September 21, 2026

Why isn’t Servant Leadership more Pervasive?

Author

Date

September 21, 2026

Share

What is Servant Leadership all about?


Robert Greenleaf’s ideas on Servant Leadership have gained quite a group of dedicated followers since the publication of his essay in 1970.


He articulated, “It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from the one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage and unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions.”


While the foundation of his ideas is very sound advice on leadership, Servant Leadership has not become the pervasive mainstream theory of leadership. 


Why is this so and can his foresight be leveraged with additional insights?


Here are some thoughts to help leverage Servant Leadership into our practical day to day world of business.

Confusing Contrast

The contrast to a servant leader by Greenleaf is a leader being driven by power and material possessions. 


This line of thinking would have been natural at the time as the prevailing autocratic model of management was indeed driven by power and authority.


That model was under challenge particularly in the 1960s from insightful thinkers that we discussed in my blog on The People side of Leadership.


Unfortunately, Greenleaf’s depiction of leadership becomes obfuscated without a clear distinction between managers and leaders.


I addressed that in a previous blog Manager vs Leaders.


In essence, a manager has a position of authority and responsibility within the organization. It involves making decisions such as setting plans and budgets, organizing and staffing, controlling through accountabilities and so forth. 


Leaders quite simply have followers on where they are going.


Greenleaf does not explicitly discuss managers.


However, he implicitly intertwines the functioning of institutions and “the system” with leadership insights in his essay.


This is not surprising as too often managers and leaders are equated. We see HR vernacular like “she was promoted to a leadership position.”


The idea of assigned leadership is still prevalent in modern leadership theory. 


In my opinion, this misrepresents the actions of followers. An employee may obey a manager’s direction. That is different than followers who want to follow.


When Greenleaf talks about an unusual power drive or material possessions. That too gets all intermingled with the role of a manager. It has little to do about leadership. 


Managers because of their role in the organization make more money than the employees working for them. The position has inherent power which in many respects depicts the leadership contrast Greenleaf presents. 


But unfortunately, that tells us little about the manager’s leadership ability.


Greenleaf’s alternative in many respects is a false alternative to Servant Leadership. Someone focused entirely on “me” being driven by power and purely self-interest will not be a leader. 

Leadership requires a “we” not a “me” mindset.

We Mentality

Leadership requires more than one. 



The leader must persuade someone to follow their advocated vision, goal, or simply direction. For someone to follow, their needs must be met in some meaningful way of value to them.


Make the direction a common goal. Develop value propositions that motivates them to follow that direction. 


Thus, the leader’s mindset must shift from “me” to “we.” 


The leader must indeed serve the needs of followers. 


As many authors suggest this leads to some form of collaboration. If that direction and collaboration achieves meaningful results, then the followership is strengthened.   


It is a natural process. There is no need for the leader to have a position of authority in the organization or institution in Greenleaf’s vernacular.


Anyone can be a leader at any point in time.

Managers Need to be Leaders

In pursuing the leader’s advocated direction, the leader has needs that are met in some meaningful way as well. 


Thus, the foundation of leadership is that mutual benefit is naturally derived for both the leader and the follower.


In essence, leader and follower are serving one another.


Clearly, a manager is in a hugely attractive position to provide leadership because of their designated authority to direct. 


If the advocated direction is seen to provide meaningful value to the employee, then following can occur naturally, and there is mutual benefit derived by both parties. 


But for that to happen, the manager must be reaching out to employees and get them engaged and aligned with the direction. When this occurs, then indeed a manager can be a leader and, in the process, unleash inspired motivation from employees because the direction aligns with their higher-level needs.


Some may argue that leadership is not about “we” but rather about strictly serving the other person without expecting something in return.


This is not really a discussion about leadership as leaders have followers. Serving may or may not lead to following.


There are many ways to get others to follow you. One of the strongest is to develop them, get them engaged and guide them in the pursuit of their personal purpose. 


In the case of managers, developing employees is a key responsibility. 



A centerpiece of people development is serving, coaching, guiding, and mentoring others..

Think Value Propositions

What Greenleaf advocates is core to being a leader. 



The leader must understand the needs of people in order to provide a direction that will meaningfully fulfill their needs through value propositions.


Leaders dedicate themselves to fulfilling value propositions.


For a leader and followers plus managers and employees, mutual benefit for me is the leader serves by providing a value proposition that is meaningful to followers (employees in the case of a business owner).


Likewise, the follower or one can correspondingly think of employee should provide a value proposition to the leader/manager to create mutual benefit.


Still, the manager and hopefully leader has other stakeholders. 


There are many stakeholders that must be considered in a business enterprise including investors/banks, the relevant community, and so forth.   


It is not simply the employees accountable to the manager even though they are crucial to success. 


Practically there are tradeoffs in vision, goals, and directions for the various constituencies. Thus, the reality is more complex than simply one on one relationships of manager and employee.


In serving to fulfill other’s needs, the manager/leader’s needs will also come into play which leads to the centerpiece of achieving mutual benefit.


 Mutual benefit lends itself to adaptability depending on the situation with various people shifting in and out of the leadership role (not managerial role) as appropriate depending on their relative strengths, capabilities, and foresight.


Thus, there is mutual support serving one another to achieve the greatest benefit for all. 

Think Teamwork

This is the nature of teamwork and collaboration. Leadership is very much like a team sport where everyone wins. 



In Greenleaf’s essay the leader’s role is much more static with less dynamism than required in our fast paced always changing world today.


Without this concept of mutual benefit and its derivative teamwork, people in managerial roles find it challenging to pursue only a servant leader mentality. 


For example, companies stay in business because they provide a meaningful value proposition to their targeted customers. 


In that respect, successful companies serve the customer just as leaders serve their followers.

Servant seems Demeaning

The term servant can get in the way as well for managers even though there are interesting philosophical underpinnings in Greenleaf’s essay.



No one needs to be a true “servant” to a master.


The humbleness and will to serve are terrific traits of leaders. Tom Collins found this in his book Good to Great: Why some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t. 


But for many the term servant seems demeaning.


In my opinion, servant leadership needs to transcend to a more comprehensive state of mutual benefit with a “we” mentality.


This involves collaboration, engaging value propositions across the board, teamwork leading to successful outcomes.


I believe this approach facilitates managers becoming leaders. 


The positive momentum of a company grows enormously when managers become leaders too.


This is why organizations spend so much time and money on leadership development programs.


When managers become leaders, they can unleash the motivational potential of their employees and correspondingly significantly increase the performance of the organization.


Remember that people follow success..

Paper figures on arrows, one person stepping upward on the top arrow against a beige background
September 21, 2026
Model of Technology Change
Blue hexagon icons for business teamwork, communication, analytics, and technology on a dark background
September 21, 2026
The Proverbial S Curve
White figure standing on upward arrows, looking ahead with telescope, symbolizing growth and direction
September 10, 2026
Leadership does not have a simple formula for every situation. A lot of the leadership theory comes from academicians studying a formulation of their leadership model from observing the real world. They test the model with empirical research to determine results on performance. Then, it’s the publish or perish phenomenon. Look at the chapter headings from a well-known college text by Northouse entitled Leadership: Theory and Practice. We find a long list of these type models as well as some more generalized topics: Trait Approach, Skills Approach, Behavioral Approach, Situational Approach, Path-Goal Theory, Leader-Member Exchange Theory, Transformational Leadership, Authentic Leadership, Servant Leadership, Adaptive Leadership, Followership, Leadership Ethics, Team Leadership, Gender and Leadership, Culture and Leadership. Wow, how do you sort out all these concepts? And this is just a college textbook articulating all these different perspectives. There are lots of other relevant authors both academicians and practitioners not included in the chapters listed above such as Strength Based Leadership.
Person in blue leading a large group of white figures in a V formation on a white background
September 9, 2026
The purpose of this blog is to weave the story that power is the interwoven fabric of leadership. You might say, “You will have to convince me. Rosabeth Moss Kanter once wrote that “Power is America’s last dirty word. It is easier to talk about money, and much easier to talk about sex, than it is to talk about power.”[i] Power and politics are often equated but they are not the same thing although deeply related. Politics often relates to the influencing strategies and tactics within governments, which are usually quite contentious particularly at the federal level today. In the American democratic construct, there are two opposing sides trying to gain the upper hand to impose their point of view through vehicles not always healthy for the nation. In many respects, power by its association with politics remains a very dirty word in this 21st century. Of course, there are still lots of power plays in many organizational settings that are detrimental perpetuating this sinister view of people who use power.
Hands reviewing charts at a bright office table with a laptop and notebooks
September 9, 2026
In talking with small business owners, I am surprised how many have trouble off the top of their heads responding to simple questions like what are your revenues, how much is in your bank account, and what is your cash flow? Research studies find over 80% of the time poor cash management or poor understanding of cash flows contributes to the failure of a small business. Another way of describing this predominant problem is a lack of funding or working capital. It is amazing how many people just jump into business without planning and understanding their working capital needs. Even the term working capital is foreign to their vocabulary. So, if you don’t know, it is the capital in the business used for short-term operations. You take what are current assets such as cash in the bank, receivables, and inventory less the current liabilities and obligations you need to pay out in the short term considered less than a year. You need to know more than what is working capital. Somehow accounting leaves many with that deer-in-the-headlights look. In many ways, I understand. Even though I have a master’s in accounting, it was never my favorite subject. But I also understood back then when getting my degree that accounting is the language of business and a necessity for running businesses. In teaching a Corporate Strategy course to undergraduate business school seniors, far too many of the students didn’t understand balance sheets, income statements, and cash flow statements even though they had introductory accounting courses.