Strategic Leadership and Future Leaders

¶ … Servant-Leadership is the model that most closely resonates with me, though I think the title a bit pretentious, even though I cannot think of a better one. According to Spears (2004), it comprises much of the attributes of Burns' (1978) transformational leadership, but it does not really require a charismatic leader, only a sincere one who follows up. I like that very much.

However this is a long list of key traits that Spears identifies as central to Greenleaf's Servant-Leadership (What is servant leadership? ) concept.

Listening

Empathy

Healing

Awareness

Persuasion

Conceptualization

Foresight

Stewardship

Commitment to the growth of people

Building community

While I do not have any problem with any of these attributes in a leader, I fear that I lack some in the healing category and I do not always have enough foresight, which is what I look for in my team. However, the idea that we are equal partners and equally desiring to reach the goal fits well with the way I work. I used to have trouble delegating, until I noticed that leaders who tried to do it all generally failed and even when things worked they were not happy. I did some reading when projects became difficult and realized that my team was not empowered, because I gave them no real problems and no real work, Leader-member exchange theory (e.g.,Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) suggests that the ideal relationship between leaders and followers is individualized. So I carefully selected project portions, problems and duties to delegate and chose my people just as carefully. I still cannot delegate all of it, but I try.

Transactional leadership involves exchanges between leaders and their teams. The leader works on what the team needs and the team works on fulfilling the needs of the leader.(Nahavandi A.1997, p.190). They work well in normal times, but not in a disruptive environment, either internal or external, as they are not flexible enough. It is rather like planning a basketball game to try to manage a team or a project by a static set of rules.

In this model it seems that there is still a hierarchy and the leader is taking all the responsibility, so the team shoulders none and feels subordinate as a result. I think this model has a nice name and a really nice sounding theory, but it is useless in today's economy and global environment. It might work for a small store, but the bigger the organization gets the less well it will work. It makes me think about the Russian Tzar who said the country was too big to govern. Centralized control only works in a small circle. This kind of leadership fits a more regimental hierarchically governed company, but these will fall away in times of stress, leaving the more flexible organizations in the race.

As for thinking up attributes, I do not really have to, since Greenleaf has done that form me. The list above seems to cover it all. I probably would put listening and awareness first as the most necessary. Then empathy allows the leader to identify closely with every team member. A rapport is established and a community forms. The leader is the steward of both the company and the team. The higher up this leader is the more his or her team will need attention and support. Foresight allows the leader to anticipate problems and solutions too. Conceptualization allow this vision to be shared and persuasion gets the team ready to work. Commitment to the growth of team members is something I had not considered, but I was unconsciously tending to it, because I love to help people develop their potential and discover their hidden talents.