"So when a "servant leader" observes someone using the wrong approach, say a myopic approach, does he correct that person? How does he correct the myopic one?
If someone has to TELL someone to do something, they are generally in a management role. If they have to TELL someone to follow, it means they weren't following the leader in the first place. If no one listens to the "PL" (as we hear many times on this forum) then that PL is leading NO ONE! So the choice that needs to be made is: Is it more important to have people follow or more important to get the job done?"
Stosh, read the question again. You tell constantly. Here. Today. Yesterday. Tomorrow. You have passion for the topic and try to tell us what we are doing wrong in your opinion. I find nothing wrong with that.
Is the job more important than having "followers"? It's not a dichotomy. Leaders get the job done with the team they lead every day. "Keep the group together. Get the job done." The "job" may very well be each member developing into the best person and best citizen he can be. Oh, that would be Boy Scouting.
@TAHAWK We are very close to saying the same thing.
The question was how does one go about correcting the myopic person about servant leadership. First of all one does not TELL them anything. That is a management concept. I would start by asking them to clarify their view of the issue, and then help them see what you see. I don't see people doing things "wrong" when it comes to this issue. It usually just means people are using a different definition than I am when it comes to leadership. For me "getting the job done" is a management objective. It can be done in a number of different ways. I can threaten, I can plead, I can coerce, I can motivate, etc. some of the things are good and others not so good, but somehow I get the job done. It has nothing to do with whether the person is following and after the job is done I don't care about these people until the next time I need a job done. I just see this process as VERY ineffective and difficult for young boys to master. Heck, there are a lot of adults that find it difficult to master.
But we have instead the leader (servant if you prefer) that requires followers! Duh! What's the task? Don't need one.to ask anyone to do anything. But the leader.... in order to LEAD makes the first move, they HELP OTHERS with what they are doing.(Help other people at all times) It makes that person's life easier and of course the leader scores a few atta boys with those that he helps. So down the road the leader has a task that needs doing and those around him that he has helped, show up and ask, "What can we do to help?" The leader has set the tone, the followers are now leading by the leader's example. So now the roles are reversed and the followers are helping the leader. And this ping pong game gets played over and over again and eventually one begins to realize that everyone is heavily invested in caring teamwork. How many duty rosters are necessary in this setting? NONE.
That desire to serve becomes ingrained in each individual, some more so than others. Helping other people at all times becomes a culture of the patrol, troop, and each boys' relationships of the future.
So in that whole explanation how much MANAGEMENT was needed? Very little, with everyone working together it becomes a super efficient process and the jobs get knocked out with very little organizational necessity. A good leader will develop come good organizational skills such as project management, problem solving, group dynamics, inter-personal relational skills, etc.but they will only enhance the underlying premise of servant leadership.
I just find that this servant leadership approach is so much cleaner, easier to understand and in the long term, more efficient than spending a lot of time learning just management and redefining it as some kind of "leadership".