Tag Archives: workplace

Ten Principles of Servant Leadership

*This is an excerpt from the essay All Shine: How Stewardship Built a Vision

The following list of principles was s developed by Robert Greenleaf.  The categories are drawn from the literature, but the descriptions are in my own words.  For a more in-depth look at the Ten Principles, please visit this website, which provides a description written by Larry Spears.

Listening – A servant leader truly listens to people, not just to understand but to address needs as they arise and are communicated.  Surprisingly, humility is not listed as one of the top characteristics of Servant Leadership, but can be included here as the close cousin to listening.  Without humility, the servant leader can never learn and certainly has no reason to listen.

Empathy – Compassionate leaders care about people they are working with, the people served by the enterprise they are leading, and the community in which their organization operates, including the larger world community.

Healing – A leader who cares about people is committed to wholeness and healing.  If she recognizes a deficiency or need in a person, she works to find ways for that person to heal and to become more complete.  This is not an annoying distraction from the organizational mission or business bottom line, but an important part of building and sustaining a team of mutually trusting partners.

Awareness – A person who has formal authority in any situation, including a workplace, group project or national organization has enormous power to make a difference.  This is why it’s key to elevate people to leadership positions who have a sophisticated awareness about many things.  Awareness of the impact of their work, the patterns of behavior on their team, and the importance of gathering information from multiple sources to ensure the best way forward.

Persuasion – Leaders who care about people do not cause harm.  They recognize that forcing others to act or to take a position is a harmful action, and thus, seek to persuade people with reasoned argument and an appeal to the mission.  They are not coercive.

Conceptualization – Like Transformational Leaders, Servant Leaders provide a compelling framework for the work they are doing in concert with others.  They take care to build concepts that appeal to the hearts and minds of people and that promote values that directly relate to the mission.

Foresight – Socially responsible leaders look ahead to potential fallout and beneficial outcomes of their actions and the actions of the enterprises they lead.  They contemplate not only the ways in which their organization might benefit from specific actions but how decisions and actions impact their people and the community around them.  In other words, they take the long view.

Stewardship – The word stewardship has become a popular piece of jargon, but the principle is profound and important.  Too many stories are coming out that tell the tale of a CEO who comes on board at the eleventh hour of a business and runs it into the ground before walking away with millions of dollars and a large workforce unemployed and destitute.  A Servant Leader comes on board to rescue the business or to work with people to find ways to close the business that can benefit the largest amount of people as possible.  She takes seriously her responsibility to steward the enterprise in a way that helps the micro-community of the business or organization and the macro-community in which the enterprise operates.

Commitment to the Growth of People –  This is a big one.  Regardless of the original mission or reason that people come together, a leader who wishes to serve the common good is first and foremost committed to growing as a person, allowing others to help her grow as a person, and helping other people to grow.  Whether coming together to record a music album, making a full-length feature film, running a public school, or building a legal case, the people with formal authority to set the tone for the community of people always have their eye on the common good as the greater, over-arching purpose.  In this category, stewardship takes on a broader meaning.  What is ultimately and always stewarded is the building of a better world because people have the chance to grow.

Building Community – All of the above principles act in concert to build a positive community.  Because of the principles of listening, awareness, persuasion, stewardship, healing, awareness and empathy, there is little room for a “cult of personality.”  Furthermore, if the conceptualization of the community’s mission is clear and includes foresight, there will be a built-in understanding of the ways in which authoritarianism and “cultishness” can be avoided.  This is partly related to a commitment to the growth of people.  People can only grow if a community isn’t all about the “leader” and if there’s room for feedback and development of the leader himself.  Ultimately, this kind of community is made up of Servant Leaders, all of whom take turns to step into the role of stewarding the community’s process at one time or another.

Taking care of one another is a principle of stewardship in a world of extraordinary need.
The overarching principle that guides a leader who serves is the commitment to use one’s influence and resources to take care of others, at whatever scale.

Servant Leadership in a World of Extraordinary Need (Part II)

* This is an excerpt from the essay All Shine: How Stewardship Built a Vision

The world has always been in extraordinary need, and that’s not going to change.  We live on a planet with natural laws, including weather patterns, ecosystems, and the presence of a large variety of organisms all competing with one another for survival.  The common reality faced by all organisms is the inevitability of death and the desire to continue on with living until that inevitable event happens.

For individual human beings, survival includes the need to be safe, accepted, nourished and happy as defined by each individual.  A significant portion of our survival is addressed by the development of society, which includes the development of local, national and international laws and armed services which protect us, physical infrastructures that transport and house us, agricultural systems that feed us, medical services that heal us, and institutions that organize, educate and serve us.

So, we can’t get away from the fact that human beings need organizations, both small and large to take care of our world.   We are continually organizing resources, building/managing institutions which curate and distribute those resources, and placing people in leadership positions to provide direction in the management of those resources. Leadership is also needed to facilitate the ongoing development and management of abstract resources like scientific knowledge, political and economic theory, moral frameworks and religious/spiritual systems.

Like it or not, we will always need organizations, which means that we will always need leaders.

Put in the plainest possible terms, human beings are called upon to be stewards of our world, and this means we are sometimes called upon to take initiative and to step out in front of others to influence the direction of that stewardship.  In the best possible scenario, those of us who choose to step out possess the fundamental asset that best qualifies us to ask others to place their trust in us: empathy.

In optimal circumstances, people in leadership positions care about people and act in good faith to actively serve them.   But, even a cursory glance at the leadership landscape reveals to us that many leaders operate out of narcissism, ego-centric agendas, and short-term gains at the expense of others, and frequently act with a destructive, even sadistic need to triumph over people.

The world is burning, because we fail to recognize the traits of narcissistic leadership and continue to promote narcissistic leaders into positions of power throughout the entire maze of society’s institutions.  We need to learn how to spot these people before elevating them.  But, more importantly, we need to learn how to spot those we can trust to take responsible stewardship of our resources.

It’s time for us to identify the traits we should expect from  genuinely caring leaders and to promote the understanding of those traits far and wide, if we hope to adequately attend to the extraordinary needs of the world we share.

We can start by examining the characteristics and behaviors of Servant Leaders.

Leaders who are servants first, will work with others to provide stewardship in a world of extraordinary need.

Servant Leadership in a World of Extraordinary Need, (Part I)

*This is an excerpt from the essay All Shine: How Stewardship Built a Vision


In early October, I was walking with a friend.  We were discussing the topic of compassion, and he said something striking.

“Compassion is not boundless.  To be effective, it needs to be channelled into a specific locality or sphere in which you have the influence to make at least a part of the world a better place.”

This quote is a good starting place for introducing the concept of Servant Leadership, because the sphere of influence and the compassionate vision of a Servant Leader is broad indeed.

The term Servant leadership was coined by Robert K. Greenleaf, who founded the “Center for Applied Ethics” in 1964.  After he died in 1990, the name of his organization was changed to the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.  At the present time, the Servant Leadership movement representing the ideas of Robert Greenleaf is under the stewardship of Larry Spears.


What is Servant Leadership?


Greenleaf spent more than 40 years after early retirement researching management, leadership, education, and organizational culture.  Over time, he came to the conclusion that the institutions in this country -both public and private- are suffering from a “crisis in leadership.”

In the Essay that started it all, Servant as Leader, Greenleaf introduces a vision of leadership in which leaders see themselves as servants first and leaders second.  Leadership is viewed as an instrument of serving the greater good, not as an end itself, and the search for and acquisition of power or influence is always subsumed into the overarching desire to be of service.

Servant Leaders are fundamentally about people and define the stakeholders in their sphere of influence quite broadly, including colleagues, subordinates, boards of directors/trustees, clients and even the world at large.  They place the needs of their people as primary and will not sacrifice the needs of the organization they lead in the service of furthering their own careers.

Before I elaborate on the conceptual framework around Servant Leadership, I want to say a few words about the title I chose for this section.  The wording of the title was borrowed from an article by legal scholar David Yamada, the author of the Healthy Workplace Bill.  His title is “The social responsibilities of intellectuals at a time of extraordinary need.”  The article is worth a read, as are most of the articles David has written.  I do not know David personally, but at the present time, he is one of my favorite authors in the area of workplace ethics and social responsibility.


Thoughts on Situational Leadership

This is an excerpt from Chapter 2 of the essay All Shine: How Stewardship Built a Vision


Situational Leadership  This philosophy of leadership was developed by Paul Hersey, (who wrote a book called Situational Leader), and Ken Blanchard, the author of The One Minute Manager.  Simply stated, situational leadership theory proposes that no one leadership framework can work all the time in all contexts.  The idea is very simple.  Use whatever strategy is needed in the moment.  Use whatever leadership style that is needed in a particular time frame or place.

This makes good sense to me, and it’s almost self-evident.  All of the above modes of leadership have their uses, after all, depending on the variables within and surrounding an organization or project.

But, there’s a vital question in all of this.  For situational leadership to be truly effective, one has to have arrived at a fulcrum of personal development, in which he or she possesses the awareness, skills and insights that can best facilitate the appropriate use of various leadership strategies.

One can take the position that personal growth, awareness and maturity don’t matter, and that leaders only need to be trained in “leadership strategies” to be successful.  But, this position is very hard to defend and begs the following questions:

1.  Can an internal rolodex of strategies be built up over time and expertly executed by a leader regardless of the maturity and intentions of the leader?

2.  Can effective leadership be ensured by generating a list of strategies that can be studied, internalized, and accessed when the need arises in a given situation?

3. If leadership can be reduced to the acquisition of strategems, are some of the tactics and strategies on the list qualitative, involving the personal development of the leader?

The situational leadership model promotes the value of utilizing all modes, styles and frameworks of leadership, but doesn’t offer a satisfying explanation around the personal qualities that need to be developed and available for a leader to make effective use of them all.

Thus, we return once again to the personal character, worldview and development of the leader himself.

Screen Shot 2014-10-28 at 2.15.44 PM

Thoughts on Charismatic Leadership

This post is an excerpt from an essay called All Shine: How Stewardship Built a Vision


Charismatic Leadership  This style (or mode) of leadership is difficult to define because it involves what Carl Gustav Jung called participation mystique, the amorphous area of psychological co-participation that involves intense relationships between leaders and followers.  This is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if the leader works to hold in check his charismatic energies and remains respectful of the autonomy, intelligence and self-power of her followers.  Charismatic leadership can be a potent antidote to organizational malaise (and perhaps corruption) and can help set things right again under the best of circumstances.

This style of leadership is often the result of the natural personal attributes of the leader(s) and can be seen as a mode of interaction within the overall spectrum of transformational leadership.  Charisma can be powerful indeed when building up individuals and championing a bold, new vision.

But, charisma can also be a destructive force in the individuals and groups who possess it and for those who have the misfortunate to be crushed underneath its weight.

The problem with charismatic leadership is that it often becomes “all about me.”  If the leader is set up as the end-all-be-all, then there is little room for others to grow or to become leaders in their own right.  In addition, followers may eventually give up their own critical thinking capacities by taking in a totalistic ideology that the charismatic leader (or charismatic group) has inculcated in them.  This problem has surfaced time and again in businesses, public institutions spiritual/religious organizations, political campaigns and organizations, the circle of adoration around public intellectuals, and even academia, where teachers can exert a powerful influence over young minds.

To learn more about this phenomenon, I would recommend a book called “The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power”  by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad.  This book is not against spiritual teachings or teachers (nor am I, having taken my Buddhist vows in the late 1990s and attended various retreats in that general vein). The guru/disciple model simply provides a clear foundation for the argument that man must be free from undue influence if humanity is to further evolve.

In the view of the authors, the inherently authoritarian setup of the traditional guru/disciple model best exemplifies the dark and bright sides of authority itself. The second half of the book explores in a clear and lucid way our “inner authoritarian”  -the small child in each of us that wants a surrogate parent to take care of us and to think for us, so that we can feel stable and secure in a ceaselessly changing, sometimes frightening world.

Other books explore similar themes, both secular and spiritual, with a balanced outlook that respects frameworks, ideologies, paradigms and power structures alongside a critical inquiry into the limits of giving up one’s autonomy to another person or belief system. Two books by Jack Kornfield come to mind: After the Ecstasy, the Laundry, and A Path With Heart. Both of these books are considered classics in the fields of meditation and spiritual psychology.

In the secular realm, one of the most important books on the subject was published back in 1961 and is still relevant. Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism was written by Robert Jay Lifton and explores the “brainwashing” techniques used by the Chinese Communists against their own people and western captives. This book systematically examines the various techniques used by people and groups to subjugate the critical thinking capacities of captives and converts, including “thought-terminating cliches” which are phrases used to shut down a conversation or free thought.

For more on the subject of freeing the self from authoritarianism, the reader may wish to check out “Escape from Freedom” by Eric Fromm.  This book is drier, but a really exciting read intellectually as it takes the reader further into the existential and philosophical dimensions of breaking free to a life of authenticity.

Charismatic Leadership
Charismatic people often attract large numbers of followers. Their charisma can run the gamut from infectiously charming behaviors to powerhouse passion. All too often, a cult of personality can form and it becomes “all about me” rather than the original mission.

Thoughts on Transformational Leadership, Part II

From Chapter 2 of the essay All Shine: How Stewardship Built a Vision


Transformational leaders have made a significant impact on our world from the beginning of time.  In all domains of knowledge, social policy and morality, these leaders have inspired others towards greatness, building cities and nations, ending slavery and other forms of injustice, and boldly expanding knowledge of humanity, even at the expense of death or ridicule.

But, to put it bluntly, transformational leadership can be dangerous.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt presided over the United States during the Great Depression and most of America’s involvement in World War II, and is almost universally credited with saving the economic system of the United States and inspiring a nation to collectively roll up its sleeves and work together to defeat fascism abroad.  FDR was without a doubt, a profoundly transformational leader, and he is frequently pointed to as an example of this style par excellence by leadership scholars.

But, so was Adolf Hitler, the Chancellor of Germany and the chief architect of the most devastating war and large-scale murder in the history of the world.  Like Roosevelt, Hitler provided intellectual stimulation, mentored his closest followers (consideration), provided inspirational motivation to the masses, and became the model of the very ideals he promoted in his speeches and policies.

In my understanding, the dark side of transformational leadership can be mitigated by promoting awareness of the dangers of authoritarianism and the need for leaders to encourage others to lead.  Ultimately, the best transformational leaders work to build transformational leadership in their followers and leave behind a legacy that outlasts themselves.  In other words, to be genuinely transformational and positive, leaders should steadily work to make their own selves obsolete.

Admittedly, this is extremely hard to do, which is why transformational leadership so often devolves into the dark side of charismatic leadership.

Adolf Hitler
Adolf Hitler’s Transformational Leadership inspired the largest mass murder and large-scale war in world history.

Thoughts on Transformational Leadership, Part I

From Chapter 2 of the essay All Shine: How Stewardship Built a Vision


Transformational Leadership  This style of leadership has powerful pros and cons.  In a time of crisis or change, transformational leaders can build inspiration, commitment and a can-do attitude in those who are part of an organization or project.  Much has been written about transformational leadership, and there are quite a few insights offered by leadership scholars about what transformational leadership looks like and what specific behaviors, attitudes and strategies this style entails.

James MacGregor Burns, a presidential biographer and leadership expert introduced the idea of transformational leadership decades ago, and his framework was further expanded by the work of Bernard M. Bass.  Other leadership scholars have further studied the phenomenon, which has led to a further illumination of the key behaviors of transformational leaders.  Below is a list developed by these researchers of the four key behaviors.  The descriptions are in my own words, but the categories are drawn from the literature.

Key Behaviors of Transformational Leaders


  • Individualized Consideration – The transformational leader carefully studies his followers and searches for their gifts and strengths.  Once he understands what they are capable of -and perhaps where their growing edge lies- he works steadily and consistently alongside each individual and helps to transform the latent gifts into fully realized personal visions.  No one in the organization or group project is left to his own devices.  Followers are individually cultivated to be the best they can be.
  • Intellectual Stimulation – Transformational leaders provide a compelling framework for the way forward, clarifying and transforming visions and goals.  The key here is to stimulate the thinking of the organization by satisfying the intellectual appetites of the team.  Ideas are carefully crafted with an eye on the mission, and virtually no ground is left uncovered.  There is no ambiguity around “why we are here.”
  • Inspirational Motivation –  To be truly transformational, a leader must inspire her followers. This behavior is similar to individualized consideration, but the key difference is that the attention is paid to the macro-ideals and values that inform the organization’s mission and goals, in addition to the micro-attention to individuals characterized by individualized consideration.  Here, the transformational leader points to societal goals, shared values, and humanity’s deepest aspirations.  Inspirational motivation goes a long way in transforming an organization, especially in times of crisis.
  • Idealized Influence – This aspect of transformational leadership brings to light the centrality of the leadership-followership paradigm in this style.  There is no question that there is a key figure in the organization or enterprise and that she has become the model for the organization’s values, norms and commitments.  Simply stated, the leader promotes, expresses and inhabits certain values and behaviors.  And the followers -learning by example- eventually emulate and potentially elevate those values and behaviors.  Put another way, the transformational leader intentionally influences her followers towards the adoption of specific ideals and becomes the expression of those ideals.
Screen Shot 2014-10-27 at 2.21.20 PM
Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. was an extraordinary Transformational Leader, igniting the Civil Rights movement and promoting profound humanistic values among millions of people.



Thoughts on facilitative leadership

By Steven J. Lawrence © 2014

 From chapter 2 of the essay All Shine: How Stewardship Built a Vision

Facilitative/Participative Leadership  Now, we’re getting closer to a style of leadership that takes people and innovation into account.  Leaders who take the facilitative approach encourage the participation of all members of an organization/project in key decision-making while retaining the formal authority to cast the tie-breaking vote at any time.  The idea is that those closest to the action have information that is vital to informed decision-making.  Thus, dialogue and input is consistently sought and then actions are taken which take into account the information that is learned.

It should be easy to see how gratifying this can be for participants in any group endeavor, whether a rock band, a hospital, or a public university.  For the most part, we can expect those closest to the ground to have developed more specific expertise in their particular skill (or job) than the formal leader.  Thus, it’s important to get their input for the success of the organization.  Moreover, failure to get input can also cause considerable frustration and even resentment throughout the organization.  If this were to persist, the organization or group project would eventually suffer from high turnover, lack of buy-in or investment, and the potential demise of the whole enterprise.

So, participation is key to morale and mission.  But, sometimes, this democratic approach is not enough, and can often lead to “analysis paralysis.”  At some point, after seeking the insights of others, the leader must provide explicit guidance and direction, even if some of her decisions are not universally appreciated.  Pointing the way forward from the “bully pulpit” of formal authority is especially key in times of change or crisis.

Facilitative Leadership
Leaders that build a culture of participation engender a sense of mutual trust, appreciation and investment throughout the organization. They respect and implement the insights and ideas of those closest to the action.

Thoughts on transactional leadership

From chapter 2 of the essay All Shine: How Stewardship Built a Vision


Transactional Leadership  This mode of leadership is often found in “middle management”, especially in large bureaucracies.  It is a strictly rules-bound method of leading a project or organization.  The principle is simple.  If you do X, you will receive Y.  If you fail to do X, you will receive -Y.  Rewards and consequences are the name of the game, and “the way we do things here” is the way we will always do things here.  If you’re late, you get written up.  If your sales rise above quota, you get a bonus.  If you write less speeding tickets than expected, you get a written reprimand.

The problem with transactional leadership (when used exclusively as a leadership style) is that innovation and change is nearly impossible.  In a constantly changing world, organizations led by transactional leaders will fail, because of the built-in, rigid and institutionalized resistance to change.  It should be easy to see how quickly change agents are targeted for removal from these places.

Transactional Leadership
Transactional Leadership is a tightly-controlled style of management in which work is heavily codified and quantified. Rewards and consequences are strictly tied to deliverables, and change and innovation is discouraged.

Thoughts on “laissez faire” leadership

I have been writing an essay about collaboration, using the process of making the album “Eleventh Hour Shine” as a case study.  To my surprise, the essay has taken a turn towards the study of leadership.

I’ve decided to post different portions of the essay in individual blog posts.  Today, I’ll present a brief passage about a style of leadership called “laissez faire” or “Delegative” Leadership.

Laissez Faire/Delegative Leadership  This leadership style seems to be the most prevalent in large bureaucracies.  The words laissez faire come from the French and mean “let” (laissez)  “do” (faire).  The phrase was born from a French economic philosophy which champions the idea that an economic system should take its own course without regulation or interference.

As far as leadership is concerned, this style has some merit in that the leader chooses not to micro-manage or interfere with subordinates.  Rather she allows the activities of the organization/project to take their own course and trusts people to do what is needed.  If the right people are hired or brought onto a project or organization -people with an internal locus of value and intrinsically high standards- then this mode of leadership might be effective.  Problem is, this is rarely if ever achieved.

Projects, businesses or organizations with this style of leadership are destined to fail because this mode of leadership doesn’t take into consideration the following factors: 1) There are certain personality types that thrive on clear and directive guidance from people with formal authority.  2) The lack of direction and oversight almost always breeds a power vacuum in which informal authority can be seized by unscrupulous individuals with psychopathic tendencies.  This is why workplace bullying is so prevalent in public bureaucratic institutions.

Laissez-Faire Leader
Laissez-Faire Leadership can lead to organizational malaise and potential chaos.

The arts as potent meaning-maker

Good afternoon.

I’ve read this quote from Kurt Vonnegut before.

The arts in my own life, of late, has been a potent meaning-maker… aside from good people and their kind acts.

What I love most about my current projects is their inherent collaborative nature.  Working in the studio on recordings with my co-producer is like going into a magical workplace where mutual respect, creativity and vision is the order of the day.

It certainly helps that we and the musicians of Pragnus Gray Collective believe in what we are doing.

Nicely put, Mr. Vonnegut.