Abstract
The Servant-Leadership (SL) model as once introduced by Robert Greenleaf continues to be important in leadership studies. It is altruistic in its core, committed to the dignity of each person, searches for human flourishing, and stresses community and trust. But however important and commendable, Greenleaf’s SL model might need anthropological modification as it underestimates the reality of human sinfulness. The inappropriate attention given to evil in human nature in the SL model has devastating consequences for leadership. By way of alternative, the Protestant notion of two kingdoms is introduced, distinguishing the principles of governance in the public domain and those in the church as a faith community. Building on the work of Nicholas Wolterstorff, it is argued that in the public domain of institutions, agape love needs to be displayed in the form of fairness and justice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their thorough and very helpful comments on an earlier version of this chapter. Furthermore, I want to thank Dr. Jermo van Nes for his significant assistance in editing this paper. Last but not least, I want to express my gratitude to Kay Caldwell for her excellent work in performing the language editing for this chapter.
- 2.
It has, for example, become a corrective on the organizational focus of transformational leadership. See Stone et al. (2004).
- 3.
Appreciation is also due to transformational leadership, authentic leadership, spiritual leadership, and responsible leadership theories where many elements of SL can and should be integrated. For an overview, see Northouse (2018).
- 4.
To raise just a few critical questions: What is the exact meaning of serving? Are we serving mainly employees or all stakeholders, and how does this conflict? What about the interests of the organization or institution itself? Is it not the case that detachment from employees is needed when making complex decisions? Even if altruism is human and important, is it the only true motive for leading? Is SL not too utopic in a highly competitive market? Does SL have sufficient empirical support? See again Stone et al. (2004).
- 5.
Greenleaf’s classic work is a collection of lectures and articles given over more than 20 years, often repeating the same ideas with different applications in different contexts. His seminal essay on SL was published in 1970, six years after retirement. In 1964, Greenleaf founded the Center for Applied Ethics that later became the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. See https://www.greenleaf.org.
- 6.
See further McGrath (2014, pp. 66–74).
- 7.
Greenleaf had a contrasting experience, seeing AT&T as a very hierarchical organization and noticing that its success was actually brought about by the loyalty of the employees whose job involved customer contact. It was then that Greenleaf realized that the central role of the AT&T leadership should be to provide support for their own employees, or to serve their employees much as Leo had done in his Journey to the East.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
The abolition of slavery by the Quaker John Woolman (1720–1772) was an inspiring example for Greenleaf.
- 11.
Leadership studies are a part of social sciences and all social sciences are built on an interpretation of the human person and social structures (Smith 2010). If, for example, we are convinced that humans always act in self-interest and that altruistic motives are nonexistent, then SL is a misleading utopic method of leadership. It is merely masked self-interest. The anthropological presuppositions are intrinsic to one’s worldview, religion, and/or philosophical position.
- 12.
There is an important link between the philosophy of personalism and SL (Whetstone 2002).
- 13.
Referring to the self-determination research of E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan, which evolves around human growth and intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan 2004).
- 14.
“Our concern here is only to point out the intimate connection between the fact and the demand, to point out that to a great extent the demand grows out of the fact. In other words, the fact forces upon us the alternative: either we take care of the other person’s life or we ruin it. Given man’s creatureliness, there is no third alternative. To accept the fact without listening to the demand is to be indifferent to the question whether life is to be promoted or ruined” (Løgstrup 1997, p. 28).
- 15.
Life would become unbearable if this were to be otherwise. This trust makes us vulnerable, and this is also why we are upset and hurt when our trust is abused. Trust is a form of self-surrender, it is “to lay-oneself-open” (Løgstrup 1997, p. 9) and goes in both directions when it comes to the relationship between leader and follower.
- 16.
I was preparing this essay during the strikes by personnel from Lidl, the German discount supermarket. The complaint was workload and stress. How would a message of serving the interest of employees work in this tense situation and in the tough negotiations between the unions and management? And what about earlier but larger conflicts in the Belgian car industry (Renault and Ford in Genk)? I am not saying that SL is not helpful, but love needs to be translated into fairness and justice that can be shared by the different stakeholders. It also needs one to be willing to accept one’s responsibility.
- 17.
Sin comes most often in the guise of idolatry. Idolatry is not only a religious category; it is also an ethical category. According to Ramsey (1950, p. 299), our tendency to egocentrism is closely connected to idolatry. Serving ourselves we absolutize something finite such as our own success, money, prestige, and so on. These are forms of self-deception. Even a focus on self-realization through self-giving can become a form of self-centeredness. It is a subtle cultivation of self-interest. In the ethics of Christian love, on the contrary, self-realization is an unintended consequence and not the focus of our pursuit even in forms of idealistic utopism (Ramsey 1950, pp. 301–303).
- 18.
- 19.
Emil Brunner related justice mainly to the context of larger social systems and institutions and love to the personal realm. Justice is operating by reason and fairness. Therefore, leaders must often change their mode of operation from love to justice in order that people receive their due (Brunner 2002). Here I am following N. Wolterstorff who gives a primacy to love, “doing justice is an example of love” (Wolterstorff 2011, p. 84).
- 20.
Wolterstorff proposes care-agapism as an alternative to benevolence-agapism. Care-agapism incorporates justice and self-love.
- 21.
See especially VanDrunen (2010).
- 22.
However, and this is where the positive note of Greenleaf is of great value, we also have to create more hope and a better future. Our will to serve can be motivated by hope and eagerness to demonstrate something of God’s Kingdom in this world (Moltmann 2010).
- 23.
Referring also to the romantic and mystical poet William Blake (1757–1827).
- 24.
Greenleaf (2002, p. 231) sees churches as “institutionalization of humankind’s religious concern”. They often fail in their service to society.
- 25.
Recently, in the face of economic and ecological challenges, the strength of altruism as a life-changing philosophy has been argued profoundly by the Buddhist philosopher Matthieu Ricard (2013).
- 26.
Greenleaf (2002, pp. 42–44) discusses how John Woolman, almost singlehandedly, abolished slavery through gentle, clear, and persistent persuasion. Actually, it was by simply asking the more profound moral questions in a nonjudgmental attitude. This gentle persuasion approach is also characteristic of Greenleaf’s own case for SL. He quotes the words of the prophet Zechariah: “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the Lord Almighty,” we live by the hope that “might and power might someday be superseded by spirit” (Greenleaf 2002, p. 180), small “s”.
- 27.
In popular leadership literature, SI is appropriated by Stephen Covey (2014). In his recent 8th Habit, he mentions four types of intelligence: (1) Physical Intelligence (PQ), which corresponds with the body; (2) Mental Intelligence (IQ), which corresponds to the mind; (3) Emotional Intelligence (EQ), which corresponds to the heart; and (4) Spiritual Intelligence (SQ), which is connected to the spirit. Spiritual intelligence is our drive for meaning and connection with the infinite. According to Covey (2014, p. 53), “spiritual intelligence is the central and most fundamental of all the intelligences, because it becomes the source of guidance for the others.”
- 28.
Theory-U identifies steps in the process of generating awareness as well as blocks along the way. It is a technique of broadening and deepening our attention. But also discerning the enemies of this journey such as the voice of judgment, the voice of cynicism, and the voice of fear. It is the art of “presencing,” a shift of the perception of the current to a perception of the source of an emerging future (Scharmer 2016). These techniques are not foreign to the Christian tradition of spiritual discernment (Nullens 2018).
References
Agosto, E. (2005). Servant Leadership: Jesus and Paul. Saint Louis, MO: Chalice Press.
Atkinson, W. P. (2014). The Trinity and Servant-Leadership. Evangelical Review of Theology 38(2), 138–150.
Bekker, C. J. (2010). A Modest History of the Concept of Service as Leadership in Four Religious Traditions. In D. van Dierendonck & K. Patterson (eds.), Servant Leadership: Developments in Theory and Research (pp. 55–66). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Blanchard, K., & Hodges, P. (2008). Lead Like Jesus: Lessons from the Greatest Leadership Role Model of All Time. Nashville, TN: Nelson.
Bonhoeffer, D. (2005). Ethics, trans. C. J. Green. Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Works 6. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Browning, D. S. (1992). Altruism and Christian Love. Zygon 27(4), 421–436.
Brunner, E. (1981). Ein offenes Wort: Vorträge und Aufsätze 1, ed. R. Wehrli. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag.
Brunner, E. (2002). Justice and the Social Order. London: Lutterworth Press.
Ciulla, J. (2003). The Ethics of Leadership. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Covey, S. R. (2014). The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness. New York: Free Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal 26(8), 600–615.
Dent, E. B., Higgins, M. E., & Wharff, D. M. (2005). Spirituality and Leadership: An Empirical Review of Definitions, Distinctions, and Embedded Assumptions. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 625–653.
Dhiman, S. (2017). Holistic Leadership: A New Paradigm for Today’s Leaders. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dierendonck, D. van, & Nuijten, I. (2011). The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure. Journal of Business and Psychology 26(3), 249–267.
Dierendonck, D. van, & Patterson, K. (2015). Compassionate Love as a Cornerstone of Servant Leadership: An Integration of Previous Theorizing and Research. Journal of Business Ethics 128(1), 119–131.
Dierendonck, D. van. (2011). Servant Leadership: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Management 37(4), 1228–1269.
Fleming, P. (2017). The Death of Homo Economicus. London: Pluto.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a Theory of Spiritual Leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693–727.
Fry, L. W., & Nisiewicz, M. S. (2013). Maximizing the Triple Bottom Line Through Spiritual Leadership. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
Glover, J. (2012). Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century, 2nd edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Goleman, D. (2014). Emotional Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977/2002). Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. Foreword by Steven R. Covey. New York: Paulist Press.
Hackman, M., & Johnson, C. E. (2009). Leadership: A Communication Perspective (5th ed.). Long Grove Ill.: Waveland Press.
Johnson, C. E. (2009). Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership: Casting Light or Shadow (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Jones, J. (2014). Leadership Lessons from Levinas: Revisiting Responsible Leadership. LATH Leadership and the Humanities, 2(1), 44–63.
Lewis, C. S. (1960). The Four Loves. London: Bles.
Løgstrup, K. E. (1997). The Ethical Demand, trans. F. R. Løgstrup. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Luther, M. (1957). On Christian Liberty. In H. J. Grimm & H. T. Lehmann (eds.), Luther’s Works 31 (pp. 356–379). Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.
McGrath, A. E. (2014). Emil Brunner: A Reappraisal. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
McKenny, G. (2005). Responsability. In G. Meilaender & W. Werpehowski (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Theological Ethics (237–253). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Moltmann, J. (1993). The Trinity and the Kingdom, trans. M. Kohl. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Moltmann, J. (2010). Ethik der Hoffnung. Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlag.
Moore, K. (2005). Servant Leadership in the Twenty-First Century. New York: James.
Niebuhr, H. R. (1999). The Responsible Self: An Essay in Christian Moral Philosophy. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Nooteboom, B. (2002). Trust: Forms, Foundations, Functions, Failures, and Figures. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: E. Elgar Pub.
Nooteboom, B. (2017). Vertrouwen: Opening voor een veranderende wereld. Utrecht: Klement.
Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory & Practice, 8th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nuijten, I. (2009). Servant-Leadership Paradox or Diamond in the Rough? A Multidimensional Measure and Empirical Evidence. Rotterdam: Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Nullens, P. (2018). From Spirituality to Responsible Leadership: Ignatian Discernment and Theory-U. In J. Kok and S. C. van den Heuvel (eds.), Leading in a VUCA-World: Integrating Leadership, Discernment and Spirituality (forthcoming). Dordrecht: Springer.
Parris, D., & Peachey, J. (2013). A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts. Journal of Business Ethics 113(3), 377–393.
Pascal, B. (1995). Pensées, trans. A. J. Krailsheimer. Penguin Classics. London: Penguin.
Pless, N. M., & Maak, T. (2011). Responsible Leadership: Pathways to the Future. In N. M. Pless & T. Maak (eds.), Responsible Leadership (pp. 3–13). Dordrecht: Springer.
Rai, R., & Prakash, A. (2012). A Relational Perspective to Knowledge Creation: Role of Servant Leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies 6(2), 61–85.
Ramsey, P. (1950). Basic Christian Ethics. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual Values and Practices Related to Leadership Effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly 16, 655–687.
Ricard, M. (2013). Plaidoyer pour l’altruism. Paris: NiL.
Roberts, G. E. (2016). Working with Christian Servant Leadership Spiritual Intelligence. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US.
Sandel, M. J. (2013). What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Scharmer, C. O. (2016). Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges: The Social Technology of Presencing. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Sendjaya, S. (2010). Demystifying Servant Leadership. In D. van Dierendonck & K. Patterson (eds.), Servant Leadership: Developments in Theory and Research (pp. 39–51). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shirin, A. V. (2014). Is Servant Leadership Inherently Christian? Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, (3.13).
Sims, B. J. (1997). Servanthood: Leadership for the Third Millennium. Boston, MA: Cowley.
Smith, C. (2003). Moral, Believing Animals: Human Personhood and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, C. (2010). What Is a Person? Rethinking Humanity, Social Life, and the Moral Good from the Person Up. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Spears, L. C. (1998). Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant-Leadership. New York: Wiley.
Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational Versus Servant Leadership: A Difference in Leader Focus. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 25(4), 349–361.
Sullivan, P. F. (1998). Theological Anthropology of Abraham Joshua Heschel (Doctoral Dissertation). Fordham University.
Thielicke, H. (1966/1981). Theological Ethics 1: Foundations, ed. W. H. Lazareth. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.
Trompenaars, F., & Voerman, E. (2009). Servant Leadership Across Cultures: Harnessing the Strengths of the World’s Most Powerful Management Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
VanDrunen, D. (2010). Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture. Wheaton, IL: Crossway.
Vaughan, F. (2002). What Is Spiritual Intelligence? Journal of Humanistic Psychology Journal of Humanistic Psychology 42(2), 16–33.
Whetstone, J. T. (2002). Personalism and Moral Leadership: The Servant Leader with a Transforming Vision. Business Ethics: A European Review, 11(4), 385–392.
Wigglesworth, C. (2014). SQ21: The Twenty-One Skills of Spiritual Intelligence. New York: Select Books.
Wolterstorff, N. (2008). Justice: Rights and Wrongs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wolterstorff, N. (2011). Justice in Love. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Zohar, D., & Marshall, I. N. (2001). SQ: The Ultimate Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nullens, P. (2019). The Will to Serve: An Anthropological and Spiritual Foundation for Leadership. In: Bouckaert, L., van den Heuvel, S. (eds) Servant Leadership, Social Entrepreneurship and the Will to Serve. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29936-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29936-1_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-29935-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-29936-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)