5 ms·

I think (correct me if wrong) you have interpreted the phrase "servant leader" to mean "a leader of servants". Rather, it's intended meaning is "one who leads b

by cvoss 8y ago

I think (correct me if wrong) you have interpreted the phrase "servant leader" to mean "a leader of servants". Rather, it's intended meaning is "one who leads by being a servant".

RobertRoberts 8y ago
No, I interpreted the implied meaning behind the phrase, it's just as meaningless either way. "One who leads by being a servant" is a non-leader, it's an oxymoron, maybe that should have been my phrasing. Also, it smacks of false humility. No one would call themselves a "servant leader" if they were actually a servant, they would just say "servant". Anyone who calls someone else a "servant leader" is choosing their words poorly, due to ambiguity. (what are you saying about this person if you call them a "servant leader"?) It's an absurdity, it's meaningless double-speak.
- cvoss 8y ago
  The paradox in terms is entirely intentional. It is supposed to make you stop and think, "How can this be?", because it pushes back against many qualities often traditionally associated to leaders. So in fact, I stand corrected, and the phrase has done it's job in communicating to you exactly what was intended. It is not meaningless after all! (Also, I agree that to self-identify as a servant-leader is not a humble thing to do. But that's true of self-identifying with just about any virtue.)
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    Good leaders don't need labels, only false/deceptive ones do. While I appreciate the absurdity of your counter argument I really doubt that corporate management is intending to be vague/confusing for the sake of instigating discussion or thoughtfulness in the title of mid-management. Ever heard of a CEO being called a "servant leader"? If so, who gave him that title? Again, my personal experience is abusive leaders using this to force underlings to view them as humble, or even lowly equals, to quell dissent while demanding fealty and strict obedience. Have you ever seen even a single instance of a made up title making someone a better person?
    - Floegipoky 8y ago
      >> I really doubt that corporate management is intending to be vague/confusing for the sake of instigating discussion or thoughtfulness in the title of mid-management. I wish I had a source to quote you, my google-fu is failing me now but there's a school of thought that, in a mature organization, the primary role of the executive leadership team is to manage corporate culture. If the leadership team is trying to foster a culture described by the term "servant leadership", then they definitely would want to provoke discussion of what that looks like and how that's different than other organizations and cultures people have worked in.
      - ser0 8y ago
        I believe what you are thinking of is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_hierarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_hierarchy
      - RobertRoberts 8y ago
        >...in a mature organization, the primary role of the executive leadership team is to manage corporate culture. With deceit, propaganda and manipulation tactics?

by cvoss 8y ago

I think (correct me if wrong) you have interpreted the phrase "servant leader" to mean "a leader of servants". Rather, it's intended meaning is "one who leads by being a servant".

RobertRoberts 8y ago

No, I interpreted the implied meaning behind the phrase, it's just as meaningless either way. "One who leads by being a servant" is a non-leader, it's an oxymoron, maybe that should have been my phrasing. Also, it smacks of false humility. No one would call themselves a "servant leader" if they were actually a servant, they would just say "servant". Anyone who calls someone else a "servant leader" is choosing their words poorly, due to ambiguity. (what are you saying about this person if you call them a "servant leader"?) It's an absurdity, it's meaningless double-speak.

cvoss 8y ago
The paradox in terms is entirely intentional. It is supposed to make you stop and think, "How can this be?", because it pushes back against many qualities often traditionally associated to leaders. So in fact, I stand corrected, and the phrase has done it's job in communicating to you exactly what was intended. It is not meaningless after all! (Also, I agree that to self-identify as a servant-leader is not a humble thing to do. But that's true of self-identifying with just about any virtue.)
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  Good leaders don't need labels, only false/deceptive ones do. While I appreciate the absurdity of your counter argument I really doubt that corporate management is intending to be vague/confusing for the sake of instigating discussion or thoughtfulness in the title of mid-management. Ever heard of a CEO being called a "servant leader"? If so, who gave him that title? Again, my personal experience is abusive leaders using this to force underlings to view them as humble, or even lowly equals, to quell dissent while demanding fealty and strict obedience. Have you ever seen even a single instance of a made up title making someone a better person?
  - Floegipoky 8y ago
    >> I really doubt that corporate management is intending to be vague/confusing for the sake of instigating discussion or thoughtfulness in the title of mid-management. I wish I had a source to quote you, my google-fu is failing me now but there's a school of thought that, in a mature organization, the primary role of the executive leadership team is to manage corporate culture. If the leadership team is trying to foster a culture described by the term "servant leadership", then they definitely would want to provoke discussion of what that looks like and how that's different than other organizations and cultures people have worked in.
    - ser0 8y ago
      I believe what you are thinking of is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_hierarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_hierarchy
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      >...in a mature organization, the primary role of the executive leadership team is to manage corporate culture. With deceit, propaganda and manipulation tactics?