Servant leadership
effyai.substack.com
effyai.substack.com
"To be a good leader, you need to trust your team and listen to them!" Gee, thanks.
Maybe I'm being overly critical, but there's no insight, no analysis, no practicable takeaways at all; just a bunch of GPT-esque bullet points about how some famous people are kind of nice to their employees sometimes. Feels like crappy content marketing, but there's not even any content being marketed.
The FAQ says "There are no down arrows on stories. They appear on comments after users reach a certain karma threshold, but never on direct replies."
One of the big takeaways is that most of this information isn't just professional, you can (and, IMO, should use it personally).
How you handle feedback and responsibility with your direct-reports is going (most of the time) how you do/ought to do things with your own children. And with those you worship with. Valuing personal relationships isn't just for the home and friends: it's important in a business context. Taking ownership/responsibility is something you must do personally and also across all aspects of your life.
The beautiful thing is that so many of us get so stressed out because we have so much to do. However, being a good servant leader—addressing what people need rather than what they want—will often mean that you pass on things to others. This makes them feel more valuable and also means less stress for you. I did this yesterday with my son and the trash. He's got an Apple Watch and an alarm clock. So I told him: you're responsible for the trash. I'm not going to remind you about it, but if you don't do it, you sure as heck will hear about it. He relishes the idea of me not reminding him, and even though it's just taking out the trash—he likes the idea of "owning" it. (Not to mind the fact that he'll be driving in a few years... God help me!)
This of course assumes that the employee has no stocks in the company... but it would have to be more than just a symbolic amount in order to count.
If you take ownership of you and what you do, and how it impacts others and can produce value, you can make choices. To say no. To say yes. To push for recognition, and leave if you don’t get it.
Owning what you’re working on (and refusing to work for someone who won’t let you) is usually a key part of mental health and actual real world success for everyone.
I disagree the other way around is.
A lot of people suddenly realize they are 50 and they put decades into someone else's dream.
Be realistic, do what you are paid for, but save the heroism for your own efforts.
I’m saying, having ownership of what you are doing and what you control is essential. Not doing so is a path to hell.
That can be the section of the codebase you’re specializing in, or just the effectiveness and quality of the code you’re producing. Or the product you’re delivering, as delivered.
If you don’t think the pay you’re getting is fair for that, then that is a separate issue - and one solved by not doing it, not by trying to pretend you had no part in the deal.
Nobody makes it that explicit. Managers just ask you (your team) to deliver more story points, go the extra effort to meet a deadline, etc.
And the risk of setting boundaries (saying 'no') to the implicit ask is not being viewed as a "team player", not being promoted or given a raise, or, at worst, being fired.
I am willing to take those risks. Not everyone is.
It’s much easier (mentally) to be told what to do and hope it eventually works out. And if it doesn’t, blame everyone else.
I never blame anyone. I just move to a competitor who is more adapt at running a business.
> don’t want to take the risks
That legally speaking if they pay off you are entitled to no additional compensation.
I understand where you're coming from, I'm the same way. It's about taking pride in your work and taking responsibility for the success and quality of your own work.
As you noted, it's risky in that others may take issue with your actions, but it's not nearly as risky as the hell that is being forced to work 8 hours/day for things that don't matter to you at all.
I'll speak only for myself here, but:
Not everyone is made like that, but on the flip side it's why I'm typically respected and appreciated. And for environments that don't appreciate that attitude I quickly leave or am pushed out (generally I leave).
perfect example, a few years back I left a position due to power politics. Before I had gotten there a man had been removed as head of the It department but due to the good old boys system had wiggled his way into the CISO position.
I gave it about 8 months but at some point it became clear the CISO was using his position to ensure IT failed overall. And indeed about 3 months after I left, that's exactly what happened and the whole of IT was once again put back under this man.
I could have chosen to simply do the work, take a paycheck, and not care. That's not me. Compromises are always made, but if I fundamentally cannot take pride in my work then I don't stay.
own·er·ship
the act, state, or right of possessing something.
re·spon·si·bil·i·ty
the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something or of having control over someone.
Part of me that's pushing back here is my manipulative language detector going off.
It someone will suffer the consequences of an outcome with no ability to change anything (or make decisions), that’s just making someone a scapegoat.
If someone can make decisions/do things but will not benefit from or lose anything from the outcome, then I’m not sure what they are (judge? Arbitrator? Ruler?) - but they don’t own the thing.
Without all 3 of responsibility, mandate, and knowledge there can be no ownership.
Ownership is responsibility + benefit (or loss) for an outcome IMO, protected by some kind of agreement. Societal or contractual. Title. Employment agreement/laws.
If there is positive benefit received on a good outcome + a responsibility for maintenance and the like, that is a form of ownership IMO. If a negative benefit comes from damage/destruction/bad things happening to that thing, that also tracks.
Anyone who owns real property quickly discovers there isn’t anything like truly unencumbered and unconditional ownership of anything - the first property tax bill will make that clear if nothing else.
That doesn’t mean someone doesn’t take on significant risks and benefits (hopefully) from owning it. It can still be yanked away if they don’t pay certain people or follow certain rules - or via Imminent Domain.
Someone working a job has more constrained ownership, but it still exists. And like buying a property, they need to choose carefully as they’ll still end up with consequences regardless.
Is possession == control then control == possession.
We can have a world like that, if someone worked in some role for a period of time we could have a legal process for them claim their proceeds of the enterprise. That sounds really complicated and it isn't the world we live in today.
I think the reason the word responsibility isn't used is generally you are expected to pay for people who take responsibilities off your hands. A plumber takes responsibility for your toilet problem, if you also have a unrelated faucet problem he can take responsibility for that as well, but not for free. On the other hand, owners aren't expected to be paid like that as they profit off the overall health of the enterprise, without providing that sort of mechanism, I don't see how you have any real ownership.
If they get a bonus, then if they did a better job they’d have a right to expect a good bonus. Equity, a higher share valuation (modulo how little control there may actually be there).
I think the thing you’re struggling here is with scope.
For an hourly employee, the ownership extends about as far as ‘what I can do within the hour I’m there, and how can I do it the best I can’.
For the plumber example, it’s owning fixing the toilet. If it breaks because they did a shitty job, it’s also taking care of making sure it’s done right. If the faucet is part of the job, it’s making sure that is done right too (or they say no, I can’t/won’t).
Doing the faucet for free is stepping out of their area.
More ownership, more risk, more scope (all scope sometimes) more upside/downside, less direct payment.
Someone paid a salary is getting a lot of risk reduction (almost all, frankly), and it would be very odd for whoever is paying them to give up all their upside AND take all the risk of it not working.
Wiktionary:
2. (business) Responsibility for something.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ownership
Cambridge English Dictionary:
the fact of taking responsibility for an idea or problem
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ownershi...
I should have the authority to make decisions about how to execute a project I'm given (or take) responsibility of.
In the context of "Servant Leadership," how well I execute the task should inform my manager's response. If it is not done correctly/well, I should get the feedback needed to ensure I don't repeat those mistakes. Future work assignments should be adjusted based on how "wrong" my work was. Maybe the project was too complex, and I should be given a more limited scope for the next one, or maybe being shown the corrections is sufficient to trust me with the same level of work next time.
Which is still a thing. It’s rarely that tightly constrained however.
If it is, then time to bail. It’s burn out city.
Another thing entirely is what you formally own. I mean as in by-law, not some aspirational or motivational bullshit. And someone is trying to manipulate you if they try to foist the responsibilities of ownership onto you (even if it is just in your own mind—staying late, fretting about it in the shower, etc.) by encouraging “taking ownership” without actually physically letting you own it.
> Owning what you’re working on (and refusing to work for someone who won’t let you) is usually a key part of mental health and actual real world success for everyone.
Yes sir/madame.
As far as I can tell you lazide are in agreement. If your comment didn't start with "Completely and utterly false" I'd think you were writing a supporting/reinforcing follow-up!
- Someone makes a cynical comment on some specific topic
- Someone else makes a completely inappropriate extrapolation and concludes—based on nothing—that the first poster is making an argument for being defeatist and negative for its own sake
- The first poster has to then correct this inappropriate extrapolation—which was based on nothing—by stating that, yes, it is good to (say) have a positive attitude in your life
- Onlookers act puzzled as the first poster is contradicting himself (apparently) by hostilely agreeing with the second poster that having a good mind-attitude in life is good!
So yes I suppose I could be agreeing with the second poster...
Mind clarifying?
And that's about four more sentences of extra clarification that none of your comments have even deserved.
Personally? I’ve never had that level of vitriol unless I’m well and thoroughly in need of a vacation. Or in need of a new life entirely.
Since, you know, if you actually were congruent with that you’d never need to actually reply with that or even your prior responses.
But thanks for clarifying.
This is kindness and empathy. Spite… is something you’re unlikely to ever trigger. Ciao!
When someone really has ownership, management has to come to terms with the fact that the owner may make choices that are suboptimal to the company for the sake of their or their teams’ sanity. The majority of management never make that mental leap.
If that line is too far one way or the other it's time to leave.
Managers take ownership because they're looking for their project to succeed, they want to advance their career, etc. and the same applies to "underlings"
I'm grateful that I get to work for a company that encourages growth and promotes heavily from the inside. Not all organizations are like this. But Servant leadership and companies growing quickly go hand in hand.
The benefit of owning a process is the control you have over it. I can't tell you how many times I've heard engineers bitch about the decisions made over their head that they have to conform to. But now engineers apparently are just going to bitch if given control over the process. There's no winning with some of you.
Of course! If you have ownership of something then you also bear the burden in case of loss or mismanagement. Blatantly obvious answer to a useless intended-as-rhetorical question.
So what? People can be hired to be more direct servants of the ownership class.
They often have more pay and power after all.
But maybe that too is to convey a sense of ownership that isn't actually there.
What management roles tend to do is assign ownership without mandate and ability.
Kudos to you.
The worst part of owning chores like trash and dishwasher stuff as a teenager was that inevitably it didn’t matter when I had planned to do the thing. My parents would get on my case about not having done the thing yet. Sometimes literally as I emerged from my room to go do the thing, I would get reminded that I need to do the thing. Thanks mom I know I’m on my way.
Always felt like that robbed me of the opportunity to shine.
What I’ve learned since then is that it’s extremely hard to need something done and rely on others to make it happen. The internal stress of “I could do this in 10min but I gotta let the junior team members spend 2 hours fumbling around so they can learn” … oof.
Your children don't have the option to show you the finger and move to another family. Nor (hopefuly) are you paying them to be your kids.
I think it fundamentally changes what you should expect from one and not the other, especially regarding responsibilities and ownership. And I'm sure you won't address your son not taking out the trash the same you'd deal with a team member that don't release the features on time.
Not exactly. I want my kids to become great people. I genuinely care about them and their well-being.
This is the same thing with the people that I work with and for. I care about them and want to them to get better.
> And I'm sure you won't address your son not taking out the trash the same you'd deal with a team member that don't release the features on time.
Maybe, maybe not. Did they "give the finger" or did something just happen that is a learning experience? If it's a communication problem, these are fundamentally easy to address.
Those are the same words but pointing to a radically different reality.
I care about my coworkers being healthy, but there are clear boundaries that I won't pass over. If they drink all nights all week stay alive during the day through piles of enerfy drinks, I won't have much to say if it doesn't affect their work.
Same way I can go any length to help my kid succeed at school, including changing school, paying for tuitions, changing their diet and whole life rythm to improve their focus etc. Helping my colleagues succeed goes as much as talking to them and changing their tasks/career path.
The average workplace rehashes the same dramatics as the average sixth grade class cohort. Which makes sense if you consider that education is mostly about learning how to conform, and follow the instructions given to you. Even with servant leadership.
There's very little taught about building solidarity, or altruism, or good-faith debate in a system aimed at producing a national work force instead of global citizens.
What does leadership mean when you are serving a system that relies on making people conform?
Using terms like "servant" to appear humble, when the equity split is massively lopsided is patronizing at best, and manipulative at worst.
When people feel alienated from the product of their labor, that's what feels demotivating.
So obviously in a capitalist system, the solution is to try to make people feel as much like owners as possible without actually giving them ownership in the only way that actually matters in a capitalist framework - in equity in the company.
And speaking of the military, Jocko Willink's Extreme Ownership idea is a similar concept to "servant leadership" without the cognitive dissonance. The basic concept being: the leader takes responsibility for everything that goes wrong, full stop.
As Jocko puts it, when the team wins, the people win too, so your job as a leader is to help them understand the why.
I get the same vibe from “flat” management structures. People can claim that there is no superiority in the org chart and that everyone is equal, but in reality it never works this way.
Many times in life, someone has to make a call and it's usually the person in charge. Not sure why that has to have malicious intent behind it. You don't have to like the decisions your leaders make, but that doesn't inherently make them bad leaders just because the team isn't 100% on board. (I will concede that good leaders will take the time to get the team on board. It's usually laziness to explain the "why" that results in teams not being on board. That or ego prevents them from letting go of their ideas.)
No no, I'm not saying this at all. I'm completely fine with the leader making the decision, I just have an issue with the narrative that they're a "servant" serving the team. And if no one is suggesting this, why call it "servant leadership"?
That is what I mean by "fake masking." All of the best leaders I've encountered are cognizant of the fact that they are in charge and thus have more responsibility and decision-making power – and don't try to pretend that somehow they are "servants."
So to be clear, I agree the label is weird and cheesy and maybe should only be used to describe a type of leader (which again, I'd argue is just a good leader). Leaders absolutely should hold themselves to a higher standard due to their responsibility for the good of the team and the fact that they DO have more power.
I'm still not clear on what "pretending" to be a servant would look like. If I'm a shift manager and someone needs to sweep the floors before we leave and one of my team members is a teenager with an exam the next day—damn straight, I'm going go send them home early and sweep up myself. That's "serving" them—putting them before myself. But quite frankly it's also just the right thing to do. So in a sense, yeah I'm a servant in that I am serving my team members, but holy hell if you say, "Yeah, I'm a servant leader so why don't you go ahead and take off early." You're a cheesehead, a weirdo, and probably not actually a good leader. And in that case yeah I agree it's a weird play.
Totally agree. Reminds me of a lot of articles some years ago where some millionaires called themselves “minimalist” because they had given up their kitchens and other things and eating at restaurants all the time.
In my opinion: Servant leadership is underrated. In the long haul at a company it is what is truly needed.
Mindset: "We define mindsets as core beliefs or assumptions that we have about a domain or category of things, that orient us to a particular set of expectations, explanations and goals." --Dr. Alia Crum [0]
0. https://hubermanlab.com/dr-alia-crum-science-of-mindsets-for...
Virtue: "Stable dispositions to perform socially desirable actions in a manner that is sincerely motivated by shared values." --Edward Slingerland from "Trying Not To Try" [1]
1. https://www.amazon.com/Trying-Not-Try-Science-Spontaneity/dp...
Gandhi was well known to be incredibly stubborn and exclusionary of outside opinion in the Indian National Congress. He'd impose his ideas onto an unwilling Congress and populace, and a some of them led to a level of blood shed that no other 'peaceful' movement has ever seen.
Satya Nadella came into a deeply suspicious Microsoft. It was a political and paranoid mess, owing to Ballmer's stack ranking setup. Satya Nadella had to rebuild the company's culture from the ground up, and listening to/trusting leaders who had got there through the cut-throat policies of the previous leadership was not the way.
> Anne Mulcahy was Xerox’s CEO. When she became CEO on Aug 1, 2001, the stock price was $8.25, and on Jan 1, 2002. when she became chairwoman. the stock price was $10.05. On May 21, 2009, the day she announced her retirement as CEO, the stock price was $6.82
But not sure why someone would think this is a good example.
> To sum it up, servant leadership is about genuinely caring for your team, listening to their needs and involving them in decision-making. By shifting the spotlight from the leader to the team, you can spark trust, creativity and innovation.
The article is a little too Linkediny for my liking.
but Oprah?! the person who just pledged $20m of her own money to help Hawaii (turns out it was $20m from the general public)
I'm not sure I'd recommend a book but if I had to you couldn't go wrong with this: https://shop.sandhursttrust.org/products/book-serve-to-lead?...
But ultimately it's not about book learning, it's living by example, "having your compass point true north" as my Commanding Officer at Old College, Sandhurst would say. Or another of his favourites "Do not what you want to, but what you ought to"
Someone is annoyed at work and an argument is getting heated? Try responding with compassion to deescalate and prod a little to see what could be behind that raised emotion.
Its hard - you have to actively moderate your own emotional state and avoid being swept up by others'. When I can manage it though I feel much better about handling all sorts of stressful situations.
Its one quality I would hope to find in any form of leadership, but especially for those who espouse a servant leadership methodology
in the end all those frameworks are simplified platitudes with no real actual guidance. you build your own style with experience, based on your personality, your team, your goals - not some self-help crap.
This is not really true and totally impossible when presented as simplistic competing approaches. What it really means is look for the compatible path in service of both, let the action plans bubble up vs dictate down, and own & share in the impact (and shit work) when corporate objectives trump personal and team objectives (it's gonna happen). In other words, the leader is the ocean, not the boat.
What I don't get about servant leadership is why people put it in their LinkedIn profiles, CVs, or boast about the term. Most of those people are obnoxious.
Were they able to fire you?
So your boss told you (or it was in your contract) that if all your reports quit, your job would be terminated? Did that ever happen to anyone in the company?
You’re attempting to redefine the verb “to fire” in a twisted way regardless
My role was to be the “office admin/firewall” to the team so they could do their job as efficiently as possible.
It’s a loveless role.
history shows that if you're true good, someone worse will kill you and take your place. literally or metaphorically.
"servant leadership" like we live in some hippy utopia. gtfo of here.
Even if there's something good to say about de-religionized practices, right now it is a likely indicator that the person advocating it is a proselytizing Christian.