"a servant’s natural inclination is service to others — not coercion — for the purpose of others’ growth, health, wisdom, freedom, autonomy, and benefit, and for that reason, in the future, 'the only truly viable institutions will be those that are predominantly servant-led.'"
One problem. The current education system is entirely based on coercion, and the result of K-12 education is a mass of people that don't know any other system.
Even with a servant-led organization, it takes a lot of effort to lead employees in how to be achieving their "growth, health, wisdom, freedom, autonomy, and benefit". It's possible, but I think the reason the great bulk of the population is not demanding a better work relations and environment is that they've never experienced anything different.
Leadership theory is such a notoriously vague subject. Academics are still fighting over if it is possible to even "teach" leadership or not. In my view it still comes down to do what works best for you and your company on a case-by-case level. Sure, there are universal truisms, but you can't "lead" some military operation the same way you lead a charity fundriser. In my opinion "Servant Leadership" is just another marketing phrase that follows others such as transformational leadership, transactional leadership, participative leadership and so on.
It also ignores the fact that leaders need to employ different attitudes with different people. Some people are needy and not comfortable with the vagueness of autonomy. Others need a more hands-off approach for best results. Servant leadership strikes me as optimizing for the latter.
This philosophy is definitely a step in the right direction.
However, I think we really need even more fundamental reforms to our institutions and belief systems.
The enterprise or corporation predates the widescale use of wages for labor. Originally the labor was motivated and organized by whips and shackles.
Maybe I just watched too many Jordan Maxwell videos, but I actually think that the words "enterprise", "prise" and "prison" share common roots.
Enter - _prise_ :
"From Middle English prise, from Old French prise (“a taking, capture, a seizure, a thing seized, a prize, booty, also hold, purchase”), from French prise, from pris, past participle of prendre (“to take, to capture”), from Latin prendere (“to take, seize”); see prehend. Compare prison, apprise, comprise, enterprise, purprise, reprisal, suprise, etc."
>"A setback, however minor, can have a greater negative impact on inner work life than progress can have in the positive direction."
While I'm not necessarily a fan of the terminology like "servant-led", that's probably due to some specific connotations I personally have associated with it. But non-hierarchical organizations intuitively seem more useful and efficient than old-style, top-down organizations. Perhaps the best example of such a thing would be an adhocracy[1], and the description in the article could represent a step along that transition.
One problem. The current education system is entirely based on coercion, and the result of K-12 education is a mass of people that don't know any other system.
Even with a servant-led organization, it takes a lot of effort to lead employees in how to be achieving their "growth, health, wisdom, freedom, autonomy, and benefit". It's possible, but I think the reason the great bulk of the population is not demanding a better work relations and environment is that they've never experienced anything different.