It has been mentioned before that it seems surprising that within the area of TRANSFORMING
and TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP there is so little reference to SERVANT LEADERSHIP. In many aspects the two leadership styles seem rather similar. The question is: What is their relation-ship to each other? Is SERVANT LEADERSHIP more than TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP? Or is it the other way round? Or maybe the two names can indeed be used interchangeably, as Trompenaars and Voerman in their book about SERVANT LEADERSHIP do: “Transformational leadership—another name for servant-leadership—is all about change” (Trompenaars &
Voerman 2009:53).
Within Burns’ writings this author has not found reference to SERVANTLEADERSHIP, even though Burns as well as proponents of SERVANTLEADERSHIP see in their leadership model a way of bringing good to the overall society (Burns [1978] 2005:20; Greenleaf 1991:49). Both Burns and Greenleaf are very clear about the pivotal role ethics and morality play in their models.
Both see the need for character integrity and growth in their leaders, with Burns talking about the leader’s need to lead from a higher moral level, raising the level of morality of the followers, and in the process, also being transformed; and Greenleaf talking about the leader modelling service with the goal to develop others to emulate the model and become servants themselves. For both, what distinguishes a leader from followers is that the leader sees the bigger purpose/vision and can communicate it (Greenleaf 1991:15). And in pursuing this vision both stress the need for reciprocity in the relationship instead of a leader defining
needs and goals for a follower (:35; for Burns’ stress on dialogue see section 4.3). SERVANT
LEADERSHIP not only stresses the importance of an authentic relationship between leader and follower, but of building whole authentic communities (Peck 1995:88–89; Rieser 1995:57).
Bass makes reference to SERVANTLEADERSHIP on various occasions. He considers it a con-cept that sounds intriguing to people and is becoming more famous and thus will continue to play a role (Bass 1999:547; Bass 2000:33). However, its weak point he sees in the missing empirical investigation of the concept.130 One model claims to go beyond the other—with SERVANTLEADERSHIP stressing that, unlike TRANSFORMATIONALLEADERSHIP, they look beyond the goals of the organisation and put the person first, and TRANSFORMATIONALLEADERSHIP claiming that they look beyond just people and keep the organisation and the society in mind.
Unfortunately, within the literature coming from the area of SERVANTLEADERSHIP, gener-ally the term TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP is applied to both Bass and Burns. Only Graham (1991:107), in her classification of various forms of CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP, linked Burns’
understanding of charisma to the understanding promoted by SERVANT LEADERSHIP, and Farling, Stone and Winston (1999:51), building on Burns’ incompatibility of TRANSACTIONAL
and TRANSFORMING LEADERSHIP, associate follower-focused TRANSFORMING LEADERSHIP with SERVANTLEADERSHIP, as opposed to leader-focused TRANSACTIONALLEADERSHIP. Several authors claim that SERVANT LEADERSHIP expands TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP.131 One of the more extensive studies of the differences between the models comes up with five distinctive fea-tures differentiating transformational and servant leaders (see Table 8). And Stone, Russel and Patterson take one element from this list as especially important:
The extent to which the leader is able to shift the primary focus of his or her leadership from the organisation to the follower is the distinguishing factor in determining whether the leader may be a transformational or servant leader. (Stone, Russel & Patterson 2003:5–10)
However, giving it all a closer look, one recognises that with such an approach SERVANT
LEADERSHIP is getting into the same dilemma as indicated between Bass and Burns in Figure 11 (page 110): Does one assume that one can infer intentions by observing certain actions, or is
130 This situation is slowly changing, with Chin and Smith (2006) providing a historical study, and Parolini (2007) and Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe (2005) presenting empirical studies in the US and UK respectively. Liden (2013) gives a more comprehensive overview of available studies up to the present.
131 For example Spears (1995b:11) quoting Peter Block, Ken Blanchard, Max DePree, and Peter Senge as having enhanced existing models with SERVANT LEADERSHIP; Chin and Smith (2006:9), who found resemblance between Bass’ four I’s and attributes of SERVANT LEADERSHIP, but who could not find corresponding attributes for nine other distinguishing factors of SERVANT LEADERSHIP (like love, forgiveness, self-control, and other virtues considered elementary for SERVANT LEADERSHIP); or Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Alimo-Metcalfe (2005) who consider the newer developments in the area of TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP as being influenced by SERVANT LEADERSHIP.
Distinctive Features Transformational leaders Servant leaders
Primary focus Organisation Individual
Personal moral Develop collective values Sacrificial service Motive and mission Empower followers
change organisation
Facilitate follower development
create culture of personal growth
Development goal Similarly-minded leaders Autonomous servants
Influence through… Charisma Service
Table 8: Distinctive features of transformational and servant leaders according to Parolini (2007:5–10)
the intention the underlying force which needs to be evaluated? Clearly, SERVANTLEADERSHIP, like TRANSFORMINGLEADERSHIP has intentions as a starting point for evaluation (Farling, Stone
& Winston 1999:53).132 Greenleaf goes way beyond actions, when he defines ethics as “the way you are” (Fraker 1995:45).
Proponents of SERVANT LEADERSHIP would do well not to fall into the same trap as pro-ponents of TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP: softening scales of evaluation so as to make an element more attainable—but at the same time shifting from an evaluation based on ethical standards to one based on empirical observations.
4.6. Conclusion
This chapter started with a comparison of Burns’ and Bass’ differing understanding of the relationship between TRANSACTIONAL and TRANSFORMING/TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP. It explained their approaches to CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP and also the varying bases on which charismatic elements of TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP are explained. It was shown that inspite of the fact that Burns and Bass are mostly mentioned in the same breath, they differ in such marked ways—with Burns’ focus being societal change, and Bass’ driving force being the sucess of leaders and their organisations— that they should not be considered one model.
Also in this chapter, SERVANT LEADERSHIP was brought into the discussion as another model which sometimes is equalled with TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP. It was shown that Burns’
concept has more similarities to SERVANT LEADERSHIP than Bass’ concept and that unfortu-nately in this area also most comparisons between the models do not make a distinction
132 Chin & Smith stress that while SERVANT LEADERSHIP, just like CHARISMATIC LEADERSHIP and TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP, intends to influence followers and situations on a deep level, this is exactly what differentiates it from the other two: because SERVANT LEADERSHIP “is driven by the leader’s values anchored in spiritual beliefs and moral principles” (2006:10) and not by the leader’s skills and goals.
between Bass and Burns. However, it has become clear that to equal TRANSFORMATIONAL
LEADERSHIP with SERVANT LEADERSHIP would not be an accurate conclusion.
Having explained the grounds on which the models function and the differences between them will give the reader now a solid background on which to approach the claims of TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP which will be under discussion in the following chapter.