Comparing Followership with Servant Leadership
by
G. David Rath, Ph.D.
Comparing Followership with Leadership
2
Introduction
Plato, Aristotle, Lao Zi and Confucius all discussed the nature of
leadership and how one becomes a leader. But only recently have leadership
scholars begun to focus on attitudes and strategies usually associated with “the
flip side of leadership” (Kelley, 1992, p. 12)--aiding followers in their own
development. These scholars suggest that the best leadership is in a constant
“dialectic” (p. 45) with this other side. Two significant contributions to this “flip
side” were made by Robert K. Greenleaf, through his theory of servant
leadership, and by Robert E. Kelley, through his theory of followership, each of
which have gained a large following.
This paper will explore how the two theories are the same and how they
are different, their strengths and weaknesses, how they might compliment each
other, and whether or not these theories may apply cross-culturally. Attention
will be given to the problems that might arise from exporting these models.
Origins
Both theories seem, in some way, to have been partly inspired by Jesus
Christ. Followership, for example, sounds like the words of Jesus, who chose his
disciples with the command, “Follow me” (NAS: Mat. 4:19, 9:9, 16:24, 19:21, Mar.
1:17, 2:14, 8:34, 10:21, Luk. 5:27, 9:23, 18:22). In fact, in the four gospels, the word
follow occurs 91 times. Actually, however, Kelley traces his inspiration to a
Comparing Followership with Leadership
3
moment of boredom in a hotel room (1992, p. 22) where his eyes came to rest on
a bible, presumably provided by the Gideons. This caused him to reflect on
religions in general—Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity.
And he began to consider how Christ’s followers—not Christ himself—changed
the world. This is how Kelley’s thinking on followership began.
Similarly, Greenleaf’s concept of servant leadership could conceivably
have been inspired by Christ. In Mark (10:43-45), Jesus tells his disciples
“whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and
whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of
Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for
many.” And in John (13:14-15), Jesus says, “If I then, the Lord and the Teacher,
washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I gave you an
example that you also should do as I did to you.” Though Greenleaf does freely
refer to various events and statements from the life of Christ, Greenleaf only once
quotes one of Jesus’ servant statements though the mouth of Mr. Billings, a
character in Teacher as Servant (1979, p. 28).
Clearly, neither Kelley nor Greenleaf are ignorant of Christ’s message.
Perhaps they feel Christ’s message is not sufficiently business oriented—too
religious. A larger problem is Christ’s word choice: “Slave of all” is certainly
Comparing Followership with Leadership
4
further than Greenleaf is willing to go; and Christ’s message of following by
taking up a cross (Mat. 16:24, Mar. 8:34) would be too extreme for Kelley.
The Theory of Servant Leadership
Robert K. Greenleaf’s concept of servant leadership has slowly eased itself
into the leadership discussion since its first publication in 1969 (1983). Originally,
Greenleaf sent out 200 copies of the article to individuals he felt would be
“interested in the theme” (Spears, 1995, p. 65). Since then, “The Servant as
Leader” has “totaled more than 200,000 copies.” His many other articles and
books have continued to sell well. In fact, though he died in 1990, the Greenleaf
Center in Indiana continues to disseminate his works, some of which are still
being edited for publication.
The core of Greenleaf’s work lies with the servant leadership concept. A
servant leader is “servant first” (Greenleaf, 1983, p. 13), beginning “with the
natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then the conscious choice
brings one to aspire to lead.” Greenleaf says that “leader first and servant first
are two extreme types” (p. 13). Servant leaders “make sure that other people’s
highest priority needs are being served” (p. 13). Assessment is as follows: “Do
those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier,
wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And
what is the effect on the least privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least,
Comparing Followership with Leadership
5
not be further deprived?” (p. 13). The surprising part of this elegantly stated
theory is that, though it was designed for organizations, yet it concludes by
asking about the state of society. This puts the impetus on the servant leader,
and by implication on his organization, to make society at large better. In fact, in
Greenleaf’s parable, The Teacher as Servant (1979), one of the model characters, Mr.
Moore, says that it is important to “love the world…to regard the world and
ourselves and all beings with love, admiration and respect” (p. 85).
Such an objective is a clear break from the traditional leadership approach,
which focuses on ways of promoting the self and on getting the most out of those
whom one is leading. Furthermore, it should be noted that this looks strikingly
similar to Christ’s ministry objective in Luke 4:18. Yet there are also striking
differences.
Christ claims authority from “the LORD,” the Almighty God. And he
refers to the “spirit” being upon him. Greenleaf does not appeal to an ultimate
authority. But he does have a doctrine of the spirit. He suggests that in everyone,
“there is a spark or spirit” (1979, p. 85). We should “see the good (no matter how
much may be bad)…behind all of these unlovely exteriors.” Hence, Greenleaf
believes in consensus: “a proven way of making decisions that honor[s] all
voices” (Frick, 2004, p. 130), harkening back to Greenleaf’s Quaker roots:
Comparing Followership with Leadership
6
There seems to be a critical quality of faith, a firm belief by the clerk that
consensus is achievable no matter how deep the divisions….There is the
art of stating and restating a possible basis for consensus, inventing and
reinventing both ideas and language (Greenleaf, 1996, p. 77).
With such rhetoric on least privileged, on the spirit in others, and on
consensus, one might expect to see a large section on commitment to the poor.
This does not seem to be the case. Another of Greenleaf’s characters, Dr.
Broderick, a psychiatrist spent ten years trying “to help those who came to his
office as sick people” (1979, p. 216), then spends “four years talking and writing
in an effort to bring…the strong, successful, healthy persons.” Now “his practice
is largely devoted” to them. Broderick wants to convince the powerful to “use
their power to make serving institutions of those where they have influence and
to build communities in which the weak, the inept, the confused—or just the
undistinguished—will be strengthened and supported in the useful roles they
are to carry” (p. 216-217).
Critique of Greenleaf’s Servant Leadership
At first glance, this looks great, but it does not clearly mention the poor
and oppressed. Supposedly, they will be served through the service of the
successful and the healthy. Yet it is precisely the poor and oppressed who need
Comparing Followership with Leadership
7
service. It seems as if the poor and oppressed must wait until everyone else is
served. But that is nothing new. Such has been the way of the world since
ancient times.
This above critique may appear reactionary until one notes Greenleaf’s
discussion of trustees. Greenleaf suggests that the only way to change the world
is through exceptional institutions that become exceptional through
“unconventional wisdom” (1979, p. 74), which has seven characteristics:
1. The governing board, trustees and directors, is strong.
2. Every action should have a trust building effect to counter the fact that
“we live in an era of low trust” (p. 75) .
3. The effect of planning should enhance the “survival and creative
development of the institution.…weighed in balance.”
4. Decisions should have an intuitive base that “cannot fully be explained
in words.”
5. Trustees and directors “are expensive (or should be)” (p. 76). They
should be “paid, and paid well—even in the eleemosynary
institutions! .... Directors should be paid based on the time they invest,
more than the executives because their service is, or ought to be, more
valuable.”
Comparing Followership with Leadership
8
6. “All people touched by the institution… are to be served and not to be
used or exploited” (p. 77).
7. “There is a great idea, an exciting goal that lifts the aspirations and
spirit of everyone involved” (p. 78).
Greenleaf anticipated “complaining” (p. 76) about the fifth point of
unconventional wisdom—that trustees should be paid well. He pointed out that
such pay would (a) give trustees a sense of obligation, that it would (b) establish
their role above that of administration and staff, that it would (c) reduce the size
of governing boards (which are usually too large), and that it would (d) make
board membership attractive and challenging in order to bring in the “very best
trustees possible” (p. 77).
Each of these points are well taken, except for the assumption that a high
salary will necessarily help to bring this about. Eleemosynary organizations, for
example, are the least able to pay high salaries to anyone. That significant
financial gain is an important drawing card for attracting “the very best trustees
possible” is doubtful. Some of the most significant contributions to society have
been those who took virtually nothing for themselves, such as Mother Theresa,
Gandhi, Jesus Christ, St. Paul. They each gave up the possibility of comfortable
Comparing Followership with Leadership
9
salaries to work on a shoestring budget to make a dramatic impact for good in
society.
The Theory of Followership
Robert E. Kelley’s concept of followership has made quite a splash in
leadership circles since it’s first appearance in the Harvard Business Review in 1988.
Out of Kelley’s seven page article, “In Praise of Followers,” grew two books, The
Power of Followership (1992), and How to Be a Star at Work (1998). These flesh out
what Kelley outlined in the original article. Though Kelley does not provide a
concise definition, followership may be summarized as the role one plays in
support of another who is a leader. In this sense, it may seem as if followers
cannot exist without a leader. In fact, Kelley points out that the opposite is true:
“Without his armies…Napoleon was just a man with grandiose ambitions” (1992,
p. 12). In short, leaders cannot exist without followers.
Exactly what a follower does, though, is not without leadership traits. In
fact, Kelley points out that “most managers play both roles” (1988, p. 143). One
may wear different hats in different organizations, or even within one
organization. Everyone is answerable to someone. Therefore, it is more helpful
to think of traits in the person who follows or who leads rather than polarized
roles which place one person as hero or “great man” (p. 13) and another as sheep.
Kelley lists four primary traits of followers:
Comparing Followership with Leadership
10
1. “They manage themselves well.
2. They are committed to the organization and to a purpose, principle, or
person outside of themselves.
3. They build their competence and focus their efforts for maximum
impact.
4. They are courageous, honest and credible” (1988, p. 144).
The above four traits are clearly elements of good leaders as well as
followers. Kelley elaborates by saying that good followers (1) “take on extra
work gladly” (p. 144), but (2) they do not accept challenges wherein they are
“poorly qualified,” and they (3) “contribute well to teams.” Furthermore, they (4)
“search for overlooked problems,” taking the initiative to “present the issue
along with a solution.”
In order to determine if one is, or is potentially, a good follower, Kelley
has developed a “Followership Questionnaire” (1992, p. 89) with twenty
questions, rated on a scale from 0 (rarely) to 6 (always). The primary dimensions
that underlie followership are “independent, critical thinking” (p. 93). The best
followers “think for themselves” and “give constructive criticism,” while the
worst “followers must be told what to do.” In between are those who “take
direction” and don’t challenge the leader or group.”
Comparing Followership with Leadership
11
After taking the questionnaire, one’s score may be plotted on an X, Y axis
(see figure 1). The X axis is a continuum from passive to active and the Y axis is a
continuum from dependent, uncritical thinking to independent, critical thinking.
This X, Y axis yields four quadrants that identify five types of people: alienated
followers (top left), exemplary followers (top right), passive followers (bottom
left), conformist followers (yes people), and pragmatist followers (toward the
center). According to Kelley, this tool may be used to determine the followership
role one tends to play and why. The prognosis may indicate the need for a
change in behavior on the part of the individual or on the part of the culture of
the company, for Kelley does recognize that sometimes individuals play less
than optimal roles as a survival strategy. Nevertheless, the only effective role is
exemplary follower, because it “gives a constructive outlet that can transform the
energy of … anger into a positive force” (p. 105).
Comparing Followership with Leadership
Figure 1
Alienated
Followers
Exemplary
Followers
Pragmatist
Followers
Passive
Followers
Conformist
Followers
12
Comparing Followership with Leadership
13
Critique of Followership
Kelley's followership grid is too individualistic in focus to properly
address the mechanism through which teams might operate well. Simply saying
that the individual should speak up, share, cooperate, create, etc. does not speak
to different cognitive styles. Perhaps David Kolb's learning theory (1984) would
shed some light on the problem.
Kolb, too, uses a learning style inventory and plots an individual’s
preferred style on an X-Y axis. The Y axis is transformation, with
observation/reflection on the left and experimentation at the left. The mind of
the learner moves through the circle from the top (gaining experience) to the
right (reflecting on the experience, determining its meaning), to the bottom
(making a theory or concept about how to improve the experience), to the right
(testing out the theory), and finally at the top again (gaining more experience
based on the results of the experiment). Kolb’s model is individualistic, but it
has been useful in building teams with the necessary dynamics to meet goals and
to enhance output. The required dynamic is a dialogic between concrete learners
and abstract conceptualizers. The most successful teams are those with all four
learning styles are present: diverging, assimilating, converging, and
accommodating (Kayes, 2001).
Comparing Followership with Leadership
14
How The Two Theories Compare
The theories of followership and servant leadership are roughly
compatible because, though some of the issues they address overlap, Greenleaf
and Kelley are focusing on different problems. Greenleaf focuses on the nature
of top leadership, while Kelley focuses on interaction at all levels, especially in
teamwork. And both Greenleaf and Kelley suggest that the self (servant
leader/follower) should be committed to the overall goals of the organization.
These goals provide the impetus to serve and to follow.
Cultural Critique of the Two Theories
Though globalization is changing our world, it is “not really a ‘global
village’” Hofstede, 2002, p. xvi), a popular expression in the west before
September 11, 2001. According to Hofstede, “Cross-cultural misunderstanding is
a much-underestimated cause of trouble” (xviii) Therefore, any theory of
leadership should necessarily account for cultural differences, or its will be
limited to its culture of origin.
Geert and Gert Jan Hofstede (Hofstede & Hofstede 2005) offer a five
dimensional model addressing five basic problems of societies: identity,
hierarchy, gender, truth and virtue. Though Greenleaf and Kelley address four
of these (somehow gender was completely overlooked), there is no sense of
dimensionality and no allowance for culture.
Comparing Followership with Leadership
15
Not addressing cultural differences is a significant problem because
people of different cultures are increasingly coming into contact with one
another, expected to work together and solve problems together. Unfortunately,
there is no universal approach to turn taking, disagreeing, and contributing in
general. For example, white males have been shown to participate more
frequently face-to-face, while “white women appeared to benefit more” (Wolfe,
2000, p. 491) from computer-mediated conversations. Yet Hispanic women were
shown to participate more frequently face-to-face than Hispanic males.
Furthermore, one doubts if it is a common trait for leaders in non-western
cultures to “contribute well to teams” (Kelley, 1992, p. 144). Furthermore, one
might equally wonder if contributing well to teams is a necessary trait for all
good followers. At any rate, this notion requires a unified culture of teamwork.
If there is no unified culture of teamwork, there is no established forum for teambased contribution.
Barbara Rogoff says that some societies “focus on natural duties of
individuals (such as the duty to uphold the obligations of a prescribed role)”
(2003, p. 226). This shatters the applicability of servant-leadership, which relies
on altering the role of the leader. Furthermore, “some communities prioritize
cooperation among group members and competition with other groups; in others,
Comparing Followership with Leadership
16
competition is prioritized even within a person’s closest group” (p. 227). This
seems to shatter the applicability of both servant-leadership and followership,
both of which rely on cooperation. Furthermore, traits that Greenleaf and Kelley
rely on—such as acting on principle, competence in one’s area and courage to
speak up—may in some cases be seen by both leaders and coworkers as a threat.
This problem strikes at the heart of human concerns. Rogoff says that
“debates about morality between groups center on issues of autonomy,
independence, interdependence, and social control” (2003, p. 226). Similarly,
Sherwood Lingenfelter (1998) describes five social games—authoritarian,
hierarchical, individualistic, egalitarian and hermit (which he also places on an X,
Y grid)—played out in different cultures. One of the main points of the book is
that missionaries need to learn the dominant style of interaction in whatever
culture they find themselves, not expect that the locals adopt that of the
missionary. Similarly, leadership/followership theorists should be careful not to
presume that all cultures can function on a western contrived model.
Conclusion
These two theories do not seem to be equally applicable in all cultures. It
is true that all leaders need followers, but the nature of good followership may
actually be a fuzzy set. Similarly, most people appreciate a leader who wishes to
serve. But a leader who wishes to serve first may find a much thinner base of
Comparing Followership with Leadership
17
followers and a much larger base of rivals. And the nature of service may be
conceived differently in different cultures. Hence, both followership and servant
leadership need a theory of culture and a mechanism for adjusting to the needs
of culture.
Though both Greenleaf and Kelley have conducted seminars abroad and
the works of both men have been translated into a great variety of languages,
neither have produced success stories within non-western cultures. They do,
however, contribute much to the discussion on leadership. Clearly, more
research on the nature of leading, serving and following needs to be done with
cross-cultural concerns in mind.
Comparing Followership with Leadership
18
References
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (1984). Modern Approaches to Understanding and
Managing Organizations (1st ed.). Hoboken: Jossey-Bass.
Frick, Don M. (2004). Robert K. Greenleaf: A Life of Servant Leadership. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1979). Teacher as Servant: A Parable. New York: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1983). Servant Leadership : A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate
Power
and Greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1996). Seeker and Servant: Reflections on Religious Leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures Consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the
Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Pedersen, P. B. (2002). Exploring Culture.
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
Kayes, D. C. (2001). Experiential learning in teams: A study in learning style, group
process and integrative complexity in ad hoc groups. Doctoral dissertation,
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Kelly, R. E. (1988). In Praise of Followers. Harvard Business Review 6:142-148.
Kelly, R. E. (1992). The Power of Followership: How to create leaders people want to
follow and followers who lead themselves. New York: Doubleday.
Kelly, R. E. (1998). How to Be a Star at Work: 9 Breakthrough Strategies You Need to
Succeed. New York: Crown Business.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lingenfelter, S. (1998). Transforming Culture: A Challenge for Christian Mission
(2nd ed.). Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Comparing Followership with Leadership
19
Rogoff, B. (2003) The Cultural Nature of Human Development. NY: Oxford
University Press.
Spears, L. C., ed. (1995). Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's Theory
of Servant-Leadership Influenced Today's Top Management Thinkers.
Indianapolis: Wiley.
Steffen, T. A. (1997). Passing the Baton: Church Planting That Empowers. 2nd ed.
La Habra: Center for Organizational and Ministry
Development.
Wildavsky, A. (1983). The Nursing Father: Moses As a Political Leader. Tuscaloosa:
University of Alabama.
Wolfe, J. (2000). Gender, Ethnicity, and Classroom Discourse: Communication
Patterns of Hispanic and White Students in Networked Classrooms. Written
Communication. Vol. 17, No. 4, 491-519.