Perspectives on Ethical and Servant Leadership - Essay Example

Identify the characteristics of a servant leader. Discuss servant leadership and how Greenleafs perspectives on servant leadership compare to Heifetzs perspective on ethical leadership. Compare and contrast the 3 perspectives on ethical leadership Introduction Leadership is an integral and important element in any organizational setting. The organization can be a corporation, a not-for-profit entity, a government, or the society itself. In fact leadership is so important that it is seen even in the animal kingdom as well. The concept leadership in the human world is a complex one because of the advanced nature of human thought and behaviour. As a result, many forms of leadership behaviour and styles have evolved over the years. Due to its relative importance, many studies and theories too have evolved over a period of time. There was a time when leadership was thought to be inborn, as can be seen from concepts like the Great Man and Trait theories. But as scholars began to study the concept, it became apparent that leadership can be learnt and that it is not inborn as previously thought. But one leadership theory (trait) stands out from the rest due to its nature of pure service and it is the concept of Servant leadership, first thought of by Robert K Greenleaf in 1970. This paper is a review of this concept after which a comparison with ethical leadership style developed by Heifetz will be done. Servant leadership: Given here is Greenleaf’s own definition of Servant leadership taken from his 1970 book ‘The Servant as Leader’ – “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions…” (What is Servant Leadership? 2008). The fundamental difference of servant leadership when compared to other forms of leadership is that a servant leader does not crave for power, but assumes it in order to serve effectively. Whereas in many other forms of leadership, the need to be a leader and the need to wield power takes precedence, the servant leader’s primary obsession is to serve. Servant leadership is not limited to non-profit organizations engaged in charity or other forms of social work. Greenleaf advocates principles of servant leadership for individuals, businesses, religious institutions, foundations, and for any organized activity. He even says that the institution or organization can become a servant leader and not just the people who manage it. In the case of business, Greenleaf admits that its primary motive is making profits and not to do service. But he sees an ideal business as one that should provide meaningful work to people (meaning employees and other stakeholders like suppliers and partners) along with quality goods and services to its customers. As Greenleaf and Spears (2002) point out “the business then becomes a serving institution – serving those people who produce and those who use”. Greenleaf elaborates on servant leadership by stating that a good society is built through caring and service. In the past individuals were on hand to do service, but this role is now being taken up by large impersonal institutions. Such institution even runs the risk of being incompetent and even corrupt unless good and ethical leadership is in place. This is where from the concept of ethics comes in. Ethics in servant leadership The primary definition of servant leadership of Greenleaf does not mention ethics, but focuses only on service and the subsequent necessity to become a leader to provide it. Ethics is seen as an additional necessity so that the society, the organizations and the stakeholders are benefited and not harmed by its actions. If the definition of servant leadership is taken at face value the following anecdotal instance can also be considered to be an example of servant leadership. A person forms an organization of thieves so that they can make a livelihood by robbing people. The primary motive is not profit but help and service to other thieves, and the organization was formed for this purpose. Even though this example is an exaggeration, it was provided to illustrate the basic difference between servant leadership and ethical leadership. Greenfield gives a lot of prominence to ethics, though only after mentioning the need to serve. In other words the first focus is on service and then on ethics. Ronald Heifetz and ethical leadership While Greenfield focuses on service, Heifetz is of the opinion is that adaptability is the key to leadership. According to Heifetz, “Leadership is what individuals do in mobilizing other people, in organizations or communities, to do what I call "adaptive work” (Flower, 1995). There is a very practical approach in the ideas put forth by this man. He correctly says that conflict situations occur in today’s complex world. In such a situation, followers tend to shirk responsibility and decision making and leave both for their leaders to handle. This creates a lot of pressure on the leaders: “Heifetz argues that people tend to push problems back to authorities when the work is really theirs to do. His concept of adaptive work thus means helping people to help themselves” (Williams & Kerfoot 2005). Here, leadership is not primarily of serving people, but helping them to handle the complexities they face and make them capable of handling it. There is a famous saying that ‘if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach him to fish, you feed him for a lifetime’. Both viewpoints are right depending on the observer. But a personal opinion is that Greenfield’s servant leadership concept feeds people while Heifetz’s concept teaches a person to feed himself or herself. Personally, this writer will tend to agree that Heifetz’s concept is more valuable and practical when compared to servant leadership. What is common between them is that both give a lot of importance to ethics. Moreover, a service and altruistic mentality is a useful and even essential leadership quality. So, the best option would be to take the servant mentality of Greenleaf and add it to the adaptive mentality of Heifetz. When helping people to adapt, do it in such a way like a sincere servant would go about his or her tasks. Change is inevitable in today’s rapidly changing and complex environment. Heifetz also distinguishes between technical change and adaptive change, with the latter causing more concern, uncertainty and fear among the followers. “Central to his theory is the distinction between routine technical problems, which can be solved through expertise, and adaptive problems, such as crime, poverty, and educational reform, which require innovative approaches, including consideration of values” (Heifetz 2009). Three perspectives on ethical leadership Heifetz sees values, environment and authority with regard to helping “followers in their personal struggles concerning conflicting values” (Krieger, 2003). Values should encompass not only the organization, but also its stakeholders. They include employees, the organization itself, and the community in which operates. With regard to environment, the organization and its leaders should be able to create a feeling of trust along with nurturing those who are dependant on it. But this should be done with an attitude of empathy rather than sympathy. Heifetz also differentiates between authority and leadership. Authority need not be combined with leadership qualities since the former can be obtained through formal means. Those who come into positions of authority need not necessarily have leadership. But authority becomes effective when combined with ethics, leadership, values, and concern for the environment. It needs all of these for ethical leadership to be effective. The authority should be utilized to develop focus, and to balance conflicts. Conclusion Service mentality and ethics are two important factors in good leadership. Greenleaf focuses on being a servant while Heifetz focuses on helping followers help themselves. The latter’s vision has more depth and practically even though the servant mentality cannot be ignored with regard to leadership. Heifetz takes into consideration practical issues like uncertainty, change, and conflict of interests. For Greenleaf, these factors appear to be secondary when compared to the importance of service. In comparison, it can be said that in today’s complex world, Heifetz’s theory is more practical and bound to have more followers. References What is Servant Leadership? (2008). Retrieved May 3, 2009, from The Robert K. Greenleaf Center, Inc: http://www.greenleaf.org/whatissl/ Heifetz, Ronald A. (1997-2009). Leadership Without Easy Answers. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from Barnesandnoble.com llc: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Leadership-Without-Easy-Answers/Ronald-A-Heifetz/e/9780674518582 Greenleaf, R. K. and Spears, L.C. (2002). Servant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. 25th illustrated edn: Paulist Press. Flower, Joe. (1995). A conversation with Ronald Heifetz: Leadership without Easy Answers. Retrieved May 3, 2009, from the Health care Forum Journal wesite: http://www.well.com/~bbear/heifetz.html#heifetz Williams, R and Kerfoot, M. (2005). Child and adolescent mental health services: strategy, planning, delivery, and evaluation. Illustrated Edition: Oxford University Press. Krieger, Jan. (2003). ‘Diverse Perspectives of Leadership’. Chapter 13- Leadership Ethics. PowerPoint Presentation, Slide 15. Sage Publications. Read More