In the 1970s, Robert K. Greenleaf popularized the concept of “servant leadership”. He stated in his essay “The Servant as Leader” that a servant leader asks “Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?” Reading this, you have to wonder; if those served become less healthy, less wise, less free and less autonomous were they served at all or tyrannized to shrink?
Nevertheless, Greenleaf’s concept of servant leadership became a widely accepted framework, embraced by corporate executives, nonprofit leaders, and leadership coaches alike.
But there’s a fundamental flaw in the premise of servant leadership. At first glance, it seems like a noble idea—one that shifts leadership from authority-driven to a people-centered service approach. On closer examination, however, it is a bad idea and potentially a dangerous proposition. Why? Because the message inherent in the term servant leadership is that there are other, equally valid forms of leadership that do not involve serving. My proposition is that anything short of serving shouldn’t be called leadership to begin with.
The Fundamental Flaw
The concept of servant leadership creates an unnecessary distinction between leading and serving, as if you could truly lead without serving. Leadership is, by definition, service. A leader who does not serve is not a leader at all. They are simply someone in a position of power, authority and/or control.
If you are not serving, you are not leading.
The popularity of the term “servant leadership” is evidence that we’ve got the essence of leadership wrong and are mistaking authority, power and control for leadership.
Higher in rank doesn’t mean leader especially because hierarchies can be built on flawed values. And authority is not a prerequisite for leadership.
You don’t need authority or power to be a leader. You can be a leader without assigned authority, and you can be in a place of assigned or assumed authority and still not be a leader.
When we attach the “servant” label to leadership, we imply that there are other, equally valid forms of leadership that do not involve serving. This is totally misleading and it’s dangerous. It suggests that one can lead effectively without serving those they have been entrusted to lead.
But there’s no such thing as leadership without service. It is control at best or manipulation / exploitation. It should be totally irreconcilable in our minds that one could lead without serving, building and empowering those they are leading. It should not be conceived as leadership because it is not.
True Leadership vs. The Misconception
Look at our history; all great leaders—whether in business, politics, or social movements—have always been servants first. Think of Jesus, Nelson Mandela, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King. They served. But do you really need to append the servant description in front of those names?
Conversely, many who claim the servant leader title but fail to embody service are not even leaders to begin with. They may be presidents, directors, heads of organizations but that is all just a job.
Leadership is not a job though it may happen in the context of a job.
A job can put you in a place of authority, but a job doesn’t make you a leader. Service does. Even a self-serving CEO can call themselves a servant leader, but does that make them one? Does attending seminars by the same title and being issued certificates make you one? You are not what you say or profess, you are what you live out or act out. When people cling to descriptions too closely, the chances that they are simply appropriating them are very high. They are desperately trying to create and maintain a certain image.
Service is the essence of leadership, not an optional add-on.
If you are not serving, you are not leading. You may be controlling, delegating, and discharging orders that subordinates follow, but that doesn’t make you a leader.
Shifting the Narrative
Instead of continuing to promote the flawed premise of servant leadership, we should focus on clarifying what leadership really is and decouple it from assigned or assumed authority. Just because someone sits at the head of an organization doesn’t make them a leader. Just because you can give out instructions and subordinates execute doesn’t make you a leader. Leadership has very little to do with hierarchy or power, or seniority or longevity—it is all about serving, building and uplifting those entrusted to you.
To restore the essence of leadership, we must reject the premise of “servant leadership” or some special labels to leadership. We must hold all leaders to the standard of service. Leadership must be synonymous with service. Anything less is not leadership and should be called out for what it is. By removing unnecessary labels, we will reinforce the truth that leaders serve, or they are not leaders at all.
