This paper compares and contrasts servant leadership and followership as complementary leadership philosophies relevant to military and organizational settings. It examines the core principles of servant leadership — including collective decision-making, inspirational motivation, humility, and integrity — alongside the defining characteristics of followership, such as trust, respect for authority, self-discipline, and personal accountability. The paper identifies key similarities between the two philosophies, particularly their shared emphasis on good morals, professionalism, and service to others, while also noting a critical distinction: servant leadership actively invites others into the decision-making process, whereas followership is more reactive in nature.
Followership and servant leadership are two philosophies used by leaders today when working with soldiers on a day-to-day basis. Leaders cannot work alone, and it is for this reason that they need the assistance and support of those under their command. In both of these roles, there must be mutual respect and patience, selflessness and versatility, and awareness of oneself and those around.
A servant leader thrives upon the idea of gathering ideas from others during the decision-making process (McAuley, 2016). Servant leadership is grounded in army ethics and values that allow for the development of soldiers. A servant leader provides inspirational motivation to junior personnel through the way they perform their own tasks, serving as a direct example to those they lead (Harber & McMaster, 2018). Servant leadership is not focused on individual benefits but rather on the benefits of the whole group. Accordingly, servant leadership personifies values such as honesty, humility, and integrity.
Followership is defined as reaching a particular goal while exercising respect for authority, maintaining a positive attitude, practicing self-discipline, and demonstrating integrity (Adair et al., 2016). The first characteristic connected to followership is trust. A leader must act in a manner that is transparent and worthy of trust at all times, ensuring their actions are consistently respectful and professional.
The second characteristic is a strong commitment to serving one's organization. Followership encourages individuals to recognize their own strengths and understand how those strengths can positively influence the people they work with. The third and final characteristic is taking personal responsibility for one's actions — an essential quality for anyone operating effectively within a team or unit.
Followership and servant leadership share several important qualities. Both philosophies require a leader to possess good morals, earn the trust of others, serve those around them, and conduct themselves professionally. Both are also rooted in a commitment to organizational and collective well-being rather than individual advancement.
"Shared values and key distinctions between both philosophies"
In comparing these two philosophies, it becomes clear that while both servant leadership and followership are rooted in service and ethical conduct, their approaches to collaboration differ in meaningful ways. Understanding the distinctions — as well as the shared values — between these two roles helps leaders and soldiers alike navigate organizational dynamics more effectively and with greater intentionality.
You’re 75% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.