Is Servant Leadership like ying and yang?
I've had an interesting discussion on Servant Leadership and would like to share my thoughts with you.
In Chinese philossophy yin and yang is a concept of dualism. Maybe the concept of Servant Leadership if also a concept of dualism where the servant is the passive principle (yin) and leader is the active principle (yang).
I think that servant and leader are always competing while beeing highly interconnected and complementary. You can't be more servant and leader simultaneously. If servant grows, leader shrinks and vice versa. They supersede each other and come to the fore alternately.
In modern leadership it is crucial to be aware of that dualism.
There are some discussions in the internet if Servant Leadership is an oxymoron. I dont't know. Even Servant Leadership sounds a bit like a double bind message.
Any thoughts welcome
My theory is that Servant Leadership opposes the ying and yang philosphy. I feel that in order to "lead" my team I have to be an example of how a "servant" uses their skills to drive progress. My leadership is more being an example of the Agile philosophy and I do that as a service to the team so that they can learn to appreciate it by being on the receiving end of the practices.
Does this mean that as a servant leader I will never make a decision for the team? Absolutely not. But I will always strive to have the team make their own decisions. Should there be an occurrence where the team is not able to arrive at a decision, I will step in using all of the Empirical evidence available, make a decision for the team and then explain to them why I chose the option I did. I do that as a service to the team and make it very transparent on why. The hope is that the next time they are faced with a similar situation, they will have learned how to deal with it.
As you explained Ying and Yang are in constant conflict where one tries to over shadow the other. In my theory, servant leadership complement each other.
Cool topic.
I value Daniel's rationale, and therefore, share his opinion.
You can't be more servant and leader simultaneously. If servant grows, leader shrinks and vice versa. They supersede each other and come to the fore alternately.
If someone leads more, do they then have a reduced opportunity to provide service?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
I took some time thinking about this point. Maybe I am interpreting the word "servant" in a negative way. I am not a English native speaker and in my first language German most translations of the word "servant" have a smell of submissiveness. Now I think Servant Leadership has nothing in common with a master/servant pattern.
Trying to describe Servant Leadership with some words, I think "Leadership as a service" would be appropriate.
As a Scrum Master I tend to think that I know what is best for the team. I am bringing this into question. For making Servant Leadership successful a shift in culture is needed in most companies. Shouldn't the service of leadership be requested by the clients who need this service? Isn't it a misbelief that a Servant Leader can identify the needs of a team without talking with the team about their needs?
As an example situation. A team is missing the Sprint Goal for many sprints. Now, a Scrum Master convinced of doing the "right" thing tells the team that it would be the "right" thing that the Scrum Master facilitates the Daily Scrum for a while. Is this still Servant Leadership offering a "best practise" solution on how implementing the Scrum framework? Wouldn't it be an alternative for the Scrum Master to focus on coaching the Scrum framework and Scrum values? This can help the team finding their own implementation of Scrum and request leadership/facilitation services as needed.
Sometimes I interpret the concept of Servant Leadership that a Servant Leader should suppress the own needs. I do not think this is healthy in the long term and not appropriate with the Scrum value of Openness. Personally when working as a Scrum Master I have the need the be successful with Scrum. Being open and honest about the own needs can be a great experience for a Scrum Master and Servant Leader.
An analogy that I like is that of a personal trainer. The team performs on the field, but the personal trainer is hyper-focused on ways in which the team (and individuals) can improve.
The personal trainer has no authority to tell anyone what they need to do; however, they should be ready with any observations and suggestions that may benefit others, and it is ultimately up to them whether they accept or not.
The only thing that a Scrum Master has authority over is Scrum. Then again, as a Servant Leader, a Scrum Master shouldn't demand conformity from others to Scrum (you're not the Scrum police!), but should guide and teach others on ways to work better and follow the Scrum framework.
Hope this helps. Good luck.