Proponents of servant leadership maintain that the other-centered motivations of the servant leader are altruistic, contending that the servant leader is not motivated by self-interest, but rather by a heartfelt desire to serve others. Although the literature on servant leadership often uses altruism to describe the servant leader’s moral grounding, it rarely gives a complete definition of the term and does not address the full implications of altruism as an ethical principal. A new study by Turner College management professor Kevin Hurt and U.S. Army Major Ross Nolan, a graduate of the Turner College's master's degree program in organizational leadership, explains that although altruism was first introduced by Auguste Comte in the 1830s to refer to the totality of other-regarding instincts in people, as the construct has evolved altruism has been used to refer to an actor’s intentions (i.e., motivation to help others for their own sake), behaviors (i.e. any action that benefits others normally with the condition that there is some cost to the actor), and ideology (i.e., happiness of others is seen as the principal goal of the actor).
Hurt and Nolan indicate that although all three perspectives have been utilized in the servant leadership literature, use of the behavioral perspective, which defines altruistic acts as those that confer economic benefits to others yet are costly to self, However, has largely ignored the sacrificial element. In its totality, altruism contains the additional meaning of someone who sacrifices for another in a way that leads to personal harm or self-destructive behaviors. This is a problem, Hurt and Nolan argue, because an altruistic motivational requirement (1) may limit the number of leaders who would otherwise be open to considering adopting a servant leadership style, (2) may cause negative consequences for those who fully adopt the altruistic ethic as an overemphasis on the benefits to others may shift a leader’s focus away from organizational goals, or lead to a state of mental depletion and subsequent disengagement from leadership roles, (3) may lead to the development of poor views of servant leadership among leaders simply because the expression itself is paradoxical and the negative connotations often associated with the term "servant," and (4) may cause leaders to abandon servant leadership before giving it thoughtful consideration simply because “it may imply softness and weakness, more appropriate for serving staff than for leaders.”
The study by Hurt and Nolan (1) analyzes four motivational orientations, each with different levels of focus on the self and the other, and (2) describes how each of these is related to servant leadership. From purely other-centered to purely self-centered, these motivations are altruism, agapao love, rational self-interest, and selfishness. Their study, set to appear in a future issue of American Business Review, develops a model and theory-based propositions that depict how these motivational orientations influence the relationship between servant leadership and organizational performance. In doing so, the authors acknowledge that although servant leadership is positively associated with altruistic tendencies, they are not the primary motivation of the servant leader, nor does pure altruism positively influence the relationship between servant leadership and organizational outcomes. Their model deviates from the commonly held perspective that the servant leader is completely selfless and altruistic and contend that servant leaders focus on others out of an unselfish moral love (i.e., agapao), while simultaneously focusing on rational self-interests. Hurt and Nolan further assert that the dual focus on others and self is the most ethical and ideal motivational orientation for servant leaders and should yield optimum benefits to all parties (i.e., others, self, the organization, and its customers). Finally, the study elaborates on its implications and provides a more targeted direction for future research in this area.
Comments
Post a Comment