In the modern era, the concept of leadership is increasingly becoming more difficult, complex, and multi-dimensional. In light of this, the question of the most efficient type of leadership arises, considering the outcomes of each strategy. Among other styles, servant leadership, being previously “widely dismissed,” starts to be appreciated as an advance and promising mode of institutional operation (Gandolfi & Stone, 2018, p. 264). It requires particular qualities of the leader; one of the most important of those is humility. In this brief analysis, I will examine how displays of humility by a leader exemplify servant leadership, and what are the benefits and the perspectives of this style of social management.
To give an example of social relationships that exist in the organization ruled by the leader of this type, I would refer to my own experience. For a short time, I had an opportunity to work in an educational institution, the head of which was a perfect example of the servant leader. It was a small team, and all of its members used to interact during the working process. As I observed, while discussing the programs of future lectures or workshops on the group meetings, some of my colleagues were experiencing difficulties. The head of our team always tried to help them find the decision. However, it was done in such a way that everyone could feel as if it were his or her own solution to the problem. This style of interaction was helping to maintain the atmosphere of creativity and self-confidence instead of possible negativity, which might be caused by an open critique of an autocratic leader.
Modesty displayed in the leader’s behavior makes the subordinates feel their importance. The leader seemingly aims to share power with others, encouraging their growth and initiative. It may be argued that servant leadership is more than a social phenomenon; it is a philosophy. In this context, Horsman defines humility as “a capacity to accept… our limitations, while at the same time valuing and promoting those very aptitudes in others” (2018, p. 164). In other words, it is “an antidote to ego inflation” (Horsman, 2018, p. 166); therefore, servant leadership acts from a purely moral perspective. Although this type of leadership may appear more passive than the others, after close examination, it comes to be a “blend of extreme personal humility with intense professional will” (Gandolfi & Stone, 2018, p. 166). Indeed, it cannot be compared with laissez-faire (“let them do”) leadership style, which represents almost no presence of the leader’s initiative. At the same time, servant leadership is less active than autocratic, transactional, and transformational types; perhaps, the democratic style is the closest to it by its strategy.
However, the most significant feature, which makes servant type of leadership different from other styles, is its primary focus on human resources rather than on mission to be accomplished as the main aim in other cases. This concern makes it the most humanistic strategy, and it may be argued that modesty, the core leader’s quality in it, should not be underestimated as an effective instrument in all other types of leadership.
References
Gandolfi, F., & Stone, S. (2018). Leadership, leadership styles, and servant leadership. Journal of Management Research, 18(4), 261-269.
Horsman, J. H. (2018). Servant-leaders in training: Foundations of the philosophy of servant-leadership. Springer.