Servant Leadership Theory | Hacker News Reader

Servant Leadership Theory

pon.harvard.edu

40 pointsBluestein48 comments

I've read a bunch of the management books and even my company's internal training. None of it seems to matter. They're great in theory, but I never see any of my managers really practicing it. The fact is, they're so far removed from real power they're just implementing what the people 3 levels above them want. It seems they're just struggling to keep their own heads above water most of the time.

I haven't recieved any real career or growth coaching by any of my managers. Most of my managers haven't been around long enough to actually help (about 16 managers in 12 years). The guidance I get includes "make me happy and I have connections to get you promoted", "just keep doing what you're doing and you'll get there", "we want you to increase throughput and ask fewer questions" even though I've requested disability accomodations for more coaching, and of course there was plenty of therapist style managers asking what I wanted and how I thought I should go about it but without any actual feedback or real discussion.

I've had to fill leadership roles in the past, but thankfully never any sort of reviews or managerial positions (more like TL, supervisor but not manager, stuff when I was a kid too). I'm just a leader by necessity. Nobody else stepped up, so I did. We did what we needed to get done as a team and it worked surprisingly well. It almost seems like the people who really want to be leaders end up bringing some baggage with them or can't get out of their own way.

This comment resonates so deeply with me.

In my opinion, all of the management training completely ignores the one thing that matters - make the company money.

If management training isn’t helping you make the company more money, then you might as well just ignore it. It’s likely actively working against your own interests.

"In my opinion, all of the management training completely ignores the one thing that matters - make the company money."

They definitely don't tie it together explicitly. In my view, much of it implicitly can help the company, but only if it's applied correctly.

With my disability, I feel like the canary in the coal mine. My team is a low performing team. I've been identified as a low performing member of that team. Our tests are basically non-existent. We don't have a requirements repository other than JIRA stories. We don't have documentation for most tasks. These things (and more) are common complaints of most team members. It certainly affects their speed and quality. However, with my disability it affects me much more. The company could save money on dev costs if they made some process improvements. Instead, they give me career advice that I need to speed up, ask fewer questions, and that I should look for other roles, including non-technical roles. I guess when I do get fired or leave, they'll have to blame the slow and low quality work on someone or something else...

Curious how this is considered novel. This idea goes all the way back to King David. This is how leadership should be thought of … especially for public servants. This is what Marcus Aurelius espoused and practiced.

From the Rob Roy movie: "You're a master of many men, they say." "Master of none, but there are some two hundred in my care."

That is such a great line. Care. It's what's all about.-

There's nothing new under the sun.-

(And, totally agree: It should be a default. And yes, particularly by public sector personnel of all stripes ...

Our society has been so influenced by Marxist thought where everything is seen thru the lens of power -- oppressed and oppressor -- that we have lost the Western idea of servanthood. The first are last, and the last are first.

> everything is seen thru the lens of power -- oppressed and oppressor -- that we have lost the Western idea of servanthood

Had not looked at it that way. Well put. Indeed.-

My only honest question: "western"? (Surely not as in "only western" ...

I am sure non-western cultures have equivalent concepts to "stewardship" and the like ...

Yes, that is why I was taken aback as to why anyone would consider this novel. To be fair, there have been many cultures that were primarily focused on dominion and power, but most thoughtful folks knows this will ultimately bring destruction. Judeo-Christian Western society has been the best example of a flourishing world view based on the idea of serving others as the highest ideal.

Was really expecting something more substantive from Harvard here. This is barely even a summary.

Growing up in Evangelical church circles in the '90s and '00s, this was the only kind of leader you were allowed to (admit you) want(ed) to be. And in that culture, it probably works. If your primary goal is (even ostensibly) "help these people love each other better and follow the golden rule better," this fits. That's a situation where any person's success helps other people succeed. One person's growth in love isn't at the expense of another's.

But does it work if your goal is to launch something in a cutthroat competitive landscape? Probably not nearly as well, and it doesn't make much sense to me to expect it to.

The only manager I ever had who used the phrase 'servant leadership' was a really good, helpful manager. But, it was never clear to me how the servant leadership principles he espoused were different than just taking a practical approach to unblocking your 'resources' and making them happy, so they can meet the goals you've set for them. It looked the same from my perspective, and the results were the same. There was never any confusion in my mind about where the power lay, so the whole servant leadership model always seemed lightly and inoffensively patronizing.

This manager was also very religious, and I always wondered whether he came to the servant leadership model through the church, or through management philosophy. But in any case, when I hear about people in leadership positions advocating servant leadership, I think "ahh, in your mind you're the Jesus in this scenario, and we're your disciples. Got it."

In my experience of people who claim to be servant leaders within smaller orgs, it works pretty well. Explaining to your team what the business needs, getting them to align on a direction together, and then listening to their complaints and unblocking them when they ask for help...that's just how most modern tech leadership works.

Either those people have neutered the idea of servant leadership, or the concept has been incorporated into normal leadership so fully that nobody remembers why it was special, or maybe both.

> But does it work if your goal is to launch something in a cutthroat competitive landscape?

I guess that's the only one that works. Hire a team of exceptional engineers and make sure they have everything they need to deliver.

This is one of those "It depends" things. My experience, these days, is that people want one-size-fits-all "solutions," and have no patience for "It depends."

This is perfect for churches, and spiritual fellowships. Might not work as well, for military, or sales.

That said, I was a manager for 25 years, and considered the well-being of my team, my #2 priority (#1 was always keeping the company's interests in mind). My own well-being was #3.

But mentioning that, tends to draw real scorn, from today's tech folks. Not exactly sure what it is, they want from managers.

I'm not sure that ranking them makes sense.

Like, there are absolutely places I as a manager recognized a win/win/win (company/team/myself) by doing something other than what the company said to do, or to message differently than the company wanted me to.

Putting "the company's interests as #1" is a bit ambiguous. It could mean you are willing to do the things needed to save the company from itself, or it could mean that you'd uncritically do what you were told. Without context, it sounds like the latter.

Similarly, putting your own well being behind both of those sounds like a recipe for burnout. What I expect you probably mean is that you look to take on the unpleasant tasks for the team, the things that need doing but won't grow the individuals on the team, or are morale killers, or are just bitchwork to make leadership happy. But, again, ambiguous.

Well, I did it for 25 years, so I guess it lasted.

The ranking was really something I only used, when there seemed to be conflicts between the priorities. In my experience, that seldom happened.

> #1 was always keeping the company's interests in mind

While I understand your intent on saying this, I think the reaction you get is because that is essentially a Sycophant which historically for the past known duration of human history has thrown vulnerable people under the bus in order to make the powerful more powerful.

I think what you probably want to say is that as a manager you should balance the 3. If you have to sacrifice the wellbeing of your employees or yourself for the company, well maybe the company isn't worth it. Also your employees probably don't like knowing you are making sacrifices for them instead of setting boundaries for yourself in order to take care of yourself. Nobody likes a martyr.

Especially in the tech world were theoretically you can leave a job and find a new one that doesn't conflict with this balance.

The general view in 2024 at least in my circles is to establish boundaries, find balance. Not blindly make the company your "#1 priority" in every decision.

Eh. Whatevs. That was not the case. I won't really get into it, but I draw my personal experience from many unusual places, and I have found that I have been able to blend them into all of my activities.

These days, I'm retired, and generally working on projects with a more humble scope, but still quite important, to a number of folks.

OK, I am agreeing with you that in practice you probably didn't follow these priorities. Your original complaint was "But mentioning that, tends to draw real scorn, from today's tech folks. Not exactly sure what it is, they want from managers."

You were looking for clarification about how the way you expressed your views were met with a negative reaction. I am agreeing with you.

So it is a problem how you frame priorities in the past when you did work. Not that when you worked you did something wrong. Today's workforce has a different vocab and a person needs to learn why the conversation changed if you want to communicate effectively and not get negative reactions.

Probably. My experience, hereabouts, is that there's a number of folks that automatically despise me, simply because I'm old, and will usually interpret whatever I write, in the nastiest possible way, so it doesn't really matter what I say. Someone will imply pretty abhorrent motives to it.

I'm a pretty decent person, and the folks that know me, know that quite well. I'm not trying to get a job, and I already know that I won't impress people, here, so I guess it doesn't matter.

That sucks to hear. Sorry about that.

> it doesn't really matter what I say. Someone will imply pretty abhorrent motives to it.

Just a bit of feedback though. You wrote a complaint that was affecting you and you didn't understand. I took time out and wrote a thoughtful reply and your response was:

> Eh. Whatevs.

Being immediately dismissive to someone trying to help you is a good way to make people not like you and react negatively to what you are trying to say.

Communication is a two way street. If you want respect you have to show some. Its an outdated view that respect comes with age.

Hope you have a great day and enjoy your retirement.

That is a good point, and you have my sincere apologies.

The way I interpret "#1 Company, #2 Team, #3 Me" is that faced with a decision that benefits the company as a whole (i.e., all teams at the company) one that benefits only your team or you, you should favor the decision that benefits everyone.

For example, say your team has a huge hardware budget, and you notice another fledgling team that's working on something potentially more impactful to the company is struggling to get a decent budget. Ideally, you should transfer most or all of your budget over to them to benefit the company overall. (Mind you, I have never really seen this happen voluntarily, but again... we're talking about ideal/desirable behavior.)

It does not mean that if the company is acting in bad faith and is, for example, putting policies in place to force people to quit to save on severance or something, you go along with that and throw your team under the bus.

Numbers 1 and 2 are connected. If the company goes under, then the team loses their jobs. If the company constantly screws over the employees, they'll end up with lower talent candidates and higher turnover. There has to be a balance. This isn't unique to tech, but probably more obvious there due to the job market strength for so long.

I was just talking to a friend of mine, yesterday, who used to work for a mob outfit.

He said that mobsters are surprisingly good managers.

I guess if you manage folks that, by definition, don't like rules, and can kill you, if you piss them off too much, you need to have a balanced and clever approach.

That stands to reason ...

Gives a whole new meaning to the "M" in MBA :)

The military does teach servant leadership (or at least the Marines does). The Marine Corps leadership principles:

Know your people: Observe how Marines react to different situations and look out for their welfare

Keep your personnel informed: Provide reasons for tasks and ensure Marines are aware of all relevant information

Set the example: Demonstrate professional competence, courage, and integrity

Ensure tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished: Give clear, concise orders that are difficult to misunderstand

Explain why tasks must be done: Provide a plan for accomplishing tasks whenever possible

Be alert to rumors: Replace rumors with the truth to stop them from spreading

Build morale: Publicize information about unit successes to build morale and esprit de corps

Make sound and timely decisions: Be able to quickly assess a situation and make a sound decision based on that assessment

Consider advice from subordinates: When possible, consider the advice and suggestions of subordinates before making decisions

Announce decisions in time: Announce decisions early enough to allow subordinates to make necessary plans

I think in general you can be competitive and tactical while centering yourself around small group welfare. It's basically an acknowledgement that you and everyone else are only as good as the group and the leader is most well positioned to affect that welfare on a daily basis.

Thanks! I appreciate the input!

(These principles alone would bring success to any organization I'd think ...

Particularly the emphasis on clarity, brevity ... the attention to (and avoidance of) rumors ...

> Might not work as well, for military

I can see how one could think this, but one of the most accomplished persons I know is an ex high level, special forces commander who swears by these principles, and practiced them with and toward his men while on active duty. He attributes his success - and, later success in business, must add - to being there for his men and ensuring their well-being and progress, much along these lines ...

Never heard of this theory before but it's been my attitude towards management ever since I got promoted to a manager. My philosophy is roughly "this isn't about you, this is about your reports". My assumption here is that if I primarily work on meeting the needs of my reports, that will trickle down and I will eventually get rewarded for the success of the folks I manage.

I once heard someone say “What obstacles can I remove from your path?”. I think the whole philosophy is encapsulated in that one question.

Yeah, the Coaching Habit has "and what else?" as it's primary focus.

I suspect applying this philosophy was very different back when companies employed secretaries.

Because the times I’ve had leadership roles in companies that practice servant leadership, an awful lot of my time has ended up spent on things like scheduling meetings, discussing the number of cart parking spaces available and similar minutiae - rather than anything that needed technical expertise.

The job of a leader is to schedule meetings, and the good ones actually manage to get people to show up. Leadership is about herding cats, not about technical expertise.

The job of a leader is to define the problem to solve. Meetings are a tool, not an outcome.

A leader does not necessarily define the problem to solve. That is the job of an owner. Leaders coordinate people, and objectives are decided by owners. The same person might do both jobs, but they are distinct functions. They are very frequently different people, where a leader is assigned a job and a team with which to do it.

The role of a leader is to be a force multiplier on the rest of the team, regardless of who decides the objective.

It is often the case in contract work that the project owner is the client, and the leader is the head of the contracting team. The leader depends on the project owner to provide clear objectives, so that they may use them to effectively direct their team in accomplishing them. However, it applies within organizations as well, where the owner of a project may be on the business side, whereas the team leader is on the infrastructure side.

"Herding cats" assumes your team consists of running wild stray cats. I am not sure if that's "servant" either. Leaders should treat their teams as adults. As an adult I can also accept my leader's decision - disagree and commit.

May be lost in translation.

In the US, "Herding Cats" often means trying to get a group of highly individualized people, into a unified direction.

Then, there's this EDS ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_MaJDK3VNE

Cats are highly skilled individuals and you can trust them to catch the mice, but you can't trust them to coordinate with each other. Left to their own devices, they'll just focus on their own technical expertise. The specialized job of a leader is to get the cats to work together.

There are a lot of leadership styles that are effective, and constructive, depending on the circumstance.

This one sounds nice on LinkedIn posts at least

Virtue signaling blog post.

I had a co-worker who went to yet another leadership class and got back with a question: where are all the followership classes?

> where are all the followership classes?

Great question :)

When I see someone advertise themselves on LinkedIn as a “servant leader”, I am skeptical.

Seems like a title bestowed by your peers, not by yourself.

Seems like a title bestowed by a marketing agency - real people don't talk like that.

LinkedIn, where the titles are made up and the posts don't matter

Reply on news.ycombinator.com