PDF Summary:Servant Leadership, by Robert Greenleaf

Published in 1977, Servant Leadership is Robert K. Greenleaf’s answer to the failure of modern institutions to meet the needs of those they serve and employ. He argues that institutions and the individuals within them should adopt the philosophy of servant leadership: prioritizing their followers’ needs, thus enabling those followers to achieve their goals and empowering them to be of service to others in turn. According to Greenleaf, servant leaders have the potential to improve society dramatically, in every facet of life—in business, religion, philanthropy, education, and so on.

In this guide, you’ll learn about the fundamentals of servant leadership: what it is, the qualities servant leaders have, and how servant leadership solves institutional problems. You’ll also learn about how trustees can become servant leaders by building ideal institutions and how individuals in various institutions can become servant leaders. We’ll supplement Greenleaf’s ideas with other experts’ perspectives on leadership, research on the potential benefits and pitfalls of servant leadership, and concrete suggestions for strengthening the institutions you belong to.

(continued)...

(Shortform note: Other experts question whether trustees can responsibly balance their fiduciary and social interests since one may come at the expense of another. In the late 1990s, the Business Roundtable (an influential group of business lobbyists) argued that a company’s sole purpose is to generate profits for shareholders. But recently, the Business Roundtable switched to stakeholder capitalism—an approach that tries to create value for all stakeholders, from investors to customers, instead of pursuing profits at the expense of society or the environment. Some experts consider this a smarter approach because if businesses harm society, their profits won’t be sustainable in the long term.)

Greenleaf explains that trustees play a separate but equally important role than administrators do. While trustees’ main priority is envisioning institutional excellence and enacting the policies that make it possible, the main priority of administrators is to execute that vision based on the policies trustees have set down. Trustees’ decisions have bearing on the institution’s daily operations, and trustees collaborate with administrators to figure out how their policies are best implemented, but trustees have little to do with mundane operational matters.

(Shortform note: The board of trustees is the governing body of an institution—they decide how to manage the institution so that investors profit. Typically, boards of trustees are appointed to govern private institutions, while boards of directors are their elected counterparts in public institutions—but the terms can be used interchangeably. Theoretically, boards of trustees or directors hire administrators to keep the institution running smoothly from day to day, but in practice, many trustees/directors serve dual governing and administrative roles.)

Greenleaf says that trustees are essential for institutional success because they have an overhead view of the bigger picture, which makes them more likely to be open to change. Administrators and employees tend to be biased in their own favor—they see themselves as competently carrying out their duties, and they need to have faith in their competence to be motivated to work. Since trustees are removed from the day-to-day operations of the institution, they have a different perspective: They can more clearly see where the institution is failing, and that doesn’t demoralize them—it motivates them to come up with solutions.

(Shortform note: Greenleaf asserts that trustees have more insight into an organization’s overall performance, but some experts argue that those who are directly involved in day-to-day operations have more insight about how to execute organizational goals. For example, in Superforecasting, Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner describe the military principle called “mission command,” where higher-ups determine their overall combat strategy but leave the actual execution of that strategy to those who are on the ground. The idea is that being involved in daily operations gives you more specific, concrete (as opposed to theoretical) information about your current situation—which enables you to know the best action to take next.)

How Trustees Can Build the Ideal Institution

Greenleaf says that to build the ideal institution, trustees must do the following:

1) Envision institutional excellence—this means seeing how their institution can improve the lives of everyone it affects and setting the bar high to give the institution something to aim for. Trustees’ vision should be clear enough for them to create concrete objectives and plans to meet those objectives. (Shortform note: Your vision of institutional excellence should be high but achievable—experts note that perfectionism can impede performance for a few reasons. If you or your organization never meet the goals you set because they’re too high, you might damage your self-confidence or that of the people you lead. As a result, challenges can cause more anxiety than your organization is capable of combating—instead of rising to the occasion, team members will be too afraid of failure to even try.)

2) Proactively seek out and hire the best executive team for the institution—this is how trustees can ensure that their vision of institutional excellence will be carried out. (Shortform note: According to human resources experts, the qualities of a good executive hire include inquisitiveness, the ability to handle stress gracefully, the confidence to be herself, and a high level of empathy.)

3) Make financial and policy decisions that ensure the institution meets its social responsibility—this is how trustees convince the public that the institution is both trustworthy and worth engaging with. (Shortform note: For Greenleaf, it’s not enough to pursue profits—your institution should also add some value to society. In Built to Last, Jim Collins and Jerry Porras write that this is key to sustainable business success. They explain that visionary companies—those that are profitable in the long-term—are motivated by both profit and a core philosophy. This core philosophy is the combination of a company’s purpose and values, and it guides the company as it pursues broader aims and contributes to society.)

4) Moderate the use of power within the institution—using performance reviews, trustees can ensure that the institution and its leadership aren’t abusing their power and influence, but actually contributing to the greater social good. (Shortform note: The United Nations outlines several steps you can take to eliminate corruption in your institution. These include understanding and proactively quashing any opportunities for corruption, embedding anti-corruption sentiments into your organization’s culture, and keeping an eye on the efficacy of any anti-corruption strategies you implement.)

5) Ensure the institution’s success—by gathering data about the institution’s performance, trustees can determine how well their vision of institutional excellence is being carried out. Based on that information, they can make policy changes to help the institution meet its goals.

(Shortform note: According to John Doerr in Measure What Matters, ensuring institutional success requires that you first determine what “success” means for your institution and then measure it appropriately. To clarify your definition of success, Doerr advises identifying your institutional objectives—the most important concrete tasks you hope the institution will achieve—and setting time-bound mini-goals that will help you accomplish them. To measure your success, Doerr suggests scoring and reflecting on your progress toward these objectives at the end of every quarter or year, depending on how large or complex the objectives are.)

Greenleaf also says that to support their function as servant leaders of the institution, boards of trustees must be radically reorganized so that power is shared equally among all trustees. He explains that traditionally, boards of trustees are organized hierarchically, with a single leader at the top of the chain of command. This has at least three disadvantages: The single leader has too much power and may be inclined to abuse that power, those below her find it hard to communicate honestly with her, and she has more responsibility than one can handle without hurting herself in the process—for example, by relying on stimulants like caffeine and nicotine to power through heavy workdays.

(Shortform note: Greenleaf’s suggestion that boards should be reorganized so that power is shared equally mirrors a management philosophy that’s gaining in popularity: co-leadership. The co-leadership philosophy maintains that it’s better to have two (or more) people in charge than one because it promotes diversity among those in power, supports new and better ways of thinking, and gives more people the opportunity to become leaders. Some research also suggests that co-leadership enhances profits, but note that this research is about organizations with two CEOs—not about organizations that divide power evenly among trustees).

Instead of the traditional organization, Greenleaf recommends that the board be composed of a group of equals who are represented by a chair. The chair should be selected by the board of trustees on the basis of their belief that she’s completely dedicated to the institution's success and capable of collaborating effectively with administrators. The chair’s responsibilities include closely overseeing the institution’s day-to-day management, ensuring that administrators meet performance goals, and gathering information the board needs to optimize the institution’s performance.

(Shortform note: While in Greenleaf’s formulation, the chair is just another trustee who also serves as a representative of the board, traditionally the chair wields much more power and influence. For example, their votes typically count more than other board members’ votes, and other board members may be inclined to follow the chair’s lead when making policy decisions.)

Actionable Advice for Institutions and Individuals

Now that you know what servant leadership is and understand its importance in ideal institutions, you may be wondering what you can do with that information. In this section, we’ll break down Greenleaf’s advice about how different kinds of institutions can fulfill their unique social responsibilities. Finally, we’ll discuss what you can do as an individual—no matter what institutional role you occupy—to fulfill your social responsibility.

Advice for Churches

According to Greenleaf, the social responsibility of churches is to unite spiritual seekers with spiritual visionaries who can help them grapple with relevant moral issues. He uses the Quaker leader George Fox as an exemplar, arguing that Fox successfully convinced other Quakers of the spiritual importance of treating people lovingly in all parts of life—which contributed to the Quakers’ push for gender equality, the abolition of slavery, and fair business dealings.

(Shortform note: One of the Quakers’ fundamental beliefs is the spiritual equality of all humans—in fact, George Fox started the Quaker movement in part because he rejected the idea that some people, like priests or members of the upper class, were more spiritually important or closer to God. Because of this belief, many Quakers in history became social activists—for example, American Quakers were instrumental in the fight to get rid of capital punishment and reform prisons, and American and British Quaker societies were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947 for their anti-violence efforts. Quakers continue to be devoted to activist causes like climate change today.)

To fulfill this social responsibility, Greenleaf argues that churches must accomplish three things:

Materially and spiritually improve churchgoers’ quality of life. He argues that churches lose their ability to influence people’s behavior when they merely preach about religious rules without actually meeting the needs of those they claim to serve. For example, if a church teaches that you should care for the sick but doesn’t help its own congregants when they get sick, they’re likely to be seen as hypocritical and lose followers.

(Shortform note: According to some studies, attending religious services improves your quality of life by strengthening your relationship with a higher power, imparting morals on you and your children, and providing comfort during hardship. Research on the success of Christian churches suggests that to capitalize on these benefits and grow your religion’s membership, you should introduce others to your higher power via evangelism, ensure that sermons are of moral relevance to members of all ages, and encourage members to volunteer within the church and the larger community.)

Train spiritual visionaries to tap into their intuition and lead the way forward. Greenleaf believes that there always have been and always will be a number of spiritual visionaries in the world—these are people who have intuitive wisdom about what needs to happen for the world to heal. If churches proactively teach future visionaries to trust their own intuition and equip them with leadership skills, they’ll become more effective spiritual leaders.

(Shortform note: Some psychologists suggest that you can learn to tap into your intuition by journaling regularly, practicing meditation, living in the moment, being curious about the world around you, listening to others with an open mind, and paying attention to how your body feels in a given moment.)

Teach spiritual seekers to become servants. Greenleaf says that serving others fulfills an innate spiritual need—uniting you with others in the work of healing the world—and that’s what people are looking for when they join a religion. Teaching seekers to serve also fulfills the church’s larger purpose: When churchgoers go about their day-to-day life with the intention of serving others, they carry out the healing work of the religion outside of the church’s walls—for example, in their business dealings.

(Shortform note: Research suggests that even if you’re not religious, serving others is fulfilling because it makes life more meaningful by strengthening your connection to others—since humans are an interdependent, social species, connection is a basic psychological need. When you help someone else, you reinforce that connection and therefore your sense of belonging—your life seems to matter more when your actions improve others’ lives.)

Advice for Universities

According to Greenleaf, the social responsibility of universities is to prepare students to become servant leaders. He believes that the fundamental purpose of an education is to help students discover how to use their unique strengths to make a positive contribution to society, and that job-specific training should be secondary to that goal. This is especially important for disadvantaged students—he argues that they have a responsibility to return to their communities and use their education to lead them out of poverty and marginalization.

(Shortform note: While Greenleaf argues that universities have a social responsibility to prepare future servant leaders, others take issue with the idea that college students should take responsibility for social problems. In The Coddling of the American Mind, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue that universities’ sole purpose is to help students discover truth—and that when students are more concerned with social justice than the truth, they become fragile and susceptible to groupthink, making campuses more polarized. On the other hand, many experts say that students benefit from social justice efforts by becoming more active citizens, which may inspire marginalized students to become community leaders after graduation.)

To fulfill this social responsibility, Greenleaf argues that universities should implement a pilot program in servant leadership for promising freshmen. Students enrolled in this program would be expected to learn the fundamentals of leadership, make an effort to improve life on campus, and come up with a rudimentary plan for their future as servant leaders. This program would run similarly to college athletic programs, with faculty proactively seeking out and coaching students with leadership potential, just as a college football coach might recruit and train new talent. Additionally, visiting scholars and professionals should also be made available to these students as resources whom students can consult as they develop their leadership skills.

The Value of College Leadership Programs

Leadership programs for college students are becoming more popular, and some research suggests that they may help students develop concrete leadership skills—like greater integrity, a heightened sense of civic responsibility, improved multicultural competence, and better ability to handle differences of opinion. However, other research suggests that while students may test better with regard to these competencies, they don’t actually behave differently after undergoing leadership training—which undercuts the value of such programs.)

While colleges typically don’t proactively draft potential leaders into training programs, they do weigh demonstrable leadership skills heavily in the college application process. Some experts are concerned that this dilutes the concept of leadership—instead of emerging as leaders of causes they genuinely care about, students are incentivized to vie for top positions just to pad their applications. As an alternative to this approach, some experts believe we should recognize the equal importance of being a good follower and offer followership training programs.

Advice for Foundations

According to Greenleaf, the social responsibility of foundations is to disperse money to grant applicants who will actually improve the world in some meaningful way. He explains that for a variety of reasons—including bureaucratization and a relative lack of accountability—foundations often seem to invest their funds in unproductive ventures, which makes people question their legitimacy. He believes that in fact, foundations are only legitimate when they succeed in serving people’s unmet needs.

(Shortform note: Foundations share their social responsibility with public charities, another kind of organization whose purpose is to give money to others in society-improving ways. But foundations differ from charities in terms of where they get their funds: Foundations are typically funded by a singular entity (person or business) that gives the foundation a one-time endowment; the endowment is then invested to produce a constant income stream. In contrast, charities must be publicly funded by continuous donations.)

To fulfill this social responsibility, Greenleaf argues that foundations must accomplish two things:

Safeguard against corruptive giving. Corruptive giving is giving that appears altruistic but is actually self-serving—for example, a foundation may give money to an organization because it hopes to exert control over that organization’s operations, rather than because it hopes to enable that organization to help people. Greenleaf says that it’s the responsibility of foundation trustees to ensure that the foundation’s heart—and grant money—is in the right place.

(Shortform note: Some experts say that foundations haven’t made much progress on this front since the publication of Greenleaf’s book: Foundations are still charged with squandering their resources and investing primarily in causes that will serve their own interests, like the arts, instead of tackling tough problems like poverty. According to some experts, one way to counteract this is to consult and/or employ community members to ensure that funds are being invested in the right ways and places.)

Balance common sense with innovation. Greenleaf explains that common sense is a good place to start when it comes to deciding who should receive grant funds—if you invest in a solution that obviously won’t work (for example, an effort to end world hunger by giving everyone in the world a microwave), you waste money that could’ve been contributed toward social progress. But conventional wisdom isn’t always enough—innovation is needed to solve tough, long-lasting problems. To balance these considerations, Greenleaf says foundations should have two separate staffs: one that researches creative applications of existing technologies to difficult problems, and one that concerns itself with common-sense grant applications.

(Shortform note: Foundations don’t typically carry out their own solutions-oriented research, but they do fund research ventures. A well-known example of this is the Ford Foundation, which awards 1,500 grants per year to researchers investigating solutions to inequality. Here’s how it works: Foundations put out a call for research proposals, usually centered on a particular research topic. Researchers put in their proposals, and then foundations determine which proposals are the most promising. Foundations then grant funding to the most competitive research projects.)

Advice for Businesses

According to Greenleaf, the social responsibility of businesses is to provide fulfilling jobs for employees and fulfilling services for consumers. He explains that fulfilling jobs are those in which employees can use their unique strengths to provide an important service for others. For example, media companies provide fulfilling jobs for journalists—journalists are good researchers and writers, and they enjoy using those strengths to help subscribers learn. As for fulfilling services, Greenleaf believes that as society improves, people will become less concerned with material goods and more concerned with their psychological needs—so companies should strive to provide services that meet those psychological needs.

(Shortform note: Greenleaf’s belief that businesses have a social responsibility to fulfill the needs of employees and consumers is controversial—others argue that the only responsibility businesses have is to maximize profits for shareholders. This viewpoint has been championed most famously by Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, who explains in Capitalism and Freedom that when shareholders invest in a company, they’re paying the company and its employees to generate profits. They own the company, and every cent the company spends actually belongs to them, so the company is beholden only to shareholders—it has no responsibility to employees or consumers.)

To fulfill this social responsibility, Greenleaf argues that businesses must accomplish two things:

Commit to helping employees grow. This requires that businesses embrace continuing education in the workplace and equip aspiring leaders with the skills they need to progress. Greenleaf also argues that labor unions are an important aspect of this process—they represent the interests of employees and negotiate with company leadership to ensure that work conditions are healthy and sustainable.

(Shortform note: According to management experts, some ways to support employee growth include paying for continuing education, matching junior employees with experienced mentors, and helping them identify their career goals and how to achieve them. You can also support employee growth by providing benefits like health insurance and paid leave, which help employees live healthier, happier lives. Securing benefits like these are one reason unions exist—and some experts suggest that unionization doesn’t just benefit employees but also benefits entire communities and individual businesses—for example, by reducing employee turnover.)

Proactively work to contribute to the greater social good. First, companies should evaluate how they’re currently faring on this front by collecting data and the opinions of everyone whose life is touched by the company, from consumers to employees to shareholders. Based on that information, company leaders should then come up with a plan for improvement. Greenleaf notes that it’s not good enough for a company to follow the letter of the law—it must stay ahead of the curve when it comes to social issues. For example, this could mean striving for true inclusion of people with disabilities instead of simply meeting the minimum legal requirements for accessibility.

(Shortform note: Some business experts call this corporate social justice—a management concept that entails businesses being accountable for the well-being of society. According to these experts, it’s becoming more common—and more profitable—for companies to take a stance on social issues and pursue social justice-related goals, like Ben & Jerry’s commitment to combating racism. However, companies may face pushback if their social justice initiatives are seen as hypocritical or performative. For example, many businesses have been criticized for rainbow-washing—offering LGBT-themed products so as to appear supportive of LGBT rights, without making meaningful investments in LGBT communities or causes.)

Advice for Individuals

According to Greenleaf, the social responsibility of any individual is to serve others. Some people are cut out to be servant leaders; others are best suited for following servant leaders and can serve others as they do so. In any case, serving others can be broken down into two parts: seeing others’ potential for greatness, and helping them turn that potential into a reality.

(Shortform note: Philosophers have expressed opposing viewpoints as to whether everyone has a moral obligation to serve others. On one hand, some believe that suffering isn’t caused by injustice but by bad luck—and since luck falls on everyone equally, you’re under no obligation to help those who are less fortunate than you. On the other hand, others believe that inequality is fundamentally unjust, so you do have a responsibility to help those who are suffering.)

To fulfill this social responsibility, Greenleaf argues that you should try to do the following throughout your life, in whatever capacities you serve:

Resist bureaucracies. Greenleaf argues that since bureaucratization is one of the reasons modern institutions are failing, we all have a duty to try to overturn bureaucracies and do our part to build and promote ideal institutions instead. He says that you can resist bureaucracies by prioritizing creativity and wonderment, making the most of each day, listening to visionaries, staying humble, and gracefully enduring and learning from hardship.

(Shortform note: Greenleaf doesn’t explain how these measures can help you resist bureaucracy, but we can surmise that they help in at least two ways: They incentivize you to push back against harmful ideas and to treat people with human dignity, which experts say are essential steps toward undermining bureaucracy. Other ways to overturn bureaucracy include sharing power, taking smart risks, and prioritizing ethics over productivity.)

Make the best choices you can make. For Greenleaf, this means trying to understand the moral issues of your time, weighing the pros and cons of every possible solution, and endeavoring to pick the one that has the greatest potential to improve society. If you make a wrong choice, try to learn from it and move on.

(Shortform note: Experts believe that one effective way to make ethical decisions is by universalizing—asking yourself what the world would be like if everyone made a similar decision to yours. For example, it might not seem like a big deal for you to lie to someone once—but if everyone lied all the time, it would be much harder for people to know the truth about anything, generally—which might have chaotic and dangerous consequences. If the outcome of universalizing seems bad, you may want to make a different decision. Then, after relying on universalizing to make a decision, reflect on whether your choice had the outcome you’d predicted—and if not, learn from your mistake.)