Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

I agree with Draven in that the only way to truly lead is by serving people.  A person who serves others has to balance the good of: the company/business; their employees; the communities they operate in and/or impact; and their own interests. 

I would like to elaborate on a prior posting in this discussion and request you please bear with me for a moment, if for no other reason then to understand where my opinions are coming from. Although anedotal, I have shared a personal experience because it engrained in me the importance of serving others. It also taught me what I never want to be as a leader and why leaders serving others matter. 

As I stated before I worked in a toxic environment of top down management style of "leadership". It wasn`t uncommon for the "leaders" (executives and department heads) to give their friends and family jobs.  It can be fair to state on more then one occassion the "leaders" made decisions based on personal interests which benefited themselves, their friends and/or their family members.  Beside favortism and nepotism, the skillfully crafted written business practices had a significant degree of variance in how they were applied (or not applied).  Unlike others I didn`t turn blind eyes and deaf ears to watching people at and below my level cry in "secret" in the bathroom stalls.  Instead I starting talking to those I reported to.  When talking didn`t work I volunteered on workplace environmental committees, started helping the union organize,  and read articles on: organizational behavior, toxic managers, industrial organizational psychology, positive psychology, and management styles.  Along the way, I learned of the Great Place to Work Institute: http://www.greatplacetowork.com/

The Great Place to Work Institute has conducted over 20 years of research.  They discovered that "trust between managers and employees is the primary defining characteristic of the best workplaces." 

Interestingly enough the traits which impact the organizational well being of good/great v. toxic workplaces also depict the traits/characteristics of good v. toxic leaders.  As a result many of the workplaces which are indicated as being "great place to work" have programs and/or appear to value the workplace quality of life of their employees.  My point is, although not explicit, many of the traits of a "great place to work" and of good "leaders"  are indictive of "leaders" who serve others interests before their own. 

-------------------------

Nicole Champagne
Email: influencialexpectations@gmail.com
Cell: (734) 262-3730
Soar With Influencial Expectations!

Let me approach this a different way. I used to work in the IT field, and non-technical people would want to discuss their computer while we were in social situations. They`d often speak about how they didn`t have enough "memory," or there was too much, or they needed more. They`d talk about how there wasn`t enough RAM in their hard drive, to do the work they wanted to accomplish.

As a computer person, hearing them use the words memory or RAM, I had to read through their word into what they intended to mean. Just so, as a philosopher and linguist, I try to understand what people intend to mean whenever the words they`re using seem contradictory.

In the same way, this discussion is moving along based on two channels. The one is the vague impression people use when speaking of leaders and servants. The other is the actual meaning of the terms. At the moment, the two channels are at odds with each other, and I`m choosing to advocate the clarity of actual definition.

In my opinion, the question can`t be answered objectively without there also being objective definitions of all the terms. That`s not to say that people can`t walk away from the discussion with a "sense" of something. It`s just not useful knowledge when it`s a "general sense" of something.

One of my soapbox issues is that I try to never "interpret" what someone is saying. I listen to exactly what they`re saying, under the assumption they know what they mean to say. However, too often people have confused meanings to words and make it a problem to understand their idea.

RealtorNicole speaks about the "toxic environment of top-down leadership." The implication is that an autocratic or dictatorial political structure is the only possible way for top-down leadership to take place. In other words, the implicit argument is that top-down leadership cannot be anything other than toxic---destructive.

Another common expression is that the only way to truly lead is to serve. That`s just not true. It`s like people who believe we live in a democratic society where "the majority rules." In fact, we live in a representative democracy where those representatives make decisions according to various majorities. But the citizens in general do not rule.

To be a leader is an attribute of "person." It takes into account hierarchies and competition. There is only 1 leader. There can be a group of people, all of whom are in "the leading" set of an overall population, but The Leader is 1 person, or 1 idea.

Servant (and service) means to elevate someone else`s desires, wants, and needs to a higher priority. It can mean elevating the principles of an idea (ideal) as well, but in this discussion we`re talking about people---management, executives, and other business titles.

Any leader who begins with the belief that to lead s/he must first serve has failed utterly before they even begin. Any person who believes that leadership in any form whatsoever contains service or servitude, has a mistaken concept of leadership.

As my father used to tell me when I was learning how to run a band. "You can either run the band or be everyone`s friend, but you can never be both." It took me 30 years to at last understand the complete truth of that advice. Not only to understand the terms, but to try it every way I could think of, watching the bands fail time and time again. I`ve seen every business that`s ever tried the same policy always fail, just as parents who try to be friends or servants to their children inevitably fail to raise competent adults.

The major problem of definition by anecdote is that it opens the door to escalating errors of logic and interpretation. We begin with a false premise, which then carries along and joins with other errors until the entire conclusion is messed up...to use a technical term. :-)

Leaders cannot serve. It`s a contradiction in terms. However, leadership is only to be at the decision-point of a situation, to be the most successful in something. What happens as a *result* of that position is all about politics, statesmanship, diplomacy, and the moral principles of violence, force, persuasion, socialization, and so forth.

"Service" has nothing whatsoever to do with "advice and consent."

Unfortunately, modern thought drifts along with an acceptance of the media term "our political leaders" in reference to members of congress and the Senate. Indeed, these politicians ARE servants, in that they`re supposed to express in a single opinion, the consensus thought and opinions of their constituency.

A business is NOT a representative democracy, unless it has been explicitly set up that way (in the minority of cases). Employees are not forced to work for the business, and choose to exchange labor and effort for money. What happens beyond that, or internally with regard to the political "smoothness" of the business has nothing to do with leadership or service. It has everything to do with polices, socialization, reason, persuasion, procedures, and lines of authority.

Too many people believe a business is some sort of social organization, where the employees` feelings are supposed to be taken into account when making business decisions. That`s a result of many variables that have accumulated since around the 40s. Regardless of how prevalent the belief, it still is wrong and modern business culture demonstrates the realities with the increasing collapse of large enterprises.

If you want to be friends with everyone at work, fine. But if you want to run a business, you`re usually better off in today`s environment to start your own small business. Then you can make the decisions necessary, unencumbered by the foggy notion that you must first learn how to serve your employees or anyone else.

I believe that (at least in part) there is a problem of miscommunication here. First you need to agree upon what level of people you are dealing with, one model fits all does not work. If you are dealing with highly motivated, educated and resourceful people (i/e minority partners) a carrot management approach will likely be successful. If on the other hand you are dealing with a group of people that are apathetic, temporary and inept (i/e prisoners on a work-release program) a stick approach might work better. Given these are extremes, but I used them to illustrate the point. I believe the miscommunication resides in the thread’s failure to establish the parameters for the discussion. Think that at least in part this is what Craig had in mind when he said

"In my opinion, the question can`t be answered objectively without there also being objective definitions of all the terms".

Craig said,

"Another common expression is that the only way to truly lead is to serve. That`s just not true."

On this part I believe Nicole/Draven is closer to the norm (there is no such thing as true or false to any statement given that everything will apply to somebody somewhere), when they said

"A person who serves others has to balance the good of: the company/business; their employees; the communities they operate in and/or impact; and their own interests".

The key term here is ‘balance between’, if the employee feels he is not getting what he deserves he is likely to give less than what he could, this will create a vicious circle that almost inevitably ends in ‘toxic management’ and the need for Unions and the like. The best deal possible in any agreement is when both parties think they got the better part of the deal, an entrepreneur must endeavor to ensure his employees feel they gotten the better part of the deal, case in point, during the 80`s and 90`s IT specialists would flock from all over the world to get a job at Microsoft, today they flock to Google, even top Microsoft Directors are doing this, why is that? They feel (or know) they are getting the better part of the deal. An employer must always create an environment were the employee WANTS to be there, if an applicant applies to work with the company and does not get the job, he must leave with the feeling that he didn’t get it this time but next time it will be better, next time he will get the job he wants with this company.

"Any leader who begins with the belief that to lead s/he must first serve has failed utterly before they even begin. Any person who believes that leadership in any form whatsoever contains service or servitude, has a mistaken concept of leadership."

I disagree, however, at one point in time I too subscribed (generally speaking) to this line of thought. There is a tremendous difference between service and servitude, for instance Raz a Manager for a large retailer I used to work with would go out of his way (still does) to service his employees, they in turn do their job not so much because they need to do the job, this is a secondary issue but because they want Raz to approve of what they’ve done. They go out of their way to ensure everything is in tip top shape, not so much because that’s the way it ought to be but because they want to hear that Raz is proud of them, they want to be able to say ‘Raz approved!’, that is leadership! The position Raz has in these people’s eyes was earned through dedication, hard work, respect for the individual, encouragement and direction all done while and with the only intent of serving the individual that works for him. It is no surprise then that this Manager has the lowest turnover rate in a very large retail chain and highest rate of promotions from crew members into Management.

"Leaders cannot serve. It`s a contradiction in terms. However, leadership is only to be at the decision-point of a situation, to be the most successful in something."

I vehemently disagree with that statement. A leader ‘leads’ others into doing something, a leader must be an executive and make the executive decisions, but in order to make other people want to follow (operative word here is want) they must have respect even admiration for him, a decision maker who’s failed to gain that is not a leader but a director. The people he directs do what he says because they need the paycheck not because they follow a leader, major difference there, leaders generally speaking have happy crews, directors may or may not have content crews.

{From Fabled Service pages 23-25} What Do You REALLY EXPECT? Typically, you give a lot of thought to what you wish your people would become. You are frustrated because you have such a great vision for your business and don`t understand why employees can`t figure out how to achieve it. The problem is that you are ignoring the awful truth, that your people Reflect your actual expectations. It is a rare employee who doesn`t try to please the boss. So if you don`t like what is going on in your offices or on the shop floors, it is probably not that they are not getting the message, it is that you are not giving your employees the message that you think you are. THE POWER OF MODELING BEHAVIOR Little things are everything, when it comes to signals. I learned long ago that, however thorny the problems I was grappling with in my office, when I hit the selling floor, that there my full concentration had to be. If I walked around frowning over that lease negotiation that was going wrong or the shipment that was tied up in customs, every-one who caught sight of me was quite certain we were doomed and that she or he was the direct cause.   Likewise, if I walked by a ringing phone, rather than diving for it, so could the staff. If I did not stop to assist customers who appeared confused, they could too. If I ignored a man waiting impatiently for his wife to come out of the fitting room and did not check to see if a cup of coffee or that day`s paper wouldn`t ease the boredom, why should anyone else be concerned?   The power of example in customer interactions came home vividly to me after I left Nordstrom. I was hired by a closely held retailer, whose top management knew me well to come in and "Nordstromize" their sales force. They told me how they had always insisted that customer service was to be everyone`s number one goal, but nobody seemed to pay any attention. They were ready to fire all of their store personnel and start over with a more talented bunch. Before going to that extreme, they wanted me to see if I could figure out what was wrong with their people and suggest a cure.   I began by visiting at least half of their few dozen stores. In each store, I had the same experience. The stores themselves enjoyed fair to very good locations, were attractively designed and well laid out, and generally presented customer-friendly appearance. As soon as I walked in, I spotted the people working there, so there appeared to be adequate staff. However, the cashier was invariably over some sort of paperwork, deep in concentration, would always be one or two people counting merchandise and writing their findings down on clipboards. A couple of others would be busy with dust mops and glass cleaner Everyone else was busy toting boxes of new merchandise out of the back rooms and stacking it on the shelves.   No one looked up. No one acknowledged my presence, nor that of any of the other would-be customers who had been lured into this environment by advertising, displays, or the beautiful merchandise that could be spied from the mall or parking lot. You have undoubtedly there yourself only too many times.   When I interrupted any of these busy employees to asj for assistance, they were cordial enough but obviously stressed. After all, they had tasks to complete and to walk me around or to fing up my purchase would cut into their time.   I invited the executives to make store tours with me. This time we were not so invisible: Everyone knew when the boss came through the door. If their entrance hadn`t been noticed, the executives made their presence known by dramatically launching into store inspections, their dissatisfaction growing with each breach of standards noted.     No the bosses were not happy. They made a great show of running their fingers across the shelves and blowing off dust. They carried reports showing which stores were behind in their paperwork, and they held discussions about less-than expected follow-through in each store. They noticed were stock was low or new merchandise had not made it to the floor. Any excuse was met with impatience. The suggestion that the employees had been too busy with customers to get the housekeeping done made the owners absolutely irate.   Not a word was said about the customers who walked through the store without being greeted. As customer after customer left the store empty-handed, the employees were never once questioned about what the shoppers had wanted. Sales were never discussed. In fact, no notice was made of the customers or of the business itself- selling merchandise. The entire focus was on running a tight ship.   When we are observing someone else`s business, the lesson is often clear. However, these otherwise smart people were dumbfounded when I suggested that there was nothing wrong with their employees. Like most sane people their people were doing everything they could to meet their bosses` expectations. These expectations, as the executives demonstrated in every store we visited, just had nothing to do with customer service and  satisfaction.   What do you really pay attention to in your people`s performance? If your goal is service, but you don`t model measure, or reward service, what role model do your people have to follow? YOUR VERY BEST PEOPLE WILL RESPOND TO WHAT YOU ACTUALLY DO, WHAT YOU EVIDENTLY MEASURE, AND WHAT YOU OPENLY REWARD- EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Craig, you are absolutely correct when you say that

"A business is NOT a representative democracy".

However,

"What happens beyond that, or internally with regard to the political "smoothness" of the business has nothing to do with leadership or service. It has everything to do with polices, socialization, reason, persuasion, procedures, and lines of authority."

is IMO way off base. The smoothness of the business is all about leadership and the service the entrepreneur provides for his employees. If you think about it, in reality the company is an intangible entity that nobody knows or can relate to, it is the employees who ‘make up’ the company it is the employees attitude, moral, determination and will that make or break a company. The entrepreneur can’t possibly oversee every employee all the time, he must know that when he is not there the employee will want to perform as good or better than when the owner is there, that is all about leadership. And, the position of a leader is acquired through the service you provide those you intend to lead. The person in charge only has the authority that those that he would lead give him, not the authority the company attempts to give him through a position in the chain of command.

"Too many people believe a business is some sort of social organization, where the employees` feelings are supposed to be taken into account when making business decisions."

If a company fails to account for the human factor it will soon meet it’s own demise. Yes, you can drive people by force, but the moment you stop they do to. This situation is a prime example of what Nicole was referring to when she mentioned Toxic Management.

{from Listen Up Leader- page 15-16} Show us that you care. The question "Does anybody really give a flip around here?" comes up a lot. Recently, a bunch of us talked about what really motivates us to go above and beyond the normal job. Number one on our list was being appreciated by our boss. That’s right it came in above money, interesting work, and promotions. Number two was being involved in the planning stages of things rather than merely implementing decisions other people make. Number three was working for someone who is empathic and concerned when we have problems. Then came money- fourth on the list! A paycheck doesn’t show that leadership cares, Everyone gets a paycheck. What shows us that you care is spending time with us, listening to us, and having a genuine interest in how we are doing- personally and professionally. IF YOU DON’T SHOW US THAT YOU CARE, WE CONCLUDE THAT YOU DON’T. THEN WE RECIPROCATE... WE STOP CARING, TOO.

What!? We disagree!! LOL!! No....say it ain`t so...!! :-D

EliDS, I read your argument through, and see that it rests---just as you first said----on the basis of what definition are we going to use for leader, servant, service, employee, and employment. Without that, I think we`ve pretty much laid out the parameters of the argument now, and the discussion rests.

The take-away, to me, from your post is thus:


Nobody should have to think about the tangible or intangible aspect of a company; that`s a given. There`s no such thing as a company. It is an abstraction, and represents a form of society. It runs on a form of politics, and uses certain types of processes.

The problem for me is that a leader is a social designation, but a company (and employer/employee) is an economic designation. "Service" and "servant" are moral and political designations.

Saddam Hussein was a leader and sure as hell didn`t  serve anyone. But so too, Joan of Arc was a leader, and served totally her emperor. Did she? Really? Did she wait before each battle for a command by the emperor? Did she indeed not even think about waging battle until first her emperor commanded that she go someplace and fight someone?

A servant acts only after being told what to do. But "service" isn`t the same as being a servant, just a "leadership" isn`t the same thing as being a master.

In a nutshell, this discussion can`t go anywhere else without those clear definitions. I can "interpret" the context of what it means for an owner to "service his/her employees." Fine, but so what? That`s my personal interpretation and solves nothing.

There was a fabulous story (I think Ron Schlieper?) about how during a convention of franchise owners, one fella stood out for heavy criticism. His franchise was far-and-away the most successful, and the other owners wondered why. Turned out this leader-guy was paying a lot more to his employees, helping them in many ways, and providing (not servicing) them with a terrific, enjoyable, optimistic work environment. Nobody ever quit, and everyone went well out of their way to come up with improvements, new ideas, and exceptional customer service.

Now I`m saying that in relation to the peer-group, or "set" of all similar franchise owners, this one man is a leader. But in relation to his own employees, he is the executive decision-maker. He doesn`t get his employees to work more effectively by "leading" them to it. His decisions take into account the nature and desires of each employee, and his decisions effectively create an environment that fosters a desire to work better.

But he is not "serving" or "servicing" his employees. :-)

Yeah! I was as surprised as anybody else, we agree on about 90% of subjects and were we don’t it’s simply a matter of shades of gray... But like I said “I disagree, however, at one point in time I too subscribed (generally speaking) to this line of thought.” So, I’m thinking that in this case you are just a little behind on the learning curve... :-)

If we look at the dictionary definition of ‘Leader’ it says “1. a person or thing that leads. 2. a guiding or directing head, as of an army, movement, or political group.” and ‘Lead’ is defined as “to go before or with to show the way; conduct or escort”. It appears to me that you are using the dictionary definition of the word ‘Leader’ in this discussion. As defined it could be a synonym for conductor or director, I believe that generally speaking when we refer to a ‘Servant Leader’ the words take a slightly different definition, it now requires that the people follow the leader because they want to do it, not because they are being paid to do so, much in the same way they would follow a religious or political leader.


Actually no, Saddam was not a leader, he was a despot. People didn’t follow him because they wanted to, they did so because it was the only option available to them, when the choices are ‘do as I say or burn in hell for all of eternity’ and people follow they are not following a ‘leader’ they are following out of fear. Fear is the instrument despots use to control others, leaders use loyalty and this is gained through admiration. Joan of Arc was a leader, so were Napoleon, Bolivar, Ghandi, Mandela and King, they made people want to follow them, people wanted to follow them because they were serving these people what they wanted, be that political freedom or religious certainty. The same definition applies in the term ‘Servant Leader’ people must want to follow the leader, and generally speaking they do this because they admire the person they are following, this admiration and loyalty is earned with thoughtful service.  When you say “I can "interpret" the context of what it means for an owner to "service his/her employees." ” It appears that you  are understanding the word ‘service’ in this case as in “The Bull will service the cow”...  For our purposes the word ‘service’ is defined/understood as “1. an act of helpful activity; help; aid: to do someone a service. 9. the duty or work of public servants. 25. of service; useful”,  that brings us back to the point I was trying to make on the quote from ‘Listen Up Leader’ in my previous post `show us that you care`.


Agreed, but do you know that he did not take the same type of leadership attitude he displayed in that convention and use it on a everyday basis at work, or are you simply assuming that?
Ultimately a leader must by definition lead by making people want to follow him, if this is not the case he is not a leader, he may be the person in charge, but not a ‘leader’.


Those are the actions of a leader.

What if we were to look at servant leadership from a different perspective? Could agreement be reached in that a leader and/or decision maker accomplishes more when they contribute to or set the tone for developing quality human relations?

The reason I ask is because "Energize Your Workplace: How to Build and Sustain High-Quality Connections at Work" by Professor Jane Dutton examines the contrast of high quality relationships.  These high quality relationships generate and sustain energy; whereas corrosive work relationships drain employee morale and reduce an employees productivity.

 

 

-------------------------

Nicole Champagne
Email: influencialexpectations@gmail.com
Cell: (734) 262-3730
Soar With Influencial Expectations!

I guess what I`m basically saying, is that I totally hate this collapse of language arising from modern catchphrases like "servant leader." Yes, people use them, and supposedly dream up a consensus interpretation that they imagine works. True, I`m behind the times :-) (as Eli mentioned) where it comes to revising language to reconcile with modern linguistics.

The bottom line is I think modern linguistics and the deconstructionist movement has done an incredible amount of damage to our society. I have no intention of subscribing to the process, and that`s why I hold the position that there`s no such thing as a "servant leader."

Now, that`s not to say everyone who believes the term works can`t continue with that opinion. It`s rather to say that I choose to never be persuaded that it`s a valid term. Another one of those modern phrases applies here, "we agree to disagree." LOL! :-) Hunh?

To lead is to be in front of the crowd, making decisions, taking the consequences. Saddam Hussein was a leader because he made the decisions about the existence of Iraq. HOW he led indicates he was a despot, but that`s a form of leadership. A despot isn`t a completely different form of "management."

We can have a benevolent dictator, as in corporate executives. We can have figureheads, as with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. We can have lame-duck Presidents, role-models, or charismatic rock stars. All these are leaders, none of them are servants.

But in the example of the rock star, if the decisions they make move them into an area that no longer satisfies their customers (fans), they lose their constituency---their base. They lose their leadership on a passive basis. Saddam was overthrown on an active basis. Various Presidents are voted out of office.

I know what`s happening with the "servant leader" terminology, and I think it`s a disservice to not only the language, but how we`re raising our children. There`s a reason we have objective definitions, and that they shouldn`t be open to interpretation. Instead of making up a vague new expression, why can`t we stick with actual words that have actual meaning? What`s wrong with using a dictionary to communicate? :-)

In a bit of a more simple minded way. 

A leader to me is some one who at least on occassion will do the jobs that he/she is asking his/her employees at the lowest levels to do.  This way he/she is much more able to make decisions that will create an atmosphere of wanting to be there.

Is this service?  It seems like it to me.  When the leader gets in the trenches and shows that he/she is willing to work, I absolutely think it`s service.  And it doesn`t degrade the leaders position at all - it enhances it.  What I think that service is NOT would be, giving your employees more money etc., that as has been said is providing, not service.

2 cents

I agree!

However, I see Craigs point in how each of us have expressed our own interpretation or definition of "leader".  As a result there is a large margin for potential miscommunication.    

-------------------------

Nicole Champagne
Email: influencialexpectations@gmail.com
Cell: (734) 262-3730
Soar With Influencial Expectations!