Mitocondria y cáncer

It has been mentioned already in section 1.2.1.3 that it is surprising that there is so little reference to SERVANT LEADERSHIP within the publications on TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP. One should think that two leadership models who both claim that they are deeply concerned with the ethical aspect of leadership would draw from each other. To lay the groundwork for understanding why this lack of reference is surprising the main ideas of SERVANT LEADERSHIP

will be introduced in this section. Section 4.5 will explain in more detail the connections between the two models. This will shed further light on the distinct approach of

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP to the deeper ethical questions relating to a leader’s intention, character and menschenbild and the consequences this has for the ethical evaluation of the model.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP as a concept was formulated by Robert Greenleaf (1904–1990), an American engineer and mathematician, who spent his 38 working years at AT&T, where he within a few years entered the field of management within the organisation. Most of his years at AT&T he was busy with researching management and organisational questions, advising the many organisations associated with this giant, and promoting his ideas about leadership within the organisation. His nearly 30 years of retirement he dedicated to consulting other organisations and promoting SERVANT LEADERSHIP as a way of approaching leadership which would address the problems he had perceived in the society and in organisations.

The idea of SERVANT LEADERSHIP (first published in 1970 in the essay The servant as leader) was not born out of extensive research, but rather started as an intuition (Greenleaf 1991:12).

His consulting work and his desire to truly understand the people he dealt with had led him to reading Hermann Hesse extensively (Greenleaf 1995:20). It was in reflecting on the person and role of Leo in Journey to the East⁹⁰ that Greenleaf realised the connections between serving and leading and the immense potential which these “opposites [...] brought together in a creative and meaningful way” (Spears 1995b:2) held for leadership practice. From the very beginning Greenleaf stressed that the essence of SERVANT LEADERSHIP was not a method, but an inherent quality of the person of the leader—it was rooted in the leader’s character, not in leader behaviour. Leadership positions could be bestowed on people or withdrawn, the quality of being a servant would stay with the person whatever position s/he would occupy and would shape the leader’s relational ethics. In this way, servant leaders are first and foremost servants and “assume leadership only if they see it as the best way they can serve”

(Blanchard, Hybels & Hodges 2001:42). Under their leadership the people being led will “grow as persons, [...] become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, [and] more likely them-selves to become servants” (Greenleaf 1991:13–14). Followers are seen as people worthy of being served. And in terms of questions of social ethics, Greenleaf was convinced that the impact of SERVANT LEADERSHIP will not be confined to the organisation/company, but that it will always also have a positive effect on the underprivileged of society.

The natural inclination to serve will manifest itself in certain behaviour. Spears (1995b:5ff) lists ten characteristics of a servant leader: Listening, empathy, healing, awareness

90 In this story, Leo, a servant, accompanies a group of travellers on a journey, serving them in all their needs. At one point he leaves the group, which eventually leads to the failure and abandonment of the journey. Much later one of the group meets him again and realises that he is not a servant, but the leader of the group who had financed the journey.

(including self-awareness), persuasion (in contrast to coercion),⁹¹ conceptualisation, fore-sight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and building community; Barbuto and Wheeler identified an eleventh element: calling (in Bugenhagen 2006:32).⁹² In contrast to such servant leaders who use a leadership position to better live out their natural inclination to serve, a leader who is “leader first” might later also serve, but not as an expression of natural desires, but “out of promptings of conscience or in conformity with normative expec-tations” (Greenleaf 1991:14).⁹³ The strong focus on the person and character of the leader will be considered again in section 4.5, since it seems to be one of the defining factors distin-guishing Greenleaf’s SERVANT LEADERSHIP and Burn’s TRANSFORMING LEADERSHIP from Bass’

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP.

In 1964 Robert Greenleaf founded what in 1985 became the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. However, the name he originally had given to his organisation was Center for Applied Ethics—another indication for where his focus lay. Greenleaf died in 1990, but the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership continues to offer training in SERVANT LEADERSHIP and to organise conferences where leaders dedicated to this philosophy of leading meet and interact.

Greenleaf did not limit SERVANT LEADERSHIP to the person of the leader. In the four years after the publication of The Servant as Leader he published two more essays, specifying how institutions and boards of trustees could and should act as servant leaders. His book Servant Leadership (Greenleaf 1991—first edition in 1977) was a collection of these and other essays. In it he challenged especially the educational sector and the churches to develop servant leaders, which would eventually make a difference in overall society. Although the idea of a servant leader found widespread recognition, the same principles applied to institutions or organisations seemed far less acceptable (DiStefano 1995:64ff). The challenges to truly put

“people first” and abandon the typical hierarchical structure of organisations—even more:

turn the hierarchical pyramid upside down!—were perceived as too radical and threatening.

Naturally so! They would require leaders who would not just consider the notion of a servant leader as something morally uplifting but who would actually put it into practice, allowing in the process to have their own self-perception and familiar organisational structures

91 To illustrate this Greenleaf relates the example of how John Woolman (1720–1772) with quiet persuasion and persistence influenced the Quaker community so that, long before this became an issue in society in general, Quakers demanded the abolition of slavery (Greenleaf 1991:29–30).

92 These elements were later combined into five factors: Altruistic calling, emotional healing, persuasive mapping (= the ability to conceptualise), wisdom, and organisational stewardship (Bugenhagen 2006:33–

34).

93 With this definition Greenleaf’s servant leader fits exactly what Chan, Hannah and Gardner (2005:6ff) define as a veritable authentic leader (see section 3.5 for an introduction to authentic leadership), one that is and lives his/her true self. A servant leader is always a veritable authentic leader, but not every veritable authentic leader is necessarily a servant leader.

challenged. This hesitation points to a fundamental issue not just for theological ethics but for any kind of moral philosophy: If ethical considerations only serve to give one the uplifting feeling of being concerned with noble goals, they miss their mark. Ethical convictions mani-fest themselves in the practical decisions of a person’s life—be they leaders or followers—as well as in the organisations they work with. If one is not willing to put ethical convictions into practice—either as an individual or as an organisation—the least one can do is to stop deceiving oneself and others by proclaiming them.

It will become clear in the next section and in chapter 4 that TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADER

-SHIP according to Bass gives leaders a kind of toolbox of possible reactions where they are encouraged to choose the ones most likely to produce a successful outcome in a certain situation. SERVANT LEADERSHIP in contrast keeps the intention of the leader in focus, the willingness to put people first, and thus “becomes a razor sharp sword that challenges every decision you make as a leader” (McGee-Cooper 1995:113). The process of how SERVANT

LEADERSHIP approaches ethical questions parallels the approach theological ethics takes in many respects. The next step would now be to evaluate the content of SERVANT LEADERSHIP

along theological ethical parameters. However, this is not the intent of this dissertation.⁹⁴ Rather, SERVANT LEADERSHIP was introduced to exemplify the differences of approach to ethical questions within the field of leadership studies.