What style of leadership will we need for the 21st. century? In this paper, we shall first consider Servant Leadership developed by Robert Greenleaf (The Servant as Leader, an essay that Greenleaf published in 1970) and then compare it with Level 5 Leadership from Jim Collins (Good to Great, a book Collins published in 2001.)

Servant Leadership

Servant leadership was devised 40 years ago by Robert Greenleaf — in the middle years of the 20th. century, in fact. So, will it do for the 21st. century?

Robert K. Greenleaf was born 1904 in Terre Haute, Indiana (d.1990.) His philosophy of leadership is supported by many leadership and management writers such as Ken Blanchard, Stephen Covey, Peter Block, Peter Senge, Max DePree, and many others. Servant-leaders consider the needs of their colleagues and those they serve as a priority, and are often seen as humble stewards of their organization's resources.

The second CEO of the Greenleaf Center was Larry Spears, who determined ten characteristics for Servant Leadership —

• listening,
• empathy,
• healing,
• awareness,
• persuasion,
• conceptualization,
• foresight,
• stewardship,
• commitment to the growth of others, and
• building community.

We now have a new list from Kent Keith, the current CEO of the Greenleaf Center and author of The Case for Servant Leadership. Keith identifies seven key practices of servant leaders —

• listening,
• self-awareness,
• changing the pyramid,
• developing your colleagues,
• coaching not controlling,
• unleashing the energy and intelligence of others, and
• foresight.

This is the current thinking on Servant Leadership, but what has any of this to do with being a servant?

Dictionary definition:

— servant - one that performs duties about the person or home of a master or personal employer.

Look at the list! A servant has to listen, certainly, because he is going to be told what to do, but he has no need to be self-aware, he has no pyramid to change, he is not concerned with developing his colleagues, he does not coach and he does not control, he is not going to unleash anyone's energy or intelligence, and he certainly needs no foresight because he is going to be told what to do in the future as in the present.

Nevertheless, those key practices may be useful for being a leader, because ... and let's look at the definition of 'leader' —
— leader - something or someone that leads; goes in front or before; one who directs the operation, activity or performance of something

What has happened, I think, is the role of manager and the role of leader have merged. Look at the dictionary definition of —
— manager - one who manages; one who conducts business or household affairs. A person who directs a team

Pay particular attention to the last words of those two definitions... a person who directs... That is the same thing in both cases.

A student of leadership need have no problem with this. The English language is a living language. Words are added all the time — other words are dropped or fall into disuse. Some words take on different meanings. When I was growing up, to be gay meant you were happy, jolly and lighthearted: today it means something totally different! Other words merge — manager and leader have come close to being quite synonymous.

As an example, consider the case of a project manager. If you are the project manager, who is the project leader?___ Is there another person on your team with that title? No! You are project leader. You are the project leader and the project manager. It seems, we have tagged the term "servant" onto the front of "leader" to prevent the supportive / encouraging / motivational role of leader from being swamped by the commanding / demanding role usually associated with manager.

Steve Denning

Now, this isn't just some pedantic opinion that I have. I call to my corner, Steve Denning - author of 11 books on leadership and management - Voted one of the world's most admired knowledge leaders - Visiting Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford, and Senior Fellow at the University of Maryland. His many books and scholarly papers on the subjects of management and leadership have received worldwide acclaim.

Steve Denning has said, "... the term, 'servant leadership' has some inherent limitations ... It smells of the Jimmy Carter school of leadership. Solid. Dutiful. Moral... but it will have difficulty getting anyone’s pulse beating faster or taking us into the future."

"The leadership of the 21st Century is about generating excitement and delight for clients, as well as growth of the people doing the work. It is about having the courage to look into the abyss of an unknown future and be willing to go there and inspire others to do so as well."

That's the stuff for the 21st.century, surely.

What will we need of our leaders?

We will need leaders who make things happen — who create new possibilities — who bring about results. We need leaders who can become the catalyst for change. In project management, this is important, because unlike process management or production management, a project has a beginning, a middle and an end. Most other management is of an ongoing process — no beginning and no end. So, results are especially important for a project manager.

Look at Kent Keith's list again — there is not much there about achieving results. It is all about keeping your team happy. Now, obviously, if your team is not happy, you will have a tough time achieving the results you want. The objective is to get the right results.

Good to Great

A rather marvelous book that discusses leadership and what leaders do, is Good to Great by Jim Collins. Nevertheless, 'Good to Great' is really about management — that is, achieving results. The measure of Good-to-Great companies was strictly on results, on their stockmarket results as a matter of fact — stockprice increases plus dividend payments over an extended period. Pure results.

In Good to Great, Collins introduces the term, Level 5 Leadership. And Level 5 Leadership is, we contend, far more suitable and far more appropriate as a leadership philosophy for the 21st.century.

Collins' research team found that all the companies they studied that went from good to great were led by Level 5 leaders. The comparison companies that failed to become great companies were led by leaders who could do no better than Level 4 leadership. It was not that they went looking for Level 5 leaders and called their companies 'great' companies. They identified the great companies based on results, then discovered, quite reluctantly, that all the CEOs were Level 5 leaders.

The five levels of competence go like this —

• Level 1 - Highly Capable Individual : Makes productive contributions through talent, knowledge, skills, and good work habits. In other words, a good worker.
• Level 2 - Contributing Team Member : Contributes to the achievement of group objectives; works effectively with others in a group setting. A good worker AND a good team player.
• Level 3 - Competent Manager : Organizes people and resources toward the effective and efficient pursuit of predetermined objectives.
• Level 4 - Effective Leader : Catalyzes commitment to and vigorous pursuit of a clear and compelling vision; stimulates the group to high performance standards.
• Level 5 - Executive : Builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical combination of personal humility and professional will.

The Mirror and the Window

It all came down to the mirror and the window. Level 4 Leaders used the mirror when things went right — that is they took credit when things went right. They used the window when things went wrong — that is they looked outside themselves when things went wrong, blaming others, circumstances or bad luck. Level 5 Leaders did exactly the opposite. They blamed the person in the mirror when things went wrong, and looked out the window — crediting others, circumstances and even luck, when things went right. They constantly pushed themselves to do better.

A leader, whether you want to call him a servant leader or a Level 5 leader, or just a leader, must create a compelling future — for himself, for his organization, and for his team. We believe he does that by enlisting the team members to create a compelling future for themselves within the concepts of the organization or project.

Those individual visions do not have to be the same. In fact, they will not be the same. We are talking about different people and differenet people will have different goals. But each personal vision must be congruent with the project or organizational vision. So that achieving one achieves the other — striving towards one carries you towards the other.

Future Leadership Structures

21st.century leadership structures must be set up so that each individual on your team pursues their own personal vision and, in doing so, pursues the vision for the organization as a whole. The leader/manager of the 21st.century must help their people develop that congruency and push them to pursue their own goals.

That will be the hallmark of our best leaders - the great leaders - the 21st.century leaders - professional drive, personal humility, and the skill to marshall individual visions to a common purpose.

    Next >>>