as solutions to ameliorating “the dangerous consequences of these conditions … characterized by unilateral/hierarchical power” (pp. 111-112). Negative assumptions regarding leadership brought about several proposed characteristics, which primarily serve to promote behaviors to neutralize leadership’s inherent toxic effects. To be fair, even a metaphorical use of servant leadership offers solutions to systematic leadership problems (Sendjaya, Sarros, & Santora, 2008, p. 402); however, the behaviors and virtues listed tend to illustrate a more wholistic picture of servant leadership by also drawing upon the positive transforming features of leadership.
Ramifications
Distinctions between an adjectival and metaphorical view of servant leadership have broad-reaching ramifications. First, research focusing on the former limits servant leadership models to identifying improved behaviors to offset bad leadership. In contrast, a metaphorical perspective allows researchers to be more unbiased in identifying what servant leaders do and why. For example, humility as perceived within the paradigm of servant leadership (no hyphen) primarily acts as a counterbalancing behavior to leadership, whereas, viewed through the paradigm of servant-leadership (hyphen), it can also be recognized as a virtuous attitude explaining the servant-leader’s behavior. Furthermore, a person’s servant leadership paradigm can impact advocates’ perspectives on the use of power in leadership.
Definitions of servant leadership within institutions often fail to correspond with the rigorous levels of researchers—for example, an automotive group listed servant leadership as their first core value. “Servant Leaders consciously put the needs of others before their own, because to serve people is to value them” (hendrickauto.com). Although other core values had the potential to overlap a broader definition of servant leadership, the headings isolated servant leadership to a single behavior: service. Notably, this oversimplification may come from an adjectival view of servant leadership. This may demonstrate why advocates must repeatedly reiterate that servant leadership is not operating out of weakness or about being courteous and friendly (Greenleaf, 2002; Sendjaya, 2015). Nevertheless, the auto group successfully made service and servant leadership synonymous to emphasize the company’s friendly customer service. They could have titled the core value service, but something warm and appealing was found in the term servant leadership. This may be one of the most dangerous ramifications of the term servant leadership. Its ability to be metaphorical or adjectival increases its potential for use, misuse, or worse, abuse. For example, a pastor might promote servant leadership from the pulpit, “I’m not advocating anyone for a position in leadership until I see he demonstrates servant leadership with their willingness to wash dishes.” Though righteous sounding, such a statement also potentially reveals an adjectival view of servant leadership whereby serving counterbalances perceived negative outcomes of leadership. Furthermore, servant leadership also becomes in this case a tool by which someone in power can control access to their inner circle.
Conclusion
A paradoxical image of servant leadership engages the positive properties in both the word servant and leader(ship). According to Eva, Robin, Sendjaya, Dierendonck, and Liden (2019), servant leadership offers a holistic leadership approach. Arguably, this is a true statement when utilizing a paradoxical paradigm. However, academics and practitioners alike would be wise to recognize the potential dangers and ease of approaching servant leadership from an adjectival paradigm. Doing so can potentially reduce existing and future confusion for everyone attempting to articulate what servant leadership is.
References
Amernic, J., Craig, R., & Tourish, D. (2007). The transformational leader as pedagogue, physician, architect, commander, and saint: five root metaphors in Jack Welch’s letters to stockholders of general electric. Human Relations, 60(12), 1839-1872. doi:10.1177/0018726707084916
Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300-326. doi:10.1177/1059601106287091
Berger, T. A. (2014). Servant leadership 2.0: A call for strong theory. Sociological Viewpoints, 30(1), 146.
Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap–and others don’t (1st ed.). [Kindle DX version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com
Dearth, J., & G R Bud West. (2014). The use of servant leadership in the United Methodist church. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, 10
Dierendonck, D. v., & Patterson, K. (2015). Compassionate love as a cornerstone of servant leadership: An integration of previous theorizing and research. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1), 119-131. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2085-z
Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111-132. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004
Gardiner, J. & Walker, E. L. (2009). transcendent leadership: Theory and practice of an emergent metaphor. The International Journal of Servant-Leadership, 5(1), 243-267.
Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. The Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 105-119. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(91)90025-W
Grahn, T. (2009). gardening tips for servant-leaders. The International Journal of Servant-Leadership, 5(1), 269-285.
Greenleaf, R. K., & Spears, L. C. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness (25th anniversary ed.). [Kindle DX version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com
Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(4), 605-622. doi:10.2307/2392283
Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377-393. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6
Parolini, J., Patterson, K., & Winston, B. (2009). Distinguishing between transformational and servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(3), 274-291. doi:10.1108/01437730910949544
Patterson, K. A. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model
Patterson, K., Redmer, T., & Stone, A. (2003). Transformational leaders to servant leaders versus level 4 leaders to level 5 leaders—The move from good to great. CBFA Annual Conference. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University.
Politis, J. D., & Politis, D. J. (2018). Examination of the relationship between servant leadership and agency problems: Gender matters. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 39(2), 170-185. doi:10.1108/LODJ-01-2016-0020
Reid, W. A., Bud West, G. R., Winston, B. E., & Wood, J. “. (2014). An instrument to measure level 5 leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(1), 17-32. doi:10.1002/jls.21317
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00761.x
Sendjaya, S. (2015). Personal and organizational excellence through servant leadership [Kindle DX version]. Retrieved from Amazon.com
Wallace, D. (2007) The Power of a Hyphen: The Primacy of Servanthood in Servant-Leadership. Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Retrieved from
http://www.regentonlinedegree.com/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2007/wallace.pdf