Humanity has seen countless leaders, some who have lead by coercion and some who have lead by inspiration. A leader who leads by intimidation, deceit, cunning, treachery and conquest diminishes his/her followers in experience, intellect and in spirit. These leaders are ambitious; find power addictive and lead people into amoral situations. Hitler and Stalin are two examples of this type of leadership model, whose roots lie in power and self-gratification. On the other hand humankind has also seen leaders like Martin Luther King, Jesus Christ, Gandhi, George Washington and many more who had strength of character, morality, humility and lead people by motivation and commitment, not for self gain! These leaders had the genuine desire to serve!
…show more content…
The focus here is on the personal gratification, greed, addiction to power and unquenchable ambition, which in turn leads to spiritual corruption, unhappiness and self-torment. SL in contrast accumulates power on behalf of others. The servant leader knows that power is a means, not an end, and uses it as a tool, often recognizing that it is not the most important tool he/she possesses. Power is usually gifted to the servant leader, as followers want him/her to have power because they are confident that the power will be used for the benefit of all. Effective leaders do not seek power, wealth or fame but seek to make a difference in the lives of others. Ironically when they do this, they are given power and fame, which in turn are used to help and develop others. Servant leaders do not abuse their position of power and are ready to give it up if necessary. They are not egoist and do not focus on prestige, status or receiving credit, but rather on the task at hand. Keith also points out that there is more personal meaning in doing ones personal best regardless of the outcome, than accumulating symbols of success such as power, wealth and fame. The SL model is not about self-sacrifice or self-denial but about self-fulfillment and finding a deep happiness that comes from loving and helping others while at the same time doing what one believes in, and following ones dreams. In my opinion the word ‘love’ in this context is used as a verb or action rather than a feeling, where we extend ourselves to meet the needs of another
The focus here is on the personal gratification, greed, addiction to power and unquenchable ambition, which in turn leads to spiritual corruption, unhappiness and self-torment. SL in contrast accumulates power on behalf of others. The servant leader knows that power is a means, not an end, and uses it as a tool, often recognizing that it is not the most important tool he/she possesses. Power is usually gifted to the servant leader, as followers want him/her to have power because they are confident that the power will be used for the benefit of all. Effective leaders do not seek power, wealth or fame but seek to make a difference in the lives of others. Ironically when they do this, they are given power and fame, which in turn are used to help and develop others. Servant leaders do not abuse their position of power and are ready to give it up if necessary. They are not egoist and do not focus on prestige, status or receiving credit, but rather on the task at hand. Keith also points out that there is more personal meaning in doing ones personal best regardless of the outcome, than accumulating symbols of success such as power, wealth and fame. The SL model is not about self-sacrifice or self-denial but about self-fulfillment and finding a deep happiness that comes from loving and helping others while at the same time doing what one believes in, and following ones dreams. In my opinion the word ‘love’ in this context is used as a verb or action rather than a feeling, where we extend ourselves to meet the needs of another