Servant Leadership at UST

I have always believed that when we aspire to a purpose higher than ourselves, we truly make a difference to those around us. UST was founded on this purpose and our values, which fundamentally help all of us as USsociates, to transform lives. And it is also this very selfless purpose that lies at the heart of the servant leadership philosophy in our organization. To be able to put the interests of others at most if not all times, to be self-effacing, sensitive and compassionate, calls for great courage and unwavering faith. Faith in oneself, in the potential of one's teams and the innate goodness of the people all of us work with. When we lead with the purpose of nurturing the potential of our teams, we transcend managerial limits, becoming coaches. Our intent then becomes to collaborate, giving our teams the opportunity to explore their fullest potential. This, in turn, also helps us partner selflessly with our clients. At UST, many USsociates, who have also become servant leadership champions are now demonstrating this philosophy. I'm happy to note that this is contributing to the positivity, productivity and the overall wellbeing of our associates. I wish each of you continued success in this endeavour and invite you to participate in the servant leadership program. All the very best to each of you. Thank you.

Evolution of Servant Leadership

Leadership has fascinated many students in history. This is not surprising. After all "Everything rises and falls on Leadership" (Maxwell, 2008). Many theories on Leadership have emerged over a period of time. Some of them are Great Man theory (Carlyle, 1888), Trait theory (Galton, 1869), Behavioral theory (Lewin, Lippitt & White, 1939) Contingency theory (Fiedler, 1957), Situational theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969), Functional Theory (McGrath, 1962), Transactional Theory (Burns, 1978) and Transformational Theory (Burns, 1978). The behavioural theories were bolstered by the works done at the Ohio State University and University of Michigan. Along with the theories on Leadership, the Leader behaviour was also studied in depth. The leader behaviour came to be known as the Leadership Style. Historically, many Leadership Styles have been propounded and studied. They include Charismatic, Autocratic, Persuasive, Consultative, Democratic and Delegative, and Coaching styles (Lewin et al, 1939; Tannenbaum & Schmidt 1957; Goleman, 2000). The search for excellence in leadership has continued all through. Aspects of excellent leadership have continued to evolve over the period of time (Mintzberg, 1969; Khandwalla, 1962; Collins, 2001; Maxwell, 2008; Barney, 2010 etc). Leadership has gone through many eras, and might be in an Integrative era right now (King, 1990).

Power has been used and misused in leadership in different ways. Power concentrated at the top has the potential to be misused as well as correctly used. In the Classical literature and scriptures (Indian and western) we come across leaders (Emperors, Kings, High Priests, Commanders, Captains, Chiefs etc) misusing power. It is such misuse of power that prompted Abraham Lincoln to opine that "Nearly everyone can stand adversity, but if you want to test a person's true character, give him power". T.S Eliot said that "Half of the harm that is done in the world is caused by people who have power and want to feel important". It is in this context the term Power Elite has been used (Mills, 1956). This term captured the essence of union of the military, economic, and state power. This included the theories of Marx, with his overemphasis on the capitalist as the only holder of power, Liberals, who saw the politician as the head of the system, and those who viewed warlords as the dictators of the system. It also drew attention to the interwoven interests of the leaders of the military, corporate, and political elements of society and suggested that the ordinary citizen is a relatively powerless subject, prone to manipulation by those entities.

Leaders have been cautioned regarding the misuse of Power since long. In His message to the disciples, Jesus Christ said "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave - just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (The Holy Bible , Matthew 20:25-28 ). Lao Tzu, the founder of Taoism is quoted to have said, "I have three precious things which I hold fast and prize. The first is gentleness, the second is frugality, and the third is humility which holds me from putting myself before the others." Indian scriptures had advocated subtle and selfless use of power for the benefit of others (Dasgupta, 2001; Mishra, 2001; Chakraborty, 2001).

Over the years, the concept of power flowing from Top to Bottom started to change. The Bottoms-up model of authority, where the power was not necessarily at the top, was recommended (Barnard, 1938). Instead of the power-over mindset, leaders were asked to adopt the power-with mindset (Follet, 1949). Socialised power was proposed to be more advantageous to organisations than Individualized/Personal power (McClelland &Burnham, 1995).

Leadership and Power

Leadership has been linked with power for a very long time. The classical view of leadership is that power and authority flows from above. When professional organisations were established initially, this view dictated the organisational structures and procedures. In the modern era, an alternate view, called the Bottoms-up view, started emerging. Barnard (1938) was the first one to describe this view of authority. He proposed that people will accept an order if four conditions are met, namely; the person understands the order, the person believes the order is consistent with the organisations goals, the person believes that the order is compatible with his or her interests and the person is mentally and physically able to comply with the order. Follett (1949) analysed the word "authority" and noted that some of the words such as authority, supreme authority, ultimate authority, delegation of authority, etc are just a survival of former days. The modern business has surpassed business theory and business practice has gone ahead of business language. She opined that in the best managed businesses there is a focus on each individual to have the authority which goes with his particular job rather than in a position in a hierarchy. Leaders and thinkers are closer to the understanding and conclusion that a man should have just as much, no more or no less, authority that needs to perform his function or task. This concept gets rid of that kind of authority which puts one man over another because he is higher up in an organizational chart. The emphasis is on the job rather than on the hierarchy of position. Authority may go with three things - knowledge, experience and the skill to apply that knowledge and experience. Follett (1949) concluded by emphasizing that "The important thing about a decision is not who makes it but what goes into it. The important thing about responsibility is not to whom you are responsible, but for what you are responsible. The important thing about authority is that real authority and official authority shall coincide."

In another study Follett (1973) directly addressed the issue of Power. She identified two types of power that are commonly prevalent - power-with and power-over. The concept power-over generally denotes that the power of some person or group over other persons or groups. Whereas, power-with means, a jointly developed power, a co-active, not a coercive power. The author collected information from various literatures and noted that around ninety percent of our life is lived under the laws of suggestions and intimation, which means power-over. The challenge is how to reduce the power-over. She suggested few areas such as integration of desires, obeying the law of the situation and making businesses more and more of a functional unity. McClelland and Burnham (1995) opined that power is a great motivator. They studied the motivational aspects of managers using the degree of a person's need for power as a measure of success. The authors concluded that the effective managers tended to score high in their need for power. They exhibited desire to influence people. The authors noted that the most effective managers, what they termed as institutional managers, are disciplined and controlled their desire for power so that it was directed toward the benefit of the institution as a whole - not toward their own personal glory. This is socialised power. On the contrary there are managers with a need for personal power who instill low morale among subordinates.

Dasgupta (2001) noted that when people listen to their leader they really listen to themselves since they have made him/her a leader. The author focused on leader - team member power relationships in organizations through the lens of ego-management. In order to establish a strong leader - member relationship it needs to begin with a strong moral foundation in individuals. Bhaya (2001) opined that power is a motive force essential to move men or matter. So there is an essential requirement that the power has to be acquired and shared in an organization by an individual executive. Power in an organization flows from high pressure areas to low pressure ones - from top to the bottom, not the other way. Since most organizations are hierarchical in set up, the corollary is that the exercise of power affects an individual according to the position he or she holds in an organization. The author viewed the power dynamics between individuals and organizations in terms of two basic human emotions - greed and fear. The author argued that a shared rather than an autocratic use of power without diluting one's final responsibility should be practiced and promoted. Love of power for its own sake and using it for self-interest inevitably create disrespect and non-cooperation for the leader.

Mishra (2001) looked at power from a feminine perspective and argued that the feminine power principle has a universal applicability. It cannot be exclusive to women only. The author pointed out the keynotes of this principle in Islam, Christianity and Hinduism as being joy, love and duty which are very different from the nature of the masculine principle of power. She drew attention to the holistic Mother principle, referring the Goddess Durga, (a Hindu goddess) at once protecting, educating and nourishing. The author found that organisations driven mainly by the masculinity of power lack the nurturing-caring dimension and cease to be enduring or effective. On the other hand, leaders of society nourished by the feminine power principle will be engaged constantly in securing the welfare of all beings.

Mukherjee (2001) noted that "Irrespective of our wishes, without 'power', the engine of social life cannot run". He suggested the convergence of eastern and western ethics in the use of power. Restraint and containment of self-interest is a common key note of ethical power management in both. The author highlighted the importance of power for the sake of self-empowerment. The author reminded the readers that use of power propelled by competitive envy is a sure way to abuse it.

Zafirovski (2001) noted that power in society and organizations is a complex social phenomenon that contains elements of the 'reciprocal shaping' of individuals and groups. Power always strives for social acceptance, approval and/or legitimization. He viewed organizations within society as power structures and treated managers as power-seekers within organizations. The author argued that economic organizations do not stick only to financial cost-benefits, but often display moral commitments as well. The author explained that even business agents, while operating within certain power structures, create and sustain moral norms and human values because of an intrinsic urge.

Kamath (2001) referring to a conversation between Swami Vivekananda and his disciple noted that "Be the servant if you will rule. That is the real secret. Your love will comfort even if your words be harsh. Instinctively, men feel the love clothed in whatever language." Vivekananda always expected his followers to eschew pride and jealousy. The author noted that Swami Vivekananda's way of generating power was through renunciation. He concluded with three simple ways of managing power, namely; having a strong common sense, cultivating a public spirit and cultivating a distinct Philosophy.

Pruzan (2001) discussed focused on the modern perspectives on 'power' in organization. The first one is the capacity to effect (or affect) organizational outcomes, the second one is manipulative or behavioral perspective. The author stressed that leaders in organizations with multiple stakeholders must have spiritual power. The author recommended the culture of certain eastern concepts and processes like duty, equanimity, non-attached action, unity and non-violence. The author interpreted freedom in terms of doing one's duty, not in terms of self- centered license but by practicing selflessness, non-attached work, or detached involvement or the Christian concept of 'holy indifferences'. A self-less leader is stable, strong, trustworthy, and based on the sensitivity to general. This kind of leaders value and are sensitive to aspirations of various stakeholders and ultimately masters values-based leadership.

Chakraborty (2001) opined that, Power, in the social context, implies a process of governance, regulation, direction and influence for the symbolic protection and upliftment of both the individual and the collective. Leaders or managers fail to monitor wise use of power because of the dominance of ego over the mind. Ego-management is the central problem in acquiring and applying and its use by humans in the light of the supra-rational or cosmic/transcendental power. The author advocated for an honorable and chaste use of power. He pointed out that "Mind cluttered with contaminations like hatred, anger, greed, vanity, egotism cannot apprehend truth / reality".

According to Miller (2001), the values such as quality, trust, creativity, collaboration, and service are all essential to sustainable business success. Businesses that exercise their power based on spiritual values generate more success and economic prosperity. Power has two basic purposes in business context, namely; to energize and to create. Energizing is by invoking spirit, enthusiasm, vitality, inspiration, and motivation. Creating happens by building and sustaining something. The source of such power ultimately lies in the 'spirit' of one God.

McDonald (2001) argued that, from the indigenous viewpoint, power should be in the hands of those who are grounded in the spirituo-religious ethos of the community's wellbeing, and could act as an anchor in the reveled vision of higher purpose. Focusing on integrity, he suggested that leaders' failure to respond to the moral visions of other cultures is not good, and the longer we ignore for inclusion the more we deny everyone the possibility of integrity.

Khandwalla (2001) noted that the general concept of power is to pursue greater aims rather than petty, personal ends. There is little known about unknown persons using power for benign ends. Managers can use power constructively. The author recounted the bad and good use of power by CEOs in the field of turn around management of sick companies. While the former method is one of the ruthless application of power towards a lean-mean strategy for recovery, winning instant adulation and high financial benefits, the latter is humane, patient and not motivated by high reward. Khandwalla (2001) argued that for developing economies, like India, power used in an organizational climate characterized by a synthesis of altruistic - professional - organic - participative functioning, should result in long-term competitive advantage for corporate entities. He suggested that any short-sightedness, selfish abuse of power needs to be sublimed.

Lloyd (2001) opined that the subject of leadership has been moving away from top-down military model. Leadership at all levels of society, and inside organizations, needs to learn to listen and engage in a positive dialogue with the various stakeholders. The author linked power with the normative aspects of responsibility and reputation that are the keys to long-term corporate value. The ethics and values underlying decisions assume importance in this perspective. Trustworthiness becomes the key variable in this direction. Lloyd also mentioned progress towards an 'inclusive' view in corporate management as extending to all stakeholders, and to duties instead of mere rights. In order to translate this model into reality, he suggested processes like greater transparency, creating stakeholder maps, social and ethical auditing and so on. Such efforts, perhaps by external agencies, may prevent or reduce the abuse of power. Ultimately, these approaches may lead to the formulation of a universal benchmark of social accountability. A gradual movement in this direction is being propelled by the greater expectations of society from corporate behavior. Roychowdhury (2001) pointed out that "Power, whether institutional or interpersonal, is intrinsically derived from a position of hierarchical authority within an organization." While power, authority, and hierarchy are inescapable in any institution, the manner of operating with and in them, rests on the values and attitudes of members and leaders. Selfless service, service with honour provides the only true foundation of positive value systems and leadership qualities. The bedrock of leadership power in the military still continues to be the grand traditional principles of character: Nishkam karma (unselfish work) from the Gita, or Izzat aur iman (honour and faith) from the Koran.

According to the Dandavate (2001), a high degree of centralization of power leaves the grassroots masses living in deprivation. He felt the need for cultivating ethico-moral consciousness among leaders.

Sen (2001) noted that Power is perceived both negatively and positively. It becomes positive or negative depending on the quality of mind that uses it. The importance of 'quality of mind' also influences the rightness and wrongness of the goal pursued.

Bhattacharya (2001) indicated that power, even violent power when other forms have failed, is an essential force for ensuring non-selfish common good. Misuse or nonuse of power arises out of the human vice of the lust, greed and pride.

Badaracco Jr (2001) discussed the concept of Quiet Leadership and suggested that leaders need to cling to reality. Quite leaders always pay close attention to their authority, power and circumstances. These people believe that they are not extraordinary individuals rather see themselves as a part of the group. They consider the reality before they act on certain problems. The moral compass point these individuals in the right direction.

Focusing on Principled Leadership, Jones and Jones (2008) noted that "to become a Principled Leader and lead effectively one must first become a great follower. Leader must know how to follow company leadership and authority and start practicing these before they expect others to follow them. So, the leaders first demonstrate a willingness to embrace and accept authority. This act earns followers respect for the leaders.

The above referred studies point to an advocacy of proper use of power for people in leadership positions. Many of the advocates of this also highlighted the need to be aware of factors other than mere organisational results and focused on common good, ethics etc. In the following section we will examine these studies.

Our world has taken a decisive tilt towards a competitive market economy. The goal of the business is to maximize profits at the any cost. Is it desirable for them to strive for 'goodness', in terms of spirituality, ethics, compassion, corporate social responsibility, and philanthropy, and not just profit maximization? Further, is it possible for the corporations to be both greedy and good? Is it possible for the business world to create a human civilization based on efficiency, productivity & innovation and that is also humane and caring in nature? These questions led many leaders and organisations to incorporate the concepts of spirituality, altruism and ethics into leadership (Cifrino, 1959; Conger, 1994; Khandwalla, 2008; Cuilla, 1998; Singh, 2001; Sendjaya, 2005; Sharma, 2010 etc).

Leadership, Spirituality, Altruism and Ethics

Traditionally, Spirituality and Leadership has been seen as two separate streams. In the Jewish and Christian tradition, the priests and the rulers were always separate. The power dimension of spiritual leaders has been studied early in recent history. Weber (1922) examined the social aspects of religion and noted that the priesthood of a religion is often part of the elite, the hierocracy. He theorized that early religious beliefs stemmed from the work of skillful, charismatic individuals, and their actions eventually transformed into a systematic, church-based religion. Therefore, religion begins with charismatic authority and is transformed into traditional authority.However this and other early studies on the topic have focused on the behaviour of Spiritual Leaders. The inclusion of Spirituality in the concept of organisational and team leadership has been a more recent trend.

Cifrino (1959) stated that spirituality and religion are the mainspring of Business Leadership. He argued that it is in the character of man to work and build. Man also desires to live in a world of harmony and order. When spirituality is built into the workplace, work climate is inclined to be stable and has order compared to the larger world full of anomalies, contrasts and cruelty. Leaders are motivated to shape the intrinsic setting developed by their industrial actions, and maintain a climate which others share. Involvement in spiritual activities is crucial to enhance the worker performance. It also fulfils the requirement of individuals to be part of a larger system. Both employees and employers need to develop a moral partnership and an innate sense of mutual responsibilities towards each other.

Block (1993) focused on stewardship, which incorporates the notion of service before self-interest. He emphasized on communitarian and humanitarian values, empowerment, participation, partnership, trusteeship, ethics, social responsibility, transparency and care for the stakeholders.

Conger (1994) examined the role of spirituality in leadership. He opined that spirituality can offer solutions to some of the increasing demands being made on today's organizations. As traditional sources of support and connectedness - such as community, church, and extended family continue to erode, the workplace is expected to meet the spiritual needs of its participants. Compiling the thoughts of management experts, an organizational development specialist, two Jesuit priests, a consultant & trainer to nonprofits, and the director of program evaluation for the Lilly Endowment, the author argued that organizations possess great spiritual potential because they provide individuals with an essential link to a larger world. They expanded the definition of leadership to include the development of hospitable spaces for worklife, services to both the organization and the community, and personal development of individuals within the organization. They recommended applying spiritual qualities such as justice, fortitude, and prudence to enhance personal fulfillment in the workplace and to strengthen the objectives and performance of their organizations.

According to Bass (1997) a leader supports universal brotherhood while liberating the human capability of their followers at the same time.

Cuilla (1998) pointed out the need for Ethics to be at the heart of Leadership. Any approach towards leadership needs to deal with its intrinsic and entailed moral basis. There are chances that leaders may employ incorrect techniques to attain a noble objective or a good technique may be employed to achieve a wrong end. If ethics are at the core, such approaches could be avoided.

According to Bass and Steidlmeier (1999), recognising real transformational leaders involves studying the culture of followers by people who are the experts. However, evaluation of real transformational leaders may be skewed as per the experts' individual ethics. Practical acts force an individual to behave in a way which would result in the maximum good and least evil of majority of individuals. Bowie (2000) stated that leadership conducts which are empowering are not ethical if executed merely to enhance the worth of stakeholders.

Singh (2001) pointed out that the basic element of Beliefs, Values, and Ethics are more of emotion and less of reason. "The foundation of the inner life of an individual is a set of beliefs. The concept of beliefs can be extended to organizations, societies, and to the humanity at a large." Our values are not only based on economic values but also emotional values, such as compassion, courage, freedom, creativity, justice and other emotive aspects of life. Ethics means moral conduct for living a good life in a good society. In earlier days, the source of ethical conducts and moral values were derived from religious texts and the religion. As time passed by, faith started losing its influence and reason gained supremacy. "Philosophers started searching for rational justification for morality and to look for principles and meaning of ethics, which were independent of religion, culture, and individual beliefs." Author noted that the concept and meaning of virtue and wisdom is to help to know what is right and what is wrong. Making clear choice between these two is always difficult. This wisdom is based on beliefs only. "A basic need of a human being is to dream of a society in which justice and fair play are encouraged and suffering is minimized."

Gandhi (2001) pointed out that Mahatma Gandhi saw his source of power to be God. Mahatma Gandhi's management of power was based on perfection, spirituality and brahmacharya (celibacy). The important aspect of Mahatma Gandhi's management of power was his emphasis on people's empowerment. Fearlessness was a value that enabled him to use power with dignity. Gandhian approaches to conflict resolution recommended a spirit of constructive personal dialogue, and not public criticism of others

Floistad (2001) studied the works of Tagore, and found that as a primary knowledge or first kind of knowledge, self-interest is necessary in order to take care of ourselves. Second kind of knowledge is about laws of the nature, of human behavior and of universal ethical principles. The third kind of knowledge is personal commitment to universal value. The author, was in agreement with Tagore's understanding that a loving relationship with all is a form of power that is lost today in the world of business and politics. The author noted that the power of science alienates man from Nature and community. Ethics cannot flourish in such a context. Welfare society with ego at the center is a contradiction in terms. The loving relationship between a leader and followers can lead to better individual performances and organizational outcomes.

Sendjaya (2005) focused on gap between morality and leadership. Researches on leadership have overlooked the morality aspect. This study attempted to understand whether importance of morality for leaders is self-evident in light of the far-reaching effects of leaders' actions or inaction on other people. He noted that as per extant literature, great leaders have always shared a consistent association with their followers. The variation between different leaders such as Hitler and Mother Teresa was in their intrinsic moral values rather than their capability and nature. Since business leaders have immense influence, adding morals in official and unofficial leadership programs is a necessity. The final objective of leadership education is to create successful and moral leaders. He suggested that good leadership might not be possible without the presence of morality.

Abramson (2007) studied the importance of archetypal psychology and its relationship with leadership theories, using the Abraham Myth in The Holy Bible. The findings indicated that in the Abraham myth, the presence of God's leadership can be compared to modern concepts of situational and visionary leadership leading to presence of a leadership archetype (the original pattern or model from which all things of the same kind are copied or on which they are based); which existed over 3600 years in the human race. This leadership archetype identified is one that is of a leader who is fair and reliable, responsible for inaction of followers and always forgiving. The author recommended that God's leadership behaviour should be considered as an archetype which modern day leaders can follow. He recommended that leaders today should accept that they may face retribution from their followers. However they must be willing to forgive them for the same. Such a transformational leadership practice may enable followers to become leaders themselves. If such a leadership was promoted in modern world, narcissistic, aggressive and paranoid leaders would not exist.

Gardner (2007) argued the leaders need ethical minds. Business leaders need to repair associations with clients and workers by encouraging their ethical bent of mind. Respect for others is broadened by an ethical mind. It is crucial to differentiate between the respectful and ethical mind as one may be respectful without really comprehending the cause. Developing an ethical mind helps one to become an unbiased spectator of the team, the firm and the world. There is pressure to dodge ethics for youngsters today. Markets also are becoming amoral; it is becoming difficult to segregate between shaded earnings and committing outright frauds. Individuals today do not trust one another. Employees today feel psychologically pressurised to follow the bad behaviour of their leaders. Hence the need to develop an ethical mind in leadership.

Khandwalla (2008) studied the path of corporate spirituality, altruism and business ethics. On Spirituality, he found that it can work very well even in the business place. Spirituality brings calmness, focus, and compassion in human beings and that in turn yield judgment, foresight, quality and commitment to one's work. Spiritualizing the workplace requires setting of example by leaders throughout the organization. On altruism, he stated that Mahatma Gandhi favoured the concept of business altruism. The study reported that Altruistic style is the fifth most extensively used style in a sample of ninety Indian companies. The altruistic style was strongly correlated with six of the ten perceived criteria of organizational effectiveness, namely staff morale, a positive social impact, corporate image, performance stability, financial strength and innovativeness. As regards Business ethics, the author pointed out that it has tremendous relevance for the growth of a humane and productive business civilization. He identified three types of climates namely; egoistic or self-centered climate (prime concern is profitability, efficiency, and individual's self-interest), benevolent or caring climate (friendly relationship at work, team spirit, social responsibility) and principle-oriented or professionalist climate (stress on law, rules, standards and personal morality). He presented a compilation of different ethical principles drawn from spiritual, philosophical and psychology point of views. These principles are follow the commands of God, follow laws and rules enacted by a democratic governance system for the good of all, follow social group norms to maintain harmony and make communal living possible, follow natural laws that our moral sensibility suggests such as sharing, not harming others, treat others as you would like others to treat you, strive to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people, use reason to deduce ethical principles that you wish should be applied universally in given circumstance, develop the disposition of right conduct to attain happiness, act to produce the greatest good for yourself / your organization, if you cause harm to someone unintentionally, compensate for their loss, do the best you can in the circumstances based on the principle of relativism or actability, and finally do your duty without any expectation of reward.

Jones and Jones (2008) stated that integrity is one of the most important characteristics of Principled Leadership. Integrity provides credibility. A leader with integrity remains faithful to even small things. This faithfulness will be awarded with more important things. Integrity in leadership attracts others to trust in leaders and this trust also encourages leaders to be more committed, responsible and dependable. Principled Leaders "develop their character quality of being people oriented, be friendly, courteous and kind"

Sharma (2010) asserted that More you give, the more you get. After you leave the organization, people will remember your legacy. They will remember how much value you have added to your organization and how many lives you have improved. To work for the common good is the best a leader can do and feel proud of. Legacy is not about impressing some of the friends and reaching the top; it is about fulfilling one's duty and actualizing your humanity. The author noted that Legacy-based leadership is the most powerful type of leadership.

The literature perused above establishes the case for practicing altruism, spirituality and ethics in business leadership. These aspects when practiced, is expected to benefit the organisations. It will also pave the way for a better society altogether. There is a need for combining the principles of excellent leadership with these aspects.

SERVANT LEADERSHIP

Literature perused in the previous sections establishes that there has been an ongoing search for a viable alternative to the use of Power in leadership, ways of applying Ethics and morality in leadership; and combining of spirituality with Leadership. This search has led to the emergence of the concept of Servant Leadership. Ancient philosophical and religious literature is replete with advice on how leaders should behave, with sensitivity and care for others needs. Several authors have attempted to dig out that wisdom from the past.

The servant-leader is servant first ... 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 one who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or to acquire material possessions. For such it will be a later choice to serve-- after leadership is established. The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature.

Greenleaf (1970) proposed 10 attributes that differentiate a servant leader, namely;
• Listening - "Only a true natural servant automatically responds to any problem by listening first"
• Empathy - "The servant always accepts and empathizes, never rejects" and "Men grow taller when those who lead them empathize, and when they are accepted for who they are..."
• Healing - "to make whole"
• Awareness - " Without awareness, we miss leadership opportunities"
• Persuasion - "A fresh look is being taken at the issues of power and authority, and people are beginning to learn, however haltingly, to relate to one another in less coercive and more creatively supporting ways.
• Conceptualization - The servant-leader can conceive solutions to problems that do not currently exist
• Foresight - "Prescience, or foresight, is a better than average guess about what is going to happen when in the future"
• Stewardship - Organizational stewards, or 'trustees' are concerned not only for the individual followers within the organization, but also the organization as a whole, and its impact on and relationship with all of society
• Commitment to the growth of people - "The secret of institution building is to be able to weld a team of such people by lifting them up to grow taller than they would otherwise be"
• Building community - "All that is needed to rebuild community as a viable life form...is enough for servant-leaders to show the way"

Greenleaf (1970) believed that the best way to measure the effectiveness of a servant leader is whether those served grow as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants

Source : Extracted from the Doctoral Thesis of Dr. Madana Kumar A, on Servant Leadership in Indian NGOs. For more information and permission to use, please approach the author at madanakumar@menorahleadership.com