Servant leadership: a manifistation of postmaterialism?

Abstract

Servant Leadership has been brewing since the 1970s and has recently emerged in public administration as a postmodern alternative to traditional and modern leadership theories. Infused with notions of morality and interdependency, service and exchange, Servant Leadership rejects dependence and independence as possibilities for the workplace and chooses interdependence instead (Cunningham, 2002). At the 2002 Southeastern Conference for Public Administration, Bob Cunningham chaired a roundtable on Servant Leadership which drew a large crowd, many of whom were acquainted with the subject and interested in locating resources to learn more. But why is Servant Leadership on the rise now?

Human Relations Versus the Orthodoxy

Public sector management and leadership was changed forever by the rise of the human relations approach. "[T]he impact of human relations is.... understood as a process of challenge and counterchallenge to orthodox thought" (Carter, 1989: p. 314) ... Where traditional organizations sought to limit the individual so that personal needs and desires did not interfere with performance and efficiency, early human relations scholars posited that employee satisfaction and efficiency are bound together (Barnard, 1938). An unhappy employee is less likely to perform well than one who is satisfied. The perception of the employee as mechanistic and cog-like was rejected as early human relations scholars began to see the individual as one with psychological needs that can--and should--be addressed by the organization.

Early human relations scholars believed that employee satisfaction contributed to organization efficiency, thus, it was the duty of the manager to foster the self-esteem and happiness of his or her subordinates (Waldo, 1952). Later human relations scholars began to focus on employee happiness as an end goal (Argyris, 1964). The values-free scientific approach to management posited by Taylor (Talylor, 1911) and Gulick (Gulick, 1937) was rejected as dehumanizing and degrading (Argyris, 194) and contrary to the greater goal of humanity: self-actualization (Heffron, 1989).

While the human relations approach did not "revolutionize personnel work," it did change the way in which we think about employees and leadership within the public sector (Carter, 1989: p. 315). This new human-based thinking is manifested in many studies, practices, and movements; Total Quality Management's inclusion of employees in organization decision-making and the National Performance Review's call for smaller, flatter organizations with empowered managers name only two such calls. The approaches vary in the extent to which they stress increased efficiency as a goal, but all are more responsive to employee needs, opinions, suggestions, and complaints.

Defining Leadership