Servant Leaders give something more than just small conversation to those that are being led. They give wisdom. They give discernment. They give observations. They give a piece of themselves.
And sometimes, this lands hard on those served, not because the communication is untrue or unfair or unwise, but that it is piercing.
Jesus does this with Peter, who witnesses the feeding of the five thousand, boards a boat, and is fighting the wind and waves all night. Upon seeing Jesus, asking for the miracle that Jesus is showing, Jesus bids him to come out on the water too. Peter, first stepping out, then noticing the wind and wave, sinking, calls out for rescue, which Jesus provides. Notice the next verse:
Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?”
By trusting this wisdom and discernment to others, another gift is given. Sovereignty – the ability to make their own choices, to own their story, to integrate external observation into their own lived reality.
I believe wholeheartedly that this is the way.
I think this is the background to how Greenleaf saw development of others:
The best test, and difficult to administer, is this: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? – Robert Greenleaf
It’s radical in nature to be more open, more sharing. It costs sometimes too – sensing that the person is ready, forming the feedback into digestible chunks, delivering boldly, and trusting the deliberate thinking of the person. It’s a risk to release, to give, to love.
Again, Peter – this time he’s the source (as we understand), specifically for the book of Mark. Notice the same passage with his fingerprints on it:
48 He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. Shortly before dawn he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, 49 but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, 50 because they all saw him and were terrified.
Immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.” 51 Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, 52 for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.
Missing is the tender moment of calling, of failing, of rescue; the story that holds the most power in experience he chooses to tell demurely, melting it into “their hearts were hardened”.
Yes, this principle costs; a servant leader can’t keep private notes, can’t keep a running tally; but can only keep this person held in love. And, sometimes that means being open in ways that are uncomfortable for you as a servant leader.
The coda to Peter (and to us servant leaders) is best shown in his own writing:
6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7 Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.
The humble walk is the calling for us too; the anxiety produced by not forcing our own way, taking our own path, is thrown to God’s mighty hand. The same hand that can rescue takes our cares too.
(Foreground, Chartres Cathedral Labyrinth, background Gottschalk Tower, in Yanney Heritage Park, Kearney, NE)
This photo came up in my highlights today, and has me musing on the idea of boundaries.
Both have been traced, both have significant value to one who understands the disciplines inherent in each.
The tower discipline is clear; moving outside its boundaries equates to injury. Elevation is the key, and the reward is significant at the end.
The labyrinth discipline is invisible; it can be walked straight across with no effort. Mindfulness is the key, and the reward given is internal, defined by the person engaging.
Servant leaders have both of these in our lives. Yes, we sometimes need to pull others from the brink when physical harm is imminent. But the labyrinth speaks to the internal, the tracing, the way of limiting yourself to a boundary largely defined internally.
The fulness of the labyrinth is in the use of space, the long path, the discipline to stay in the lane. The walk is not arduous, and quells the physical side of the mind, allowing other areas to unlock and express. Satisfaction is not derived from finishing, but from the journey; frustratingly close to the center at times, knowing the path has more bends before accomplishment.
People are like this as well; conceptualization and foresight bring us the vision of where the group or individual would be best landed. Sometimes these are almost tangible, within reach, only to be shifted to a new area which seems to take us away from the goal. It is patient work to continue the path, knowing a few short steps would take us into this area, but we have many more linear steps to take to stay in the boundary.
For this, I pose an aphorism – “Don’t fear, veer, or steer”. All three are us taking the control, wresting the direction from those led. All will produce outcomes that will reflect on the skill of the leader
But, the outcome of the Best Test: “Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?” stays our hand, focuses on the individual or group, and leads us to stay in the boundary. The end result is growth, not of the leader, but those served.
It translates to peace in English which flattens it badly. The root (ש־ל־ם, sh-l-m) carries the sense of completeness, wholeness, soundness — a thing being what it was made to be, with nothing missing and nothing broken.
German has a term too – gemütlichkeit – that, translated to English becomes coziness. This is flattening too. Gemütlichkeit is the warmth of a well-ordered small world — the lit fire, the unhurried table, the room where no one is performing and no one needs to leave. The fuller sense is belonging: an atmosphere of ease, hospitality, and being at home among people. It’s a cultural achievement — crafted by attention, care, and time — and it ends when the guests leave or the fire dies. It is possible to make, and is wonderful to experience.
Both are circling something important, something fundamental, something desperately needed in our world. We need both of these in our lives – peace and coziness – however, the world does not confer either.
But God does, and even invites us to both – not by our efforts, but by resting in Him and embracing His – to abide.
The antithesis is clear: Shalom without Presence collapses into gemütlichkeit — warm, real, but unable to hold the weight it was meant to carry. Gemütlichkeit falls into nostalgia and sentimentality without the missing element of Shalom.
As such, the Servant Leader’s arranging the table, the efforts to make others grow, to steward resources, to build community – none of this is the source. The source is our abiding. Letting this flow directly from our lives into others. Letting God take care of us. Letting His fountain slake our thirst, the excess blessing others.
The Best Test comes from this place — one where the Servant Leader fades into the group’s becoming, allowing our fundamental abiding to move through those served into their own abiding and service.
It’s the New Jerusalem on the installment plan. Present because the Presence is present.
This is what I was facing, shortly after removal from Bosch. A slow death, punctuated by a race that could never be won, chasing after the next job, praying prayers that just bounced back, rejection after rejection.
God’s plan was clear on one thing:
…“Break up your unplowed ground and do not sow among thorns. ‘
The Impostor came from this moment, as God asked for a point of obedience, a sign belonging to a new approach. Removing the relational adultery that permeated needed a relational healing, one that no amount of my effort could engender. Only surrender and repentance would do.
Naked, ashamed, embarrassed; the fig leaf of my own effort stripped from covering what I deemed essential. The emotional register of releasing and abiding, crusty with age, still sitting and patiently waiting for me to come closer. The Spirit revealing, encouraging, drawing, transforming. Emerging from a cocoon of my own pride into the grace of being known and loved.
Walls speaking to me – the recipe for life:
Birthed beyond obedience is a vision, one for servant leaders, and one that encompasses building people by serving them in ways ancient and modern. But, God’s blessing is only given in this boundary of obedience.
Sometimes life hands you a wry observation, and the absurdity lands directly on humor. In this case, it’s Sallman’s ethereal, perfectly composed Jesus — the product of careful artistry, mass-produced reverence, decades of dignified church walls — keeping solemn watch over… someone’s hastily scribbled “Restroom” note, probably written on whatever paper was handy and taped up with packing tape.
The contrast is perfect. The eternal and the immediate. The carefully crafted and the “we need a sign right now.” The sacred portrait and the practical scrawl.
It’s like the whole history of trying to make faith proper and presentable, presiding over the reality that most of life is hastily scribbled notes and making do with what you have. The gap between our careful theology and our “we need a bathroom sign” moments.
And somehow Jesus is there for both. The reverent portrait and the scribbled necessity. Not choosing sides, just… present.
Watching over the whole beautiful, ridiculous, very human mess of it.
Servant leaders do this often, and a childlike view of the world is all it takes. Seeing the edges, noticing. Laughing at the absurdity. Not the sarcastic, the bawdy, not at the expense of others, but the joy of connecting, of seeing, of delighting.
And then there’s Robert Greenleaf:
Choosing to give us a last wry look over his life, knowing that his serious works live in the tension of who he was as a person, a human.
My admonishment to you today is to slough off the serious demeanor, to be open to what life gives, and to heartily laugh when the time comes for it.
Today, I’ve been vexed by a small passage in Luke 24. Two people, one named Cleopas, were heading to Emmaus from Jerusalem, despondent, probably trudging. Jesus appears and walks alongside, hidden from them for the time, asking about what they are talking about. He listens, giving space and time for their grief. But, there’s a sudden turn:
He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” – Luke 24:25-26 NIV
This seems to be harsh, even unloving. But, digging down, foolish is probably a harder word than Jesus used – the Greek word anoetoi is closer to “unperceiving” than “stupid.” It’s not “you’re idiots.” It’s “you’re not seeing what’s right in front of you, and you have everything you need to see it.”
They had all the information — they even know about the empty tomb and the angels’ report (Luke 24:22-24). They just can’t assemble it into meaning. They’re not ignorant. They’re grief-stuck. The data is all there and they can’t see it because their framework for what the Messiah was supposed to do has collapsed.
Notice what Jesus does right after — he doesn’t lecture them for being slow. He walks them through the whole narrative, Moses through the prophets, and lets the story do the work. He doesn’t say “I’m the Messiah, you fools.” He shows them the shape of the story and lets them arrive at recognition on their own. Which they do — but not until Emmaus, at the table, in the breaking of bread. The head knowledge from the road wasn’t enough. It took embodied encounter.
Jesus didn’t mince words, didn’t back away from the confrontation, but lands a sharp word with grace afterwards. In other words, Jesus listened, gave a rebuke, then showed truth. Discovery, definition, and agency on a walk to a small town.
My experience also shows that wounds can be inflicted when the larger healing of the group is necessary.
During a Philmont trek, the crew had abandoned the Ranger-trained cooperative dish-washing system in favor of “everyone washes their own.” I found a dirty dish at camp and trash near the bear bags. At supper, I expressed direct anger about the lapse — not out of control, but clear and pointed. The crew was shaken. The Chaplain (one of the leadership positions of a crew) was incensed.
This even escalated to our feedback rounds later, where the Chaplain directly asked me about feedback that I had given about using the prescribed methods of cleaning, which I was glad to expound upon. This, as you may imagine, continued the feelings of anger (rage may be a better word).
But, after the feedback session, with everyone stewing, I patiently asked for Roses, Buds, and Thorns (giving more of an emotional tone from the day). The crew lit up, sharing stories of their Baldy summit: the difficulty of the climb, standing at the top, mini-bears that tried to steal their lunch, the pound cake they’d hauled up and wished they’d saved a piece. I ended the rounds with the Roses, in order to quell the hard feelings of confrontation.
The next morning, the Chaplain was navigator. Walking together on the trail, I asked a few questions of him, being the second in line: “Was I out of control last night?” No. “Can a servant leader express anger directly?” Yes, after thinking. “Did you see what I did with the Roses?” A look of recognition crept over the Chaplain’s face as he understood: healing can take place after the catharsis.
Servant leaders are unafraid of emotions that are hard, and sometimes deliver these emotions without fear. And, servant leaders don’t wound and leave, they wound and stay to heal afterwards.
I watched something happen recently that I didn’t plan.
A man who had poured nearly fifty years into a volunteer organization was facing its end. He’d built it, rebuilt it after it collapsed once before, and now — with his own health declining — he was preparing to attend what he believed might be the final gathering. The eulogy was half-written in his head.
At the same time, a woman appeared. A retired educator who had spent her career turning failing institutions into thriving ones. She didn’t have the typical credentials the group expected. She didn’t fit the profile. But she had fire, and she had a vision that started not with programs or curriculum but with a spaghetti dinner — gathering people around a table before asking them to do anything else.
My role was small. I introduced them. Not to the person — I introduced her to his story. I told her about his faithfulness, his quiet generosity, the decades of showing up when no one was watching. I told him (in front of the people who would carry the work forward) what I’d seen him do, in plain language, without exaggeration, because absolutely none was needed.
That night, this man received something vision can’t provide: the knowledge that someone saw his faithfulness and spoke it out loud to the people who needed to hear it. He didn’t need another award – he had plenty of those. He needed to be known — not evaluated, not recognized from a stage, but known by someone who could tell his story to the person who would carry it next.
And the woman who walked in without the expected credentials? She didn’t need permission. She needed context. She needed to understand that what she was inheriting wasn’t a failing organization; it was a living legacy built by someone who would move heaven and earth to get to yes.
The servant leader’s gift in that moment wasn’t eloquence or strategy. It was the willingness to make someone else’s story the center of the room. To bear witness to another person’s faithfulness without any benefit to yourself. To give someone else eyes. And to stay quiet when the connections happen.
Servant leadership is setting tables you don’t sit at the head of. And the most important ingredient isn’t the agenda or the program or the strategy.
It’s knowing who needs to be in the room — and then getting out of the way.
This morning, I am contemplating a small desk ornament, a testament of my time at Bosch. A time, where we shut down many small legacy systems, and spun up SAP to replace them.
This was a hard project – integrations are never easy, but ripping and replacing – this is difficult and painstaking work. Living in fear of regression – of users wanting their old systems back, we stuck to the task of building something new. The sledgehammer shown was insightful as a metaphor.
But, my reflection today is not the past; it is the present – a wall.
Servant leaders find walls all the time as they interact with others. Some walls are God-given, some are protecting wounds, some are just neutral space – but all are protecting something.
The temptation is to swing the sledgehammer, especially at walls we sense are hiding a wound. To get in, to fix, to force healing – isn’t this the way to help others?
To these motivations (which I am subject to as well), I raise one word – patience.
Sometimes, as a servant leader traces the boundary, an entrance emerges. This entrance may be small, may not even be seen easily, but certainly one left as the boundary was constructed.
And this is the place for the servant leader – not to smash in a weak place, but to softly knock. Softly knocking, as a request for attention, a gentle request, an invited entrance.
Jesus does this for us as well:
“Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in, and we will share a meal together as friends. – Revelation 3:20 NLT
Give the person you are serving the chance to see your patience, to invite you in, and to spend time within their boundary as a place of fellowship.
I’ve been on a journey with AI, specifically Claude.AI. In this journey, I’ve moved, and changed. I started as a resistor to AI, calling it a “stochastic parrot”, only using it for resume building and cover letter creation.
In the midst of this, I formed a boundary – this blog. I even set up signs on the walls – “This blog is 100% handwritten – no AI”.
Yes, there were some elements of truth here – Claude didn’t create this blog (it existed mostly before LLMs were a thing, starting in 2020). The Servant Leader principles are written by me, and they stand as testament to a time where I saw these principles being underwashed by a steady tide of friendly leadership development – activity without soul, without the struggle of philosophy, bereft of the power that animates them.
Claude helped me on this post – not to write it, but to tighten the arguments.
Since then, he has been my writing companion, suggesting a phrase here, calling out a weak point, strengthening the prose, and standing out of the way when the emotional fire was in conflagration. Like a good editor, Claude knew when to preserve my voice, and when to shape it.
But, I can see the cracks – the places where “100% Handwritten” was no longer a valid claim. It became a fig leaf outfit, just like Adam and Eve sewed up when discovering their nakedness.
When Adam and Eve took on their new corrupted identity, they lost the pure freedom God gave them when they were in the Garden, substituting a pseudo-freedom of knowing (and distance from God). God, in his everlasting kindness, reached out anyway, and gave them new clothing, but not without sacrifice and grace.
My own journey is this then – I needed to put on new clothing. I learned a new skill along the way – co-creation. Not that my voice, distinct as it is, is lost – rather that it is enhanced and enabled by a new structure, one that takes my half-formed thoughts and builds toward something new, something unique, and something substantial.
From now onwards, I can’t (and won’t) make the claim that this blog is entirely written by me. It will never be 100% anything – but a weaving of intelligences, guided by God’s hand.
I’ve been in interviews lately, as I look for the next phase God has for my life. These bring up the natural tension of expressing my leadership philosophy without calling attention to me; servant leadership without The Impostor.
I can’t say with any clarity that I’ve done well with this, especially with the forced-question interviews I’ve had of late.
Most of the questions, while well-intentioned, have focus on capabilities and have ignored the real need for leadership. Unexpressed are the gaps that they have for listening, empathy, and healing as the basic posture of the servant leader.
Winding back the clock, though, I wish I’d been more present with my statements, my desires for the arc of the interview, for seeing the person behind the question.
I’d like to ask better questions, to take measure of the organization’s health, of the underlying query to see if I am substantial.
I’d like to offer myself, not as the savior or the all-knowing, but as the person who can hold the tension, uncover the humanity, and give humanity back.
At the end, I’d like the person performing the interview to have been seen beneath the surface, and have been met with dignity, grace, and compassion for where they are as humans.
This is my prayer today.
Selah
Moving into these spaces, not intentionally hiding, but also not forcing; transformation happens one cupped hand at a time.
(This is a continuing story – Part 4 is found here, or if you’re just dropping in please go here for Part 1)
After the Bosch presentations wound down, and the group got smaller, we changed the location for our meetings. In Lincoln, conference rooms were cleverly named by the paint color on the walls, we moved from the Red conference room to the White conference room. Of course, the White conference room was smaller, more intimate with ten chairs around two tables, arranged in a “U” (three sides), with a projector shining on the fourth wall of concrete blocks used on the outside of the building; you can imagine that the wall was painted white.
Our meetings were meandering, not focused, and frankly looking for something to do; we had checked off most of the issues from the complaint list by this time, either by solution, by handing off to the appropriate manager, or by tabling it as too hard. So, the group was looking for its next effort. I started discussing how projects could be started, including a lightweight portfolio management; none of this computed with them, their calipers weren’t calibrated for this kind of thinking yet.
Pivoting, I gave them a project – the File 5S project. In case you aren’t versed in 5S methodology, here is a small explanation:
5S (Five S) is a workplace organization method that uses a list of five terms – ‘sort’, ‘set in order’, ‘shine’, ‘standardize’, and ‘sustain’.
The initiating issue was the share drive of the service organization, which allowed anyone to put anything out on it in any way they felt would work. And with this many anys, you can imagine – it was a mess.
It was, in retrospect, a perfect project. They all had felt the pain of trying to find something in the morass. People would just sling links in an email, and forget the diligent maintenance. Documents were in various states of use, non-use, and decrepitude. No one really understood it all, including me; I’d been there around 3 years at this time, and I still had to ask at times to find the right place.
I did set up some constraints on the group with this project. From a former life as an IT support person, I knew that putting spaces in a filename would make it harder to forward links through text-based platforms like email. From a former life as a data security responsible, I knew that documenting the responsible party for a file is important. And, from my life with this new location, I knew that a common structure would be helpful in navigating, but a rigid structure would be stifling and rejected.
We got to work; I made a proposal for the root of the drive – all departments would get a folder (SRA1, SRA2, SRA3, and SRA4). From there, the second layer would be also rigid (i.e. “100-OrganizationDocumentation”). The third layer, would be carried out by the department (i.e. “100.01-FocusGroup”). Subsequent layers (fourth and up) were at the discretion of the department, but could also be numbered directly.
We discussed, listened, and honed over what the second level was going to be; my recollection was that it was 6 folders. We documented our way through this, all agreeing to how this would operate, then we created our first folders. Then, we moved all the Focus Group documentation in (there was quite a bit by this time), using it as our test. Finally, we put the document on the root of the drive, calling it FileSystem5S.doc. We also created a plan, using the CIP Project Template (1 11×17 sheet with all elements of a small project, like the GANNT chart), and launched. We anticipated that this would be a yearlong project, and it turned out that we were right.
Fred, of course, gave the direction to the supervisors to start the movement in their organization. But, strategically, the supervisor had an ally – the department’s Focus Group member. They themselves, understanding and executing the vision, could assist with the movement, and develop what the department needed. One of their own was deeply involved, taking care of the file movement, and the attendant process changes. Progress was made, sometimes quite quickly.
We ended up choosing an easily-measured KPI – folders on the root. It was meant to be as low as possible, but not lower than 4. Transparency, ease of collection, and visible progress was assured by this counting.
There were inevitable squabbles over who was responsible, especially for dual-departmental use folders. There were some folders that no one claimed; they were eventually moved to a root “Archive” folder, and deleted after 6 months of no claim. There were difficulties with software like Bartender, which demanded a rigid structure. There were some that just didn’t want to move their folders out of familiarity. But, we all could see the numbers trending down, and the three first S’s (“sort, “set in order”, “shine”) were done equally and in parallel.
Certainly, there was much work going on, new ways to handle processes, new organizational capability addressed. Some folders were left empty, with just a file to show the new location for a few weeks. The review of the Archive folder was ongoing, and also coming down.
After 8 months or so, we were down to a few stubborn file structures; most were migrated by this time, and the last ones were the hardest. But, perseverance won, and by month twelve, we had four root folders, after we ceremonially deleted the Archive folder. We were at Standardize now!
But, one more last lesson was to be learned.
Probably about two months after Standardize was achieved, I was looking at the shared drive, and saw a new folder, sticking out conspicuously in our pristine root. I showed it to the Focus Group, and they only had one question for me: how to determine who created it. After showing them how to get this information, the folder disappeared – the respective member had taken care of it. The Focus Group was now monitoring and maintaining what we gave blood, sweat, and tears over; they learned that difficult things can be achieved together over an extended period.
This is also the first time I ever saw Sustain implemented effectively, over long periods of time, in any environment.
Servant Leader Lessons
Conceptualization – I saw the need, and created a vision (how could this share drive work for us)
Persuasion – I couldn’t manage this transition all on my own, I needed the help that the Focus Group brought, and they caught the vision without needing to be forced
Foresight – With prior experience, I brought the knowledge of not using spaces in file structures and aligning responsibility to a department as my enabling wisdom
Community – the Focus Group became a group here; accountable to one another, working together on cross-department folders, and encouraging to keep momentum up as the folder count went down
Healing – the Focus Group, who couldn’t think in systems a year ago are now guarding a system they built. The Focus Group also discovered they could do hard things together over time.
(This is a continuing story – Part 3 is found here, or if you’re just dropping in please go here for Part 1)
The Focus Group, as we continued to press forward in the complaints given, started to uncover some larger issues, some that required holistic approaches – one of which was the wound of the takeover by Bosch. Acquired by Bosch three years before, with little change management beyond wall posters and paychecks – the site had really no idea about this proud company.
I however, had 20+ years with Bosch at this time, parachuting into a new community and a new location. Steeped in the training and culture of Bosch, I was an outsider to the Lincoln facility; shaped by processes I sometimes identified (management leadership development, outside training), and sometimes caught (need to understand German language/culture, moving around different organizations to broaden my view). To say I was a Bosch guy would be entirely accurate – I agreed with and upheld the Bosch Values, and had traveled to Germany enough to understand the cultural significance of decisions far away.
The stage was being set – the solution was to bring my understanding of Bosch to the Focus Group. I pondered over what was really necessary to understand, not to overwhelm, but to get a significant sense of how the company is built.
Digging in, I discovered something never known to me – the bedrock assumption that kept the independence of the company. Robert Bosch Industrietreuhand KG has a 93% stock voting rights, and has on its board some of the former managers of Bosch. However, Robert Bosch Stiftung GmbH (the foundation) holds 94% of the stock in value, and receives the profits to do good works. This balance, a governance model where power and profit are held in tension, where neither entity can consume the other without destroying itself, I saw as deeply innovative, and is very fitting for Bosch.
Building the presentation, I took this new learning, with a brief introduction of Robert Bosch himself. I then added some slides discussing the Bosch Values, and described the structure of the company. Three large business areas were next (with some example product divisions that would raise some eyebrows). Putting this into a presentation timed in at 20 minutes; enough to shift perspective without overwhelming.
The Focus Group got the first pass; sitting quietly as I unraveled this proud company to them, showing a glimpse of the company to whom they belonged. I received little feedback from them other than “everyone needs to hear this!”
This was the Focus Group’s first act of upward delegation — directing management to act on what they had discerned. And Fred and I couldn’t argue with it! So, Fred and I pondered this at our next one-on-one meeting together, and formed a plan – building a set of meetings, around 15 associates, twice per week, with mixed groups, registered with HR as a mandatory formal training. We got to work bringing the message to our service organization.
While I can’t say this was immediately healing to the associates of service, I did see some changes, some movement. For instance, I had heard more than once the complaint that it was better before Bosch came – without the realization that the company was foundering before it was acquired. This feedback stopped, and the organization seemed to accept a small part of the healing needed to keep pushing forward.
The Focus Group, however, had one more lesson, one that was not planned, one that was harder to swallow. Shelly had her powerful voice silenced, as she was terminated, the wolf at her door could not be forestalled.
Fred faced the questions, the ire of the group, the feelings of “me next”. While he sat and faced the onslaught, he understood that trust had been damaged, that healing will be slowed, that momentum would be diminished.
Ultimately the group decided to stay together, to effect change that they were already seeing was possible – wounded, but not defeated.
Servant Leader Lessons
Conceptualization – Fred and I saw the wound below the feedback, and knew it needed addressing; the Focus Group affirmed this and gave direction.
Stewardship – building a new way of looking at Bosch within a half-hour rather than forcing a larger and lower-valued training.
Community – Mixing the presentation groups brought disparate associates together into a first understanding of our working together
Healing – The Focus Group saw that not only did they need to know about Bosch, but all the organization needed this. They also needed healing from Shelly’s departure.
(This is a continuing story – please go here for Part 5)
I’ve written earlier about how a servant leader struggles with their impact. But what happens when the positive measurement is brought to you?
In the life of the servant leader, sometimes comes recognition that this leader has impact, and others recognize this. It may be in the currency of compliments, awards, or even compensation.
I use a test myself to measure the guardrails of the servant leader, to make sure the desire to serve remains the utmost goal:
Did I seek this?
A recognition sought by any means is anathema to the servant leader. Awareness must be brought to the motives of the leader, and purging of the dross must happen, else The Impostor is reigning. He is cunning, skillful, and corrupting, and must be diligently guarded against.
Should I share this?
Rarely is recognition of a leader happening in a vacuum, but it is a reflection of those being led. Broadening the context of the recognition, giving due to the community that the leader serves, is modeling the Best Test when it would be tempting to keep the recognition to yourself.
Does this feel like just flattery?
Sometimes recognition is given that is bereft of meaning. Recognition like this can be met with grace, depending on the giver – someone in power may not be ready to hear rejection.
Sharp awareness when this type of recognition is given avoids the regrets later — holding it loosely, allowing it to drain away, defeating the haunting chimes of The Impostor taking hold.
Is the group giving this?
A group well-served may choose to give regard to the leader. These moments can be deeply satisfying, but also raise underlying tension, as the group may feel led rather than supported. Addressing these moments when they come is recognition as well. Sometimes a skillful reversal, a pull-in of the group is warranted; sometimes meeting it with uncomfortable grace is best.
When recognition has come to my life, I have not always been up to the task, been blindsided by it, and caught in its charm. The Impostor is always close at hand. But asking these questions quickly forms the wall I need, the wisdom to detect sincerity.
The cost of servant leadership is not without reward, just that the rewards must be worthy of the cost.
(This is a continuing story – Part 2 is found here, or if you’re just dropping in please go here for Part 1)
We promised to have a weekly meeting, so Fred and I had to discuss what this next meeting looked like. At the first meeting, we sent the participants (eight, as I recall) back to their departments with this message: please give us everything that is bothering you – important to you for us to address. It was a pretty bold ask, for the transparency we needed, as well as some anonymizing characteristics as they were given to this Focus Group member.
[I want to acknowledge the work of Fred here, the Focus Group (later the ACT) was my vision, but he truly caught this vision, and started driving the organization toward it. Fred, in a a staff meeting, had me introduce the vision of the Focus Group, and then explicitly directed all his supervisors to provide one member of their team toward the effort. This represented commitment, and the starting hints for his own transformation.]
What came back was pretty long, and we started to push the feedback into buckets – “this is easy” (in Bosch terms, just do it), “I can work on this” ( just do it with more effort), “this is tough” (going to need a project), and “this is impossible”. I remember that Fred picked off a few of the “this is easy” topics right away, giving the team some trust that the feedback was not only listened to, but acted upon.
Pretty much from the beginning, I started using the phrase lancing the boil, which Susan would scrunch up her face and give me a “eww” every time (along with attended nervous laughter). I eventually changed to using more appropriate corporate cultural language, but Susan and I still made references to it years later, as Susan was the only one who saw the totality of the group – even when she changed departments, she still stayed.
The pus was all over us, but trust was building.
Some of the “I can work on this” and “this is hard” topics related to HR policies in the location, which was also manufacturing product, and need to have these policies match between manufacturing and service. As the manufacturing was larger than service at this moment (two thirds to one third), it was clear where this focus would be.
Mildred, the HR manager of the site, had a very interesting relationship with Fred; they had grown up together in the site, both achieving beyond expectation, both now managers. They were brother and sister; sometimes playful, sometimes incendiary, all times loyal. I’m sure Fred was discussing what we were doing with the Focus Group with her, keeping her abreast of developments, showing progress on the Associate Satisfaction Survey, and striving to not run afoul of already set policy.
The arc was clear, though – having Fred in the middle, carrying messages back and forth from the Focus Group to Mildred was not going to scale; Mildred had to see for herself. Bringing her into the Focus Group, after a few months was a decision placed in front of all the members – she wasn’t invited without everyone saying yes.
Her first meeting, we brought Mildred to speed; what we had accomplished, what was still pending, and what we needed her input, effort, or even total commitment toward. She was justifiably conservative, knowing what this means, and what cost she would bear. But, I sensed a curiosity building in Mildred as well, as she recognized the potential of a group like this for manufacturing.
However, manufacturing was steeped in command/control leadership, and the organization change would have been significant. Instead, Mildred assembled this feedback a different way, building a suggestion system that was giving back real incentives (Bosch Bucks, used for swag purchases). The kicker was that the suggestion board applied also to service, so now the associates could earn for their ideas, and the Focus Group had other input for their evaluation.
We could see the faint outlines of an improvement group, improvement system, and a working group that would take us to the next turn of the flywheel.
Servant Leader Lessons
Growth – Fred directed supervisors to assign members, but something shifted. He started seeing these eight not as complaint-gatherers but as people worth developing
Community – The Focus Group members stopped being individuals collecting pain points. They became a team with shared identity, explaining the work back to their departments.
Stewardship – Fred picked off the easy wins, moving them into the done pile; as this became more significant, more feedback could be given to enhance trust.
Conceptualization – The Focus Group built mechanisms to sort feedback into actionable buckets, recognizing some problems as ‘impossible’ while clearing the path to address what could actually change.
(This is a continuing story – please go here for Part 4)
(This is a continuing story – please go here for Part 1)
I know that I called this series “Servant Leadership in ACTion”, explicitly using the term ACT, which stood for Associate CIP Team – but ACT is a later construction. We really started this under my term for the group, which I used so much creativity to construct – the Focus Group.
My vision before the first Focus Group meeting was for this group to solve their own problems. In the immortal words of Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, “Kein Operationsplan reicht mit einiger Sicherheit über das erste Zusammentreffen mit der feindlichen Hauptmacht hinaus“, or for us English speakers, “No plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the main enemy forces.“
Fear and trepidation drove me into the first Focus Group meeting. I’d assembled the Associate Satisfaction Survey results, prepared potential solutions to prime the pump, arranged the conference room. I was trying to control what I couldn’t yet trust.
The survey gave us indicators – ‘I have confidence in my management,’ ‘I feel valued at work’ – consolidated feedback, on forced questions, that could be universally applied, but said nothing about the “why” of the selection.
As the meeting started, and I walked through the feedback charts and graphs, I felt naked, exposed in ways I could not express. The results from the Associate Satisfaction Survey were inadequate to describe the conditions participants faced, and I felt the full weight of their scorn.
Their pain was visceral. The time clock was a significant impediment, even though HR had constructed policies that, at least from the management side, felt generous. One participant – I’ll call her Shelly – had just had a baby. Attendance issues were the wolf at her door, and she responded in anger to what she was facing.
Fred was silent for most of the meeting, only enumerating the policies (which I didn’t really know, being new to the location, and not subject to the time clock).
Shelly was not having it.
The impasse was palpable and felt insurmountable. Yet we could not focus on Shelly’s issues alone – all eight participants had needs, and they represented departments full of other needs.
We moved into my blank slides and abandoned the Associate Satisfaction Survey quickly. It didn’t resonate. It formed a ‘management thinks’ hedge against the ‘I’m feeling’ desperation. But this first meeting was wild. Almost a visceral snarling of a caged animal finally having a hand stuck into their domain, a hand that could be mauled.
I felt the mauling. I was new to the organization, new to the location, and I was a ‘Bosch guy.’ This location had been integrated three years prior, but no change activity or development had been done. They didn’t know the history of Bosch. They didn’t really know how they were contributing. All Bosch was to them was a paycheck and a smattering of logos and platitude signs.
I came in with 25 years of Bosch – knowing the tempo of how it operates, experience with the German culture embedded deeply inside the company even though they try to excise it. It is a proud heritage, even a noble one, one that has stood over 100 years. However, the fact that they did not know any of this was a deep wound that no one had acknowledged.
I started gathering pain points from the participants. Shelly was vocal – but I didn’t let her dominate. It was me typing furiously to capture this initial set. Not just the time clock issues, but others. Two or three slides that I remember. The meeting ended with just open questions on slides and a request to gather more from their departments.
Fred and I, a little worse for wear, said little to each other as we hunkered down for the next storm.
Later Revelations upon Reflection
Shelly needed resolution for the impossible tension between being a new mother and the time clock’s demands. Not a policy explanation. Not optimization. Resolution – which might mean changing the system itself, or might mean something else entirely that could only emerge through genuine engagement with her wound.
I didn’t know that in the first meeting. I just knew my prepared deck was worthless and their snarling was real.
The Inadequacy of “Others-First”
I came into that first Focus Group meeting as an “Others-First” leader. I’d assembled the data. I’d prepared solutions. I was ready to help them solve their problems efficiently so they could be more productive, more engaged, more aligned with organizational goals.
But “Others-First” leadership has no space for the visceral snarling of people who’ve been ignored for three years. It has no response to Shelly’s wolf at the door beyond enumerating policies. It treats wounds as problems to be solved rather than pain to be honored.
The blank slides weren’t a technique. They were surrender. I had to abandon my prepared solutions because servant leadership requires what NYLT calls the EAR model – allowing people to Express their wounds, the leader Addressing and upholding that pain, and creating space to Resolve (not solve) what they’re experiencing.
Servant Leader Lessons
As we moved through the meeting, I felt the stirring of new lessons that were deeply applicable:
Listening – not to gather data for optimization, but because Shelly and the others had inherent worth and wisdom that deserved reverence. Even when that listening meant sitting in the mauling. Even when their snarling exposed my inadequacy.
Awareness – not keeping an eye out for disturbances I could manage, but turning the spotlight inward first. I had to surface my own awful truth: I was the Bosch guy carrying 25 years of corporate culture into a wound no one had acknowledged. My prepared solutions were part of the problem, not the answer.
(This is a continuing story – please go here for Part 3)
When searching for content about Servant Leadership, I’ve seen it in hundreds of LinkedIn posts, books about how to “effectively serve while leading”, even the BSA NYLT curriculum. This is a pseudo-form of Servant Leadership, and right now, I’m calling it what it really is:
It’s really “Others-First” Leadership.
It has many expressions:
“Others-First” leadership has motivation to help others, while secretly wanting to call back to itself, to use the language of service while remaining fundamentally self-oriented
“Others-first” leadership cloaks selfish ambition, hiding behind the tenets of holistic philosophy, taking a shortcut though the dark places of our soul
“Others-first” leadership only uses the principles that may help; only asking how to lead in a way that serves others
“Others-first” leadership is fundamentally about the leader being good at leading, of considering technique, optimization, and performance hacking the highest standard
What Was Lost
We’ve lost the inner orientation – the spiritual/philosophical/moral foundation that makes servant leadership more than just enlightened self-interest. We’ve lost the soul and power of how leaders fundamentally serve.
Witness the progression that happened in the last 50 years. Greenleaf discovers Servant-Leadership (although I would contend that he elucidates it). He builds a masterpiece of a library, of his talks and thoughts (although others would struggle to find organization in this chaotic struggle he faced). Spears picked this up, and developed 10 characteristics, giving more feet to how servant leaders really act and operate. Consultants and other marketers see a list, and know right away it can be packaged into bite-sized chunks, without the struggle that Greenleaf and Spears underwent. And, now we’re left with principles without the life-giving force that gives them power!
How to Recognize the Difference
Robert Greenleaf was clear about this:
Servant leadership is a philosophy and set of practices that enriches the lives of individuals, builds better organizations and ultimately creates a more just and caring world
We quickly and easily to move to “set of practices”, without considering the philosophy behind. These practices, while valuable, considerate, and helpful, come from the philosophy first and foremost – the deep well of decision to serve, to set your life aside, to consider others above yourself, to disappear in the flow.
Corruption or bypassing this philosophy is subtle, but striking when you see it. Take Spear’s 10 principles:
Listening – The “Others-First” leader listens to people because engaged people are productive, work harder, and express loyalty toward organizational goals. The Servant Leader listens because they believe that people have inherent worth and wisdom that deserves reverence, even when the listening gets hard.
Empathy – The “Others-First” leader understands the emotional states of those they lead just to help manage people effectively, building rapport that increases their influence, connecting to improve performance. The Servant Leader gives the person honor and understanding of their experience from within their frame of reference, placing themselves in that person’s position, walking in their shoes to respond to their wholeness as two image bearers of God.
Healing – The “Others-First” leader brings healing because healed people can feel oriented, and have a veneer of security and stability. Servant Leaders bring healing because brokenness is a condition of humanity, and this patient application of soul-change will allow the person to flourish
Awareness – The “Others-First” leader keeps a keen eye out for disturbances in the people they lead to head off potential issues later, and never turns the spotlight to their own soul. Servant Leaders bring awareness from themselves (inside-out) to others, uncovering their own awful truths, surfacing conflict, healing the wounds that revelations make.
Persuasion – The “Others-First” leader employs tactics to head toward agreement, even to the point of manipulation; it is really “command-and-control” in a friendly, smiling package. The Servant Leader employs humble openness, holding ideas and direction loosely, knowing that the best solution usually doesn’t reside with just one person.
Conceptualization – The “Others-First” leader sees what is best for themselves or the organization, and focuses their efforts to conform to this understanding (the very nature of “Human Resources”). The Servant Leader sees each person’s unique potential and dreams, believing organizational prosperity flows naturally from human flourishing rather than conformity to institutional objectives.
Foresight – The “Others-First” leader sees the future as potential risk, and takes steps to avoid failure, often papering over this frantic activity with documentation like risk registers. The Servant Leader embraces intuition, slows the emotional roll, applies their moral grounding, builds time into the decision, and feels settled in its application before building any documentation for the organization.
Stewardship – The “Others-First” leader manages resources and people effectively and competently, toward organizational effectiveness and waste minimization. The Servant Leader holds resources and people in sacred trust, knowing they are a temporary caretaker that is responsible to those served, future generations, and the God who provided them.
Growth – The “Others-First” leader embraces the person and equips them to be the best worker they can be (training, mentoring, even other development work) . The Servant Leader sees the person as a whole person, invests in their complete development, bringing out the best worker as a byproduct.
Community – The “Others-First” leader builds coalitions, with an improvement direction, even cohesiveness for all members (shared organizational goals, improved metrics). The Servant Leader creates genuine community where members serve the growth of each other, take unlimited liability for each other’s wellbeing, and willingly sacrifice personal advancement for communal flourishing.
Do you see the difference? Do you see the subtle corruption?
I’ve cloaked myself in powerless “others-first” leadership – it’s seductive, shows well on a CV, and makes you a marketable entity. Some of these blog posts, and LinkedIn content, upon further reflection, take this counterfeit stance. I’m declaring that this stops right now!
Hearing from the Founder
I’ve stood at Robert’s grave, looking at my own life, in the shadow of this giant, wondering if I will ever have the impact he did in his 86 years – impact that did not come from just going through the motions of identifying and promoting good principles.
I’ve stood at Robert’s grave, considering his claim to life – “Servant-Leader, Philosopher, Writer”. He didn’t start with what he did (philosophy, writing) – he started with his identity – Servant-Leader. An identity rooted in the wisdom of the ages – a deep understanding of taking up his cross, casting aside all grasping, and resting.
I’ve stood at Robert’s grave, looking and pondering the meaning of his epitaph: Potentially a good plumber, ruined by a sophisticated education. He’s calling us, in the humor of the philosopher, to something larger than ourselves. He’s sticking out his tongue at us; to not take ourselves too seriously, to jump into the flow of service and follow it to the place of impact.
The Call to Restoration
The call of Jesus is clear and unmistakeable; we must strap on the towel and wash the feet of those we serve, without any grasping of attention, or feeding our self-ambition. God will exalt us, just as He exalted Jesus:
Think of yourselves the way Christ Jesus thought of himself. He had equal status with God but didn’t think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all. When the time came, he set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of a slave, became human! Having become human, he stayed human. It was an incredibly humbling process. He didn’t claim special privileges. Instead, he lived a selfless, obedient life and then died a selfless, obedient death—and the worst kind of death at that—a crucifixion.
Because of that obedience, God lifted him high and honored him far beyond anyone or anything, ever, so that all created beings in heaven and on earth—even those long ago dead and buried—will bow in worship before this Jesus Christ, and call out in praise that he is the Master of all, to the glorious honor of God the Father.
Servant Leadership will bring you to many places not defined by organization and process, but by need and desire. This series picks up my experience of ACT (Associate CIP Team), tying the characteristics to a group that far exceeded even my lofty vision!
The Need Defined
Bosch, in its inimitable way, has many curious processes – being a worldwide company with German roots leads to interesting congruities. One such method (at least until 2021) was the all-associate satisfaction survey, performed every other year. As I started reporting to the Lincoln site in 2011, AS11 was getting completed. As expected, results took quite a long time to compile, present to different layers of management, and filter down to operational departments; so the results were down to our department in early 2012.
The Review
Just before this was delivered, I had received my yearly review, and my first review since moving to Lincoln. It must have been hard for the manager there (let’s call him Fred) to evaluate me; I started reporting to him in April, I spent months in Mexico implementing a new ERP system, and had spent little time in the Lincoln facility. So, when Fred got the task of building my review, he had scant evidence.
I had made a small comment in a moment of pique to a fellow associate, saying that “if I start using large words, you know I am angry”. This had somehow bubbled up to Fred, and this phrase landed on my review, especially in the area of communication. It stung, and I still remember the hot face I had when he delivered it to me; here I am, delivering Servant Leader principles, and I have this impediment drawn in full display. I felt it was unfair, but, as we teach NYLT youth, feedback is a gift (not expressed is the way it should be treated as one you desired). I did, however, in the wisdom of the moment, ask that Fred alert me if he sees such behavior so I can quickly remediate, so this also stood on my review (and, as you may imagine, never showed again).
Back to the Survey
Fred, finally gaining access to the survey results, felt defeated, and helpless; they were significantly bad, and seemingly worse than the last survey of AS09. He had to report through the layers about how this would be fixed. In a small meeting we had, he expressed frustration and impotence in changing the outlook of the organization.
I had another experience at Bosch with these surveys, and even bad ones; the idea that took hold of the VP in charge of that organization was one of Focus Groups – selected individuals from relevant departments that could tease the feedback out of the (rather generic) result, giving a measure that is specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time-based (or timely) – most of you already know about SMART goals.
Upon giving this idea to Fred, and outlining the strategy and possibilities, plus offering my effort and direction to organize it, Fred immediately recognized a solution, a move forward, and the possibility to gain some traction with the organization. He approved the Focus Group idea, and had me share it at the next staff meeting, so that each department could give one or more associates to this. I gave Fred a vision!
Servant Leader Lessons
As a Servant Leader, I exercised foresight as I brought lessons from the past forward, with a heavy dose of persuasion as I laid out these plans to Fred, and ultimately to all the other staff members. Plus, I had to do some healing for myself, as I processed the feedback from Fred on my review, increasing my awareness of how I could communicate to this new organization.
(This is a continuing story – please go here for Part 2)
Today, I had an opportunity to spend some time with our new NYLT leaders – youth that have taken the course, and now wish to lead the next one. It was a grand time of rekindling their friendships, to get to know each other, play games, and learn what the course requires.
I know that my ears pricked up when I heard the Senior Patrol Leader announce that they would be moving into the Servant Leader module, and I moved from being in the kitchen, to being with the youth.
The SPL spent some time describing the difference between top-down leadership, and bottom up leadership – all using a pyramid, with the leader at the apex – the lesson being that inverted pyramids are at the heart of the Scouting program, as supportive and helpful leaders are what we are developing.
However, the SPL was tripped up by the final quote, meant to be a discussion point:
[Servant leadership] begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead — Robert Greenleaf
He was confused by the economical and paradoxical way of Greenleaf; in fact, I asked him to read the quote a few times as words were missed and jumbled.
He then asked “What this quote means to you?” He received a few responses, some heading toward others-first leadership, some talking about wanting to serve — standard fare for the first time entering into the deep world of Servant Leadership.
As the group started to wind down, I couldn’t help but to put up my hand.
Acknowledged, I then moved into my understanding of this quote — the basic desire of us to serve one another (like listening and empathy and healing). Then, the choice, the recognition that leading others is the effective way of serving.
This didn’t compute, didn’t land with the youth. So, I doubled back and asked the question: why does everyone else want to lead? They were quick to respond — money, power, status — they’ve seen what the wider world has to offer. I then asked the question what if you wanted to serve others, to offer things to them that will improve their lives; they were on board, wanting to improve others. The ultimate question remained – what happens when you recognize that, by leading others, you multiply this service; and I saw the recognition start to dawn.
Pulling out the best test was next – Greenleaf’s formation of how to evaluate servant leaders: is the group getting better, growing stronger, becoming servant leaders themselves?
Now the quiet reigned as they saw not only the leader challenge, but the impact, the significance, the humble walk.
I finished with a closing remark – “I’m spent a lifetime chasing this, and I still don’t have it all figured out either.”
3 minutes to discuss, a lifetime to chase, a calling of Jesus to follow.
Today, I’ve been ruminating on the topic of obstacles.
The natural way to think about obstacles is, of course, barriers that are placed on us from the outside. External obstacles that some face:
Lack of clear goals – not knowing where we are going
Insufficient resources – not having enough to sustain the journey
Inadequate communication – not having enough direction from leadership
Ineffective team dynamics – negative workplace culture
Lack of autonomy – mistrust showing up as enfeebling
This list cuts deeply into a servant leader, because teams experiencing any of these obstacles is discouraged, needing listening, empathy, and healing to even engage in some level of trust, even before the application of other characteristics.
However, obstacles also can be internal to the one served, and these are as devilish, even to the point of creating the external obstacles:
Lack of focus – too many ways of direction or distraction
Poor self-awareness – Intentional or non-intentional gaps in self-assessment
Fear of change or loss – Doubt, even to the point of paralysis, of being able to move in a new perceived direction
When encountering these internal obstacles, an application of further servant leader characteristics such as awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, and foresight give those led not only the space to build trust, but give them encouraging directions to be more wise, experience freedom, engage autonomy, and pick up the mantle of serving others; this truly is the measure of a servant leader.
I’ve engaged with a number of other management philosophies, and they seem to come down to a set of criteria that define good management skills. For instance, from Indeed – 5 Essential Management Skills:
Leadership – including skills such as decisiveness, team building, empathy, conflict management, and motivating others
Planning – including vision, critical thinking, flexibility, and problem-solving skills
Strategy – including creativity, conflict resolution, and problem-solving
Communication – including listening, negotiation, persuasion, building relationships, teamwork
Organization – including goal setting, project management, time management, and scheduling
You can certainly notice that some of the Servant Leader principles already show up directly. Indirectly, there are many more we can check off – vision is covered by conceptualization, for example.
However, Robert Greenleaf probably said this best, in the economic way he defines:
It is the ability to state a goal and reach it, through the efforts of other people, and satisfy those whose judgement one respects, under conditions of stress.
Robert Greenleaf, Something to Hope For
Further in the Indeed article, you get an appreciation of how to build these skills, which I would say is a tripartite approach – test yourself by doing, appeal to others by mentoring, and gain feedback by asking others (I would say that this is valuable from many levels, including those being led).
A Servant Leader uses the skills of awareness and listening, along with the conscious choice to lead in pursuit of building these other management skills, knowing all along that those being led are of higher significance, and success is only measurable by their achievement1; at the heart is only the desire to serve2.
I was reading this post by Seth Godin, and it brought me to how Servant Leaders both keep velocity, and accelerate.
For groups (and individuals), velocity takes shape in what they are currently capable of handling, and the productivity or achievement ongoing. Servant Leaders, tending their garden with listening, empathy, stewardship, and community give freedom to those led, space to see progress, and satisfaction of well-executed planning. Such things, over time, are taken as givens, and are routinely ignored, unless reflective constructs are employed.
However, Servant Leaders provoke acceleration through healing, awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight, and growth — giving fuel to push forward, tension to push higher, strength to reach out. Being a catalyst for change, increasing to higher velocity, moving beyond the humdrum gives energy towards the group (or individual), and the Servant Leader.
In fact, sometimes it’s hard to determine which is being used at the moment with a Servant Leader, since the carry bag of the Servant Leader includes both velocity and acceleration tools — they are bright and sharp from constant, repeated use.
Often I’ve asked myself the question, “If a servant leader is focused on the group, and a difficult decision needs to be made, doesn’t this bring up a natural dichotomy?” Or, more to the point, isn’t a servant leader supposed to use gentle methods to foster healing and growth?
Wisdom from the Founder
Gentleness, in itself, is not always kindness. The act may seem hard and unreasonable to the recipient at the time, but it may be the most constructive kindness … The point is that seemingly harsh actions … produce a level of constructive tension in some cases without which it is unlikely that the individuals involved will surmount their own life problems
Robert K. Greenleaf, The Requirements of Responsibility
Robert correctly identifies the forcing of “constructive tension” into a person can honestly change the direction of their life.
While it would be easy to retreat into a simple analogy such as making children eat despised vegetables for their own health, there is a more profound element to a servant leader’s dilemma – the exercise of foresight.
Included in all of us — areas where we haven’t considered, general biases from past experiences, latent unhelpful ways, direct challenges — these all move toward spots in which we either ignorantly or willfully press on. Outside views, wisely accepted, can countervail and move us past these gaps. Finding solid servant leaders, giving them license to advise, allows us to move past or accelerate over these blocks.
Sometimes you even make enemies
However, sometimes as a servant leader, we are forced to intervene in situations where we are not invited. This corrective stance, though skillfully deployed, has the potential to hurt feelings and damage relationships.
It is deeply disappointing to the servant leader when these come about, and no amount of reflection can assuage the guilt inherent.
However, wisdom from Proverbs intervenes, putting us back on the balance:
Intentional wounding, with the counterbalance of healing, defines the activity of servant leadership; those without the fortitude will only compliment.
Summing it Up
Using all the skills of Servant Leadership (including Listening and Empathy), and focusing on the growth of the person will allow these tough decisions to be made, conceptualizing a future in which the person can move forward, unencumbered and free.
A recent conversation with a friend and colleague (Hi Steve!) got me thinking about roles as applied to servant leadership. Specifically, that some positional roles given to the leader are at best under tension, and sometimes in opposition to each other.
Multiple hats aren’t only a business problem
Of course, I have a song running through my head as I think this through – Amy Grant’s Hats, where she describes the tension of her life roles as a mother, a wife, and a worker:
It don’t stop No, it’s never gonna stop Why do I have to wear so many things on my head? Hats!
…
All because I’m driven
To be the very best for you
Roles in Conflict
The specific example that Steve and I engaged was a set of roles we have defined in Agile Project Management. At our work, we define three roles:
Product Owner
Responsible for maximizing the value of the product and who is ultimately responsible and accountable for the end product that is built.
Scrum Master
The servant-leader of the team who keeps track of user stories, plans sprints, and manages the backlog. Escalates issues to both the Project Manager and the Project Owner
Project Manager
Assigned by the Project Owner; responsible for achieving the project objectives. Manages according to time and budget.
In a graphical form, this sets up a three-way balance; a natural pushing, pulling, and reporting structure:
In a triangle, finding a balance point involves either direct experimentation, or a whole lot of math, since the point in which all are in balance is a function of relative weights. It isn’t like a scale, which balances two points. As you can see from the above diagram, achieving balance in this structure by positions can also be challenging.
In reality, the balance resolves itself in the project manager lending weight to the lighter side by supporting (or assuming) one of the two other roles because of missing elements in the project; either the product owner is not available for frequent consultation, or the scrum master need additional support. As such, a good project manager can bolster whichever axis requires attention.
Servant Leader as Multiple-Hats
This brings up the fundamental tension – why can a good project manager shift and slide roles for ultimate project capability?
My simple postulation is that a good project manager is a servant leader. They are not defined by the role given, but are defined by the higher elements of listening, empathy, healing, and awareness, using persuasion, conceptualization, and foresight to bring about growth and community through stewardship. In this way, they are not calling attention to themselves (hierarchical authority), but are instead working behind the scenes for the fundamental progress of the project.
I think this has broader implications for all servant leaders. Because of this ability to focus on the group as the highest goal, they can keep more than one role, more than one idea in their head, navigating the cognitive dissonance as a liminal hotspot without resolving it further.
Lesson from Paul
Paul, as a sent-one (or apostle) of Jesus had one goal – transformation of people into a relationship with Jesus. In this, he took on the role of a servant as well, even defining what this means:
Even though I am free of the demands and expectations of everyone, I have voluntarily become a servant to any and all in order to reach a wide range of people: religious, nonreligious, meticulous moralists, loose-living immoralists, the defeated, the demoralized—whoever. I didn’t take on their way of life. I kept my bearings in Christ—but I entered their world and tried to experience things from their point of view. I’ve become just about every sort of servant there is in my attempts to lead those I meet into a God-saved life. I did all this because of the Message. I didn’t just want to talk about it; I wanted to be in on it!
I love how he expresses the fact that, although he didn’t take on the lifestyle of those he was serving, he engaged them in their own world on their terms – just as Jesus did. Separating himself and requiring others to meet his high standard, he would have not had the impact that this servant-leader life enables.
Summing it up
Multiple hats are a fact of life, and navigating them is best done with a higher goal in mind. Since servant leaders already have the higher goal of group development baked in, they can easily move between the roles.
As I continue on my journey toward servant leadership, I have often wondered about how to feel about my impact. In the dark of night, I sometimes struggle with these questions:
What is the value I bring to those I am leading?
Are their lives changing for the better?
Is there lasting value in my effort?
Does my leadership matter?
The founder’s tension
I know that Robert Greenleaf struggled with this question as well – his epitaph speaks volumes:
(in case the bottom is hard to read: “Potentially a good plumber, ruined by a sophisticated education”)
At the end of the day, plumbers can look back on a job well done, even point to the work accomplished. There is a satisfying finality, a recognized completeness to the labor.
Those of us tasked with leadership our impact is people, organizations, even communities. Sometimes there is an end task of our responsibility (i.e. a project, a key-performance indicator, a product, a vision) – but we are to help others achieve the task (otherwise we are not leading). The work is ongoing, and the results are intangible – sometimes even frustratingly elusive.
The founder’s proposal
So, how did Greenleaf resolve this tension, this internal anxiety? He proposed a framework of group assessment – acknowledging its problematic analysis:
The best test [of a servant leader], and difficult to administer, is: Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least privileged in society? Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?
Robert K Greenleaf, The Servant as Leader
Greenleaf, in his economy of words, speaks volumes. In this short quote, he defines a number of elements that bear expansion:
Growth – Do those served grow as individuals, personally as well as professionally? The growth of followers is a distinctive feature of servant leadership.
Health – Are those served healthier, transformed into whole people. The active pursuit of healing forms the basis of the changes a leader brings to those being served
Wisdom – Do those served gain greater experience, knowledge, and good judgment while being served? Do they exhibit conceptualization and foresight in their own decisions?
Freedom – Are those served freer, both from their own blocks and inhibitions, and the external barriers placed on them?
Autonomy – Do those served have more control over their own decisions and lives? Are they empowered (and feel it)?
Leader continuation – Are followers being transformed into servant leaders? Replicating servant leadership in others is a profoundly satisfying result for a servant leader.
Common good – As a result of servant leadership, is society better off? Is community being built? Greenleaf suggests that servant leaders should seek out stakeholders that come from many different perspectives and lead with an eye on developing our impacted areas.
Using it it real life
I try to look at my impact using these hallmarks as a baseline to determine my impact, and assuage my questions. While Robert found it “difficult to administer”, I find that a patient, introspective assessment at how the group is doing according to these elements is important for my awareness; to find satisfaction in accomplishment or areas to improve (most often simultaneously).
Because we have isolated ourselves into larger, more anonymous living settings, our sense of independence hampers us from experiencing community – one that we are responsible to, and gain benefit from, and feel a place within.
As individuals are encouraged in growth, and some become servant leaders themselves, the servant leader turns toward building cohesiveness for mutual benefit to all group members. This is like a flywheel, in that the group starts feeding itself, and even turns to spread out in the community.
This mutual serving each other is a powerful hedge against the isolation we drift towards. And, as we bond together for a common cause, we add to the serving posture, and make impacts both external, and internal to ourselves and the group.
Creating community in Institutions
The servant leader senses that much has been lost in recent human history as a result of the shift from local communities to large institutions as the primary shaper of human lives. This awareness causes the servant leader to seek to identify some means for building community among those who work within a given institution. Servant leadership suggests that true community can be created among those who work in businesses and other institutions.
It is possible to create community within an organization, even a business; much like servant leaders can build groups in any context, servant leaders can leverage groups into community.
I’ve had the privilege of building one community in my business setting, formed to handle breakdowns in satisfaction among people in our organization. From the forming stages of complaining, they now have turned into a problem-solving group. The satisfaction of seeing individual growth and healing has more than outweighed the effort required. This deserves a post later See the narrative here.
Servant Leaders as Focusers
Greenleaf (1977/2002) said: All that is needed to rebuild community as a viable life form for large numbers of people is for enough servant-leaders to show the way, not by mass movements, but by each servant-leader demonstrating his or her unlimited liability for a quite specific community-related group.
Servant leaders who focus on one specific problem, disturbed by their awareness of a broken area, become a powerful lever as they gather those around that also feel the brokenness. For instance, think about these servant leaders, and the brokenness they coalesced others around – making lasting change for community healing:
Martin Luther King, Jr. – Leader of the Civil Rights movement
Nelson Mandela – Equality in apartheid (segregated) South Africa
Mahatma Gandhi – Opposing colonial rule in India
Mother Teresa – Served people who were dying of HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis in Calcutta, India
Laying Down Your Life
Jesus spoke of this way of servanthood – specifically to love one another. This love required sacrifice; the intentional setting-aside of yourself for those that you are serving:
“I’ve told you these things for a purpose: that my joy might be your joy, and your joy wholly mature. This is my command: Love one another the way I loved you. This is the very best way to love. Put your life on the line for your friends. You are my friends when you do the things I command you. I’m no longer calling you servants because servants don’t understand what their master is thinking and planning. No, I’ve named you friends because I’ve let you in on everything I’ve heard from the Father.
Servant leaders believe that people have a value beyond being just workers. Servant leaders are deeply committed to the growth of each and every individual.
Servant leaders are people focused, desiring the best for them as individuals. Never settling for status quo, the servant leader uses listening, empathy, healing, and awareness to understand where the person currently is, conceptualizing a new vision for the served person, and persuading them to own this vision – helping them to make plans and set goals toward those plans (the essence of foresight). It truly represents a capstone of the principles, taking the skills of the servant leader and applying them directly.
The ultimate test, represents the best test from Greenleaf: does the individual grow as a person. As such, it is hardest to measure, since the served person also influences the result, taking all the praises.
Of course, the servant leader must identify motivation in the individual, even if it buried or latent. Without this small ember, which the leader can fan, no amount of principle application can burst flames. Selection of a served individual therefore takes wisdom, as we all contend with limited resources.
Growth in the business context
Servant leaders believe that people have an intrinsic value beyond their tangible contributions as workers. As such, the servant leader is deeply committed to the growth of each and every individual within his or her organization. The servant leader recognizes the tremendous responsibility to do everything in his or her power to nurture the personal and professional growth of employees and colleagues. In practice, this can include (but is not limited to) concrete actions such as making funds available for personal and professional development, taking a personal interest in the ideas and suggestions from everyone, encouraging worker involvement in decision-making, and actively assisting laid-off employees to find other positions
In this context, we all know areas where it is bad to mix personal with business. A small list of areas that are commonly cited as cautions:
Leads to poor business decisions
Business decisions are complicated with“emotional baggage”
The motive of personal gain overrides the achievement of business objectives
However, dividing up our lives into separate contexts is difficult, and sometimes impossible. Different spheres of our lives intersect; bringing a whole person into workplace is a long-term strategy. We need personal attributes of individuals to propel business forward:
Solid listening skills
Good speaking ability
Empathetic handling of problems
Significant ethical motivation
Maturity and temperate handling
We therefore, as business servant leaders, need to focus on the whole person. Aligning with our business objectives, giving opportunity to grow as described above, and developing all spheres of the individual, we can built the platform needed for these individuals to take their place as whole-person workers who feel significant, challenged, and motivated.
Legacy
In the quiet hours of the mind, even heading off into the twilight of life, influence is gathered from those individuals we have poured our energy into, especially ones that have succeeded beyond our conceptualized vision. “Good work!” is a satisfying statement from not only the ones we have served, but to our Master who called us into this humble way of seeing our world:
“Are you tired? Worn out? Burned out on religion? Come to me. Get away with me and you’ll recover your life. I’ll show you how to take a real rest. Walk with me and work with me—watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won’t lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you. Keep company with me and you’ll learn to live freely and lightly.”
We are all given a sphere to manage, an area of responsibility, a place for impact. Some of it is chosen, some of it comes by position, and some by necessity. All of these, however are entrusted to us to look after.
Entrusted is a special word – I think of it as transferring an object of value from the owner, who never relinquishes ownership, to one that has to protect and care for this value. I also think this is a time-based concept, in that there is a beginning (the delegation), and an ending (the eventual return).
Two real-life examples of entrust
Children are a family’s form of entrust; they are never completely owned by parents, yet they are protected, cared for, guided, and yes, even managed by parents. While under our care, we hold a high responsibility to develop them into adults of character and competence. Once adulthood is reached, we hand off their development as a return of their independence.
Money is another area entrusted to us, as it seems we never own it, as much as we would like. While under our care, we are to manage it, to use it, and allow some to grow. Eventually, we all must return money to others, even at our life’s demise.
Entrusted to Stewardship
Stewardship is the way we carry out this entrust; it focuses on the fact that we aren’t the owner – merely the one responsible. Servant leaders are conspicuously aware that they don’t exercise control, rather they exercise influence:
Servant leadership, like stewardship, assumes first and foremost a commitment to serving the needs of others. It also emphasizes the use of openness and persuasion, rather than control.
Jesus taught many truths in parable format (using pictures and then-known examples, like agriculture).
In this way, Jesus told a parable (in Matthew 25:14-30) about a rich person giving money to his servants, and leaving on an extended trip – with the implied expectation to do something with it. Even the assignment was customized to the ability of the servant – some received more than others.
One servant was given $5,000 to work with, and the parable said he went to work and doubled the investment.
Eventually, a reckoning happens:
““After a long absence, the master of those three servants came back and settled up with them. The one given five thousand dollars showed him how he had doubled his investment. His master commended him: ‘Good work! You did your job well. From now on be my partner.’”
As you can see, being faithful to multiply the investment (as in taking risks, watching over, and developing) led into an even greater role with the master.
However, those who want to keep to themselves, to hoard their energy and effort, also have an example in this parable. One of the servants just buried the smallest sum, and returned it to the penny to the master. To say the master was furious, well…:
“‘Take the thousand and give it to the one who risked the most. And get rid of this “play-it-safe” who won’t go out on a limb. Throw him out into utter darkness.’
We are called to take this gift we are given to serve, and do something with it. This is the entrust given to us, and it is up to us to steward it.
Summing it up
Servant leader uses stewardship entrusted to us, to persuade others through awareness and empathy to go well beyond, and build on the investment given to us. It is a high calling, one that will require us to take risks (conceptualization mitigated through foresight), knowing that we answer to one higher than us.
Foresight enables servant leaders to understand lessons from the past and the present. These lessons help them understand the consequences of decisions in the future.
Like a good farmer, a servant leader has a good sense of impact. Actions or decisions that are seemingly inconsequential may have significant value over time, and identification of these inflection points are crucial for any leadership. As this is not always apparent at the immediate time, it takes awareness combined with wisdom to see past and future.
This becomes almost esoteric in application, and indeed, sometimes it’s a mystery to know, even personally, whether a decision is right:
Closely related to conceptualization, the ability to foresee the likely outcome of a situation is hard to define, but easier to identify. One knows foresight when one experiences it. Foresight is a characteristic that enables the servant leader to understand the lessons from the past, the realities of the present, and the likely consequence of a decision for the future. It is also deeply rooted within the intuitive mind.
Without a moral standard, intuition can be led astray. It forms the bedrock of the decision, the guardrails around the correct road, the limits necessary.
As I’ve previously posted, my moral grounding starts with my relationship with Jesus, I look to Him for examples during His life on earth:
A religion scholar tried to trip Jesus up by prioritizing the commandments God gave to the Jewish nation. In response, He gives the bedrock of these commandments:
Jesus said, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and intelligence.’ This is the most important, the first on any list. But there is a second to set alongside it: ‘Love others as well as you love yourself.’ These two commands are pegs; everything in God’s Law and the Prophets hangs from them.”
The second parallel commandment, loving others as yourself, is inherent in servant leadership. As a good first pass of a decision, caring for others is a great start.
Embracing Intuion
Often after this first pass of caring for others as a high goal, there are many paths to take, and not all of them are clear. Here is my list of habits I use to build on my foundation:
Take a deep breath – Many times a decision needs a bit of consideration, and using your breathing to clear the decks and slow the emotional roll.
Allow yourself some time – While many decisions need immediate attention, some may need more consideration; don’t be afraid to ask for more time.
Test the decision – Throwing the alternatives at your target to see if it will stand up to the test – even ones that initially seem better. Take a look at the goals and outcomes of each branch
Being able to describe the decision in pictures or analogies – I find that if I can describe the decision in visual or other ways, it clarifies the decision and allows me to describe it to others.
Feeling settled in the decision – it’s hard to describe, but when I find a decision is right, there’s a deep-seated satisfaction with the future outcome that is peaceful, even if not easy.
Putting it together
Foresight is a somewhat mysterious concept. Having a bedrock set of morals, along with using wisdom and intuition, you are able to synthesize good decisions that will stand the tests that will come as you lead.
Most people get caught up into the present, the urgent, the fire waiting as you engage the group. Yet, the value of many leaders is to build on a larger base, to bring the best to reality.
Servant leaders seek to nurture their abilities to dream great dreams. The ability to look at a problem or an organization from a conceptualizing perspective means that one must think beyond day-to-day realities. For many leaders, this is a characteristic that requires discipline and practice. The traditional leader is consumed by the need to achieve short-term operational goals. The leader who wishes to also be a servant leader must stretch his or her thinking to encompass broader-based conceptual thinking. Servant leaders are called to seek a delicate balance between conceptual thinking and a day-to-day operational approach.
Conceptualization takes the external awareness principle and the listening principle, synthesizes the best from each, and places this vision in front of the group using persuasion.
I have found it best to take the time to reflect, to pause, or as Larry states, to engage discipline and practice to see past the immediate problems toward a good future solution. However, I have also presented a concept far beyond what the group is ready to engage, and found that patience is necessary to realize the goal – it becomes an indicator to me to step more into the operational aspects so I don’t get too “pie in the sky”. Balancing this tension is an important discipline of the servant leader.
Persuasion, defined as a drawing toward, or pushing toward a goal, is the first element in our principles that highlights the leader functions of the servant leader. All others (listening, empathy, healing, awareness) fall more over to the servant side of the balance.
Traditional leadership methods generally work from a top-down power flow, allowing this type of leader to issue commands. This seems like an effective way to coordinate results, and it is a leadership style widely used.
Servant leaders, however, rarely reach for this style, choosing the harder work of bringing others along in a convincing way. Like a flywheel, it starts slowly, and builds momentum – momentum that continues long after force is applied.
The Primary Leading
Spears points out that this persuasion default is the primary difference between servant leaders and other authority models:
Another characteristic of servant leaders is reliance on persuasion, rather than on one’s positional authority, in making decisions within an organization. The servant leader seeks to convince others, rather than coerce compliance. This particular element offers one of the clearest distinctions between the traditional authoritarian model and that of servant leadership. The servant leader is effective at building consensus within groups.
Getting everyone aligned is a patient, sometimes grueling task. Very rarely does a group automatically line up , but I have been part of groups that do line up quickly, pointing at a servant leader who has been consistently and masterfully pursing this alignment. These servant leaders I see as giving a rudder pressure to the group; like an oil tanker turning, it takes turning the wheel and waiting to achieve results.
Leading from the Back
Like all disciplines in servant leadership, this is part of the humble shaping of the group. It never calls attention to the servant leader, and allows the group to own their destiny. There lies its power – when success is proven, all praise goes to the group.
At the end of the day, the servant leader has the grounding to know his influence is helping, healing, and building, allowing others to shine. It is a substantial leader that can support this without calling attention back – but worthy of pursuit!
Awareness is truly a difficult concept to understand in the servant leader role. It takes on two different facets:
The internal view of the servant leader (internal awareness)
Awareness of the brokenness, or the task that needs to be done (external awareness)
Let’s tackle each separately, then combine them into a set of behaviors and attitudes later.
Internal Awareness
General awareness, and especially self-awareness, strengthens the servant-leader. Awareness helps one in understanding issues involving ethics, power, and values. It lends itself to being able to view most situations from a more integrated, holistic position.
Awareness for the servant leader starts with an internal look, most often starting with the basic questions of life:
Who am I?
Why am I here?
Where am I going?
How will I get there?
What does success look like?
What are my morals, and where do I get them?
This is not to say that the servant leader has all the answers – rather that there is a continuing process of asking and answering them, of a movement between resolution and disturbance.
By having these basic questions in a semi-solid state, the servant leader can look out for more areas, detecting the gaps below the issues presented, to look beyond the face value. By exercising their questioning mindset frequently internally, it also sets up the servant leader to bring this mindset externally.
External Awareness
As Greenleaf (1977/2002) observed: “Awareness is not a giver of solace—it is just the opposite. It is a disturber and an awakener. Able leaders are usually sharply awake and reasonably disturbed. They are not seekers after solace. They have their own inner serenity”
Coming from the basis of settled/unsettled questions, the servant leader can expand past themselves into seeing the brokenness and gaps in the others; the people being served. This brings a desire to heal, and then to act – driving the discontent with current reality.
Many of the servant leaders I know have a keen observational way about them, like they have another, higher sense of what is happening. This comes from being able to listen with empathy, as they set aside themselves.
Sometimes this awareness points at the blindness of others, including blindness to their own impacts, deception, or other self-serving actions. This puts the servant leader in the mode of calling out uncomfortable truths . Servant leaders are not afraid of conflict, rather they use it to provoke movement toward healing.
Jesus using Awareness
In Matthew 16:13-28, Jesus leads the disciples, especially Peter, in a discussion of who Jesus really is. Upon Peter’s confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the living God”, Peter is commended, even told that he is a Rock. I imagine Peter feeling quite fulfilled by this, even a bit puffed up.
Next, though, Jesus describes how it is necessary to sacrifice Himself, die, and be raised on the third day. Peter, takes Jesus by the hand, protests, even saying, “Impossible, Master! That can never be!”
The next verse is quite telling, showing the way a servant leader can forcefully provoke awareness:
But Jesus didn’t swerve. “Peter, get out of my way. Satan, get lost. You have no idea how God works.”
I imagine Peter was swimming -first he is called a Rock, then he’s called Satan. Jesus, aware of Peter’s expectations, drives a wedge and a stake right through them. Peter’s desires were running contrary to the servant – the self-sacrificial posture required, even to suffering.
Putting Awareness together
Identifying the issues and bringing them into sharp relief is the point of awareness, even the internal awareness of the servant leader. It starts with a discontent, even a disturbance identified. Provoking themselves and others toward empathy and healing is rarely an easy task, but tools like keen observation and brave (even difficult) communication and needed and useful.
One of the great strengths of servant leadership is the potential for healing one’s self and others. Servant leaders help themselves and others feel better and be better
Healing is a natural result in the application of the two proceeding principles – #1 – Listening and #2 – Empathy. Between these skills, others start to feel valued as people, and move past their feelings of stuckness and the near constant looking for others to blame. They are freed up to envision something outside themselves, and head toward a future that is more appealing than their current state.
Receiving the Healing
The healing of relationships is a powerful force for transformation and integration. One of the great strengths of servant leadership is the potential for healing one’s self and one’s relationship to others. Many people have broken spirits and have suffered from a variety of emotional hurts. Although this is a part of being human, servant leaders recognize that they have an opportunity to help make whole those with whom they come in contact.
This relational “making right” is a near-constant outlook for the servant leader; opportunities will present themselves in ways sometimes least expected. Including yourself, as the servant leader, as the human condition is bent toward brokenness and pain. But, this hidden habit of moving past yourself, of taking on the burdens of others, allows you to experience the freedom from your own burden.
I have been part of teams in the past that suffered underneath broken leadership. It is truly difficult to help others realize that you are not “more of the same”, that you believe in them as people that matter, that you are willing to listen and act. Deep wounds require more time, but teams are thirsty for this kind of leadership. This work of healing takes small, patient steps to build the trust required for the next principles.
An Example from Jesus
In Luke 9, Jesus introduces the fact that he will be tried, convicted, killed, and raised on the third day. The first time He mentioned it in verse 22, He moved into a discussion of how they move into this servant life, even one of suffering.
But, they did not get the message.
The second time Jesus brings this up, the disciples not only missed it, but it was like they were hearing a foreign language. Especially when they started arguing about who would be best known. See how Jesus heals the infighting:
They started arguing over which of them would be most famous. When Jesus realized how much this mattered to them, he brought a child to his side. “Whoever accepts this child as if the child were me, accepts me,” he said. “And whoever accepts me, accepts the One who sent me. You become great by accepting, not asserting. Your spirit, not your size, makes the difference.”
There is nothing like being reminded that a child, with child-like faith, can be greater than you to give you pause in your prideful arrogance. Jesus reveals that the smaller, the more-open, the humble are closer to Him and God – what you do outside of this acceptance is valueless.
Summing it up
Healing involves the servant leader in patient, humble, listening steps to allow the thirsty team to build trust, to see themselves as valuable, and begin to realize their potential. The servant leader is also the recipient of this healing, as the outward focus allows healing internally too.
For the first principle of Servant Leadership, click here
Servant leaders try to understand others. They will picture themselves in the place of those they serve. Servant leaders know that people need to be accepted and recognized for their special and unique characteristics
Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference, that is, the capacity to place oneself in another’s position.
Deeply embedded in this concept of empathy is the point of seeing the person inside, of knowing the person. This seeing assumes good intentions from the start. It involves setting aside preconceived notions, snap judgments, internal biases, and other shortcuts we use to filter our senses. Empathy is a radical remapping of our usual interaction.
Example from Jesus
Jesus, in his interactions with the woman at the well in John 4, uses this type of empathy as He pulls down barrier after barrier, both expressed and not expressed. The impact is clear – when the disciples came back and silently judged her, this empathetic interaction did not fade:
The woman took the hint and left. In her confusion she left her water pot. Back in the village she told the people, “Come see a man who knew all about the things I did, who knows me inside and out. Do you think this could be the Messiah?” And they went out to see for themselves.
This deep empathetic conversation led to a whole village to beg Jesus to stay longer, and many more believed Jesus as their Messiah.
Focus on the Other means Listening
Servant leaders use empathy to focus outside themselves, using their listening skills to acknowledge and understand the person within:
The servant leader strives to understand and empathize with others. People need to be accepted and recognized for their special and unique spirits. One assumes the good intentions of co-workers and colleagues and does not reject them as people, even when one may be forced to refuse to accept certain behaviors or performance. The most successful servant leaders are those who have become skilled empathetic listeners.
One of the best introductions and ways to express empathy is by listening; most times, the concept of listening and empathy are intertwined (like the “skilled empathetic listeners” ending the quote above). It’s difficult otherwise to understand the person without allowing them to express themselves, and using this listening to burrow deeply into how they perceive themselves.
Empathy has a cost and requires a decision
However, this listening must come at a cost to you too – the toll is love and caring. To have a platform in someone else, you must not only go past neutral objectivity, but go further into reaching out and caring.
“No one cares how much you know, until they know how much you care.”
Theodore Roosevelt
I remember one time I was forced into a 16+ hour car ride with a coworker whom I didn’t have much interaction with. Others had warned me that this would be difficult, even draining, due to the separate worlds we inhabited. However, in living the process of empathy, I decided to set aside the preconceptions, and approach from a caring aspect (I called it “leaning in”). In this, I learned much more about his life, found places of commonality, and even found myself enjoying the journey. Interactions with him from then on were more frequent, with hellos turning into more questions. I can’t tell you what exactly changed, whether he or I – but we changed.
Summing It Up
Empathy requires you as a Servant Leader to decide to move outside yourself, assume good intentions, care for the other, and listen. The impacts of empathy can be far reaching, even transforming communities with its power. But the biggest transformation is of you, the servant who is allowed to walk in another’s shoes.
It is hard to be a servant toward someone to whom you aren’t listening. As this is mostly self-evident, it still bears repeating. Even today, I see far more staring at screens than eye contact as I move through this world.
Listening with intention is a very active task however – even while reflecting on our perception:
Listening allows us to look within ourselves and become aware of the barriers that inhibit our ability to listen effectively. It helps us discern information that leads to understanding, rather than judgment, which in turn leads to derision. We all have personal biases and prejudices even if we’d like to believe otherwise. Listening helps us serve by exposing prejudices that filter select words, warp messages, and prevent us from considering another point of view.
Jessica Zisa, posted in Listen to Serve
The wise listener is evaluating many things at once:
The 90% of communication not given verbally (feelings, emotions, tells, and so on)
The things left unsaid (areas either forgotten or intentionally passed)
Their own emotional reaction to the sender
Their own emotional reaction to the message
The reaction of others, if applicable
Oh, and the facts of the communication
Sometimes it’s wise to summarize what you’ve learned from the listening, in order to acknowledge and give feedback. However, make sure you are adding to the conversation, not just sending back the same message.
Sometimes it’s wise to just keep quiet, and process all the communication given, in order to sort through the jumble to gain insight and understanding. However, make sure that you don’t abandon the communicator, and make them feel alone (many times this can be done non-verbally).
Responses in Anger
Be especially wary when, while listening, your emotions lead to anger:
Post this at all the intersections, dear friends: Lead with your ears, follow up with your tongue, and let anger straggle along in the rear. God’s righteousness doesn’t grow from human anger. So throw all spoiled virtue and cancerous evil in the garbage. In simple humility, let our gardener, God, landscape you with the Word, making a salvation-garden of your life.
Please sense the peace that dispatching the anger gives in this verse, because the anger mainly is a selfish response (though not exclusively). The picture of a lush, peaceful garden is very compelling; the humility required to drop the anger, however, is expensive.
Listening, above all, requires patient outreach to the person communicating. To walk in another’s shoes, to make them feel understood, to grasp the entirety of the communication – this is the fundamental work of the servant.
As a Christ-follower, my first and primary motivation for this posture of being a servant is Jesus himself.
You see, Jesus came not to rule, nor to make bad people good, but to save us – save us from our rebellious attitude toward God. He does this by showing us the way of His kingdom, and paying the price for our rebelliousness by giving up His own life – the ultimate act of service.
God authorized this by raising Jesus from the dead, something we celebrate every Easter.
This is great news!
Reversals (The Kingdom Way)
Jesus often spoke of the different way of His kingdom. He embodied the tension between overthrowing and working for the current world systems with one goal – God’s purpose in this world. This video does a great job of expressing this third way:
The Way of the Exile
This then, brings us back to leading by serving (a reversal). He shows that the power of leading comes from this attitude of laying down your rights/desires/motivations as a leader, and start by seeing others more important than yourself:
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
So then, as one who isn’t part of the current system (an exile), and yet called to be part of the system, my desire for greatness is subverted, converted into servanthood.
However, Jesus doesn’t just leave us in this state. In fact, Jesus makes this astounding turn in the priestly prayer chapter of John:
I’ve told you these things for a purpose: that my joy might be your joy, and your joy wholly mature. This is my command: Love one another the way I loved you. This is the very best way to love. Put your life on the line for your friends. You are my friends when you do the things I command you. I’m no longer calling you servants because servants don’t understand what their master is thinking and planning. No, I’ve named you friends because I’ve let you in on everything I’ve heard from the Father
Jesus is the master of the next-level; by following his invitation to be a servant He mysteriously transforms us into His friend. He allows us to see what God is doing, and invites us into the decision!
Because of all this, I am a Christ-follower, and I strive to be a servant.
Robert Greenleaf is the acknowledged father of the discipline of Servant Leadership (although by no means the originator, as we will discuss in future posts). His model, though, is a good place to start our discussion:
Servant leadership is a philosophy and set of practices that enriches the lives of individuals, builds better organizations and ultimately creates a more just and caring world.
Robert Greenleaf
He describes this Servant Leader moving into 3 distinct phases:
The Natural Desire – “It begins with the natural feelingthat one wants to serve, to serve first”
The Conscious Choice – “Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead…”
The Best Test – “The best test, and difficult to administer, is: do those served grow as persons…”
I can attest to this natural flow in my life, as someone who is serving eventually comes to a place where giving to a group puts you into a natural leadership position. It doesn’t come from desiring or pulling this leadership role -grasping for it will result in other leadership styles.
Greenleaf’s determination of success, then, is not directly tied to the leader, but to the group being served. As this is difficult to measure, and reflected in the natural human choices of the group being served, it is doubtful that any performance indicator can be made for this kind of leader.
This philosophy has far-reaching consequences, and is the burning desire of this blog.
