Organisations (and people) need to rediscover the art of serving #dmingml

In recent years I have observed that perhaps the biggest concern for organisations is when their focus has changed from serving a need to serving themselves. On a large level we have seen this occur with the collapse of large coporations such as Tyco International and the Enron Corporation. Down to smaller organisations we have read of reports revealing fraud among a small number of charities and community organisations.

Admittedly, the idea of service is different depending on the organisational context. For example, for profit organisations, 'service' has more to do with meeting a need that they have identified in the market place with a product or service. They either create, acquire, import or distribute something to meet that need. In the not-for-profit (NFP) context, 'service' usually equates to delivering a product or service for the betterment of others, without the need for shareholders to make a profit from it. While I realise these definitions are somewhat brief and simplistic, they are adequate for this discussion.

One of the key challenges I find in having embarked on a course of study, is applying it. Reading widely, being open to having long held assumptions be challenged, and trying to synthesise key learnings from group discussions and a wide range of critical reading with leadership reflections over the last 19 years or so.

In recent weeks, I have been challenged by Bryant L Myers. His outstanding book called, Walking With the Poor, takes a look at transformational principles of development and how we define the poor and the non-poor. At the heart of his thesis is the belief that the problem of poverty is relational, not institutional per se. And while many people and organisations are motivated to serve the poor, many do so in a way that serves their own needs and goals over the ones that need serving the most.

The next book I read was by Max Weber called, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Not the most riveting read, but worthwhile nonetheless. Basically, Weber looks at the historical context from which capitalism arose, and how it was linked to a person's religious affiliation. Over time, a substantial theological shift occured where people began to see that the accumulation of wealth was a sign of God's blessing. Unfortunately, what emerged from this was a justification for accumuting more wealth irrespective of how that was acquired, and yes, even at the expense of others and the negative impact on communities (aka the Industrial Revolution).

The third book for this term was authored by Karl Polanyi, called The Great Transformation: the Political and Economic Origins of our Time. Polanyi saw that a free, self-regulated economic market would ultimately lead to political and social collapse. Now while it can be argued that free markets have resulted in tremendous societal progress, we have only to consider recent examples of how when there are inadequate regulations and controls the consequences can be quite dire - the U.S, Ireland, Greece, and so on. While we want free markets and the ability to trade and make money without government intervention or the introduction of what we perceive as unfair taxes, when the system fails we are quick to want the government to intervene and rescue us. Of course I am generalising. However, there can be no argument that a significant strata of the population in these countries have been negatively impacted by the unrestrained (and unregulated) economic greed of a much smaller percentage of those populations. Now, I am not against capitalism, nor am I in favor of it per se. But clearly, without appropriate regulations and interventions, Polanyi's views reveal some insight about unrestrained greed and consumerism.

Where am I going with all this? I'd like to weave in some thoughts from another book I am reading as I research the importance of virtues in leadership and how they are often overlooked at the expense of a leadership competencies, capabilities, style, etc. I think we can all bear witness to having seen that even the most competent and charistmatic leader can make a mess of things, if there is an absence virtue(s).

The book by Robert K. Greenleaf called, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power & Greatness, provides some key insights that seek to transform not only global capitalism, but also leadership in each of society's institutions, including government, education, health, churches and businesses, with the goal of serving the needs of humanity.

Ultimately, it is focused on a commitment to a vision that can only be achieved by giving authority to those who are being served by the vision, and serving the needs of colleagues who are stewards of the resources being used to fulfill that vision. Kent Keith, CEO of the Greenleaf Center, and author of The Case for Servant Leadership, identifies seven key practices of servant leaders:

1. Self-awarenes
2. Listening
3. Changing the pyramid
4. Developing your colleagues
5. Coaching not controlling
6. Unleashing the energy and intelligence of others
7. Foresight

Unlike leadership approaches with a top-down hierarchical style, servant leadership emphasises collaboration, trust, empathy and the ethical use of power.

Jesus Christ is often talked about as a great teacher, a healer, a prophet. What is often overlooked, ignored or rejected is his claim to be the Son of God, and his commitment to "serve, rather than be served." His legitimate power and greatness was found in sacrifice and service.

Here is my closing thought posed in a question? I wonder what it would be like if all of our major institutions and their respective leaders pursued greatness built on a foundation of sacrifice and service?

Idealistic? Absolutely.