(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 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.
