logo
Servant Leadership Is Broken—Here's What To Do Instead

Servant Leadership Is Broken—Here's What To Do Instead

Forbes9 hours ago

Cartoon of person watering tree with employees
Robert K. Greenleaf coined the term 'servant leadership' in 1970, advocating for a leadership style in which leaders prioritize the needs of their team. While the idea itself predates Greenleaf's work, he is credited with popularizing the concept in modern business culture, shifting the focus from self-serving leadership models to people-first cultures. This transition to a more empathetic, service-oriented approach was a welcome departure from the top-down leadership styles that had long dominated the corporate world.
At first glance, servant leadership sounds both noble and compelling. And in many ways, it is. The notion of dedicating oneself to helping others achieve their full potential, demonstrating empathy by genuinely caring about employees' well-being, and actively seeking to understand their needs and perspectives is admirable. In practice, it has yielded tangible benefits, including higher employee engagement, improved employee retention, enhanced team cohesion, and even increased employee creativity. When done right, it works wonders.
But here's the catch: servant leadership, when taken too far, has a downside that often goes unnoticed. Over time, the concept can morph into self-sacrifice. Leading through service can sometimes cause leaders to lose sight of themselves. They are encouraged to prioritize others' needs above their own, often at the expense of their mental and physical well-being. This approach is not without consequences: burnout, declining productivity, higher turnover, and absenteeism inevitably follow.
For women and marginalized leaders, this dynamic can be even more dangerous. From a very young age, many of us are socialized to prioritize the needs of others—be accommodating, nurturing, and agreeable—while suppressing our own. This pattern plays out in both our personal and professional lives, where women are often expected to adjust their schedules and make compromises when family responsibilities collide with work.
Sound familiar? You start saying 'yes' to everything. You overextend yourself to 'support the team,' putting your own needs on the back burner because, well, 'not everything is about me.' Over time, what began as a commitment to servant leadership can easily slip into people-pleasing behavior on an unsustainable scale. Despite the growing presence of women in leadership roles, women still lag behind men in many industries. When leadership is framed as constant service, and that service is demanded at home and work, it's no wonder women leaders are burning out. Forty-three percent say they're burned out, far higher than the 31% of men at their level.
Compassionate leadership includes yourself in the circle of care. It recognizes that sustainable leadership isn't about endless self-sacrifice; it's about showing up as your fullest, healthiest self so you can truly support others.
So, how do you make that shift? Here are four small shifts toward compassionate and sustainable leadership that you can make to show up for your team and yourself.
Stop being available all the time
You don't have to be on-call every day and night to be a supportive manager. Set clear expectations around your availability, both in your calendar and your communication. For example: block 'focus hours' on your calendar where you won't take calls or respond to emails. Add recurring blocks for rest, exercise, or even unstructured creative thinking. Intentional calendar blocking ensures your needs have the same weight and legitimacy you give to others. When you protect your time and you aren't always available, this signals to your team that boundaries are more than just acceptable: they're a healthy part of work.
Practice empathy with edges
You can listen deeply and still make a call your teammate doesn't agree with. Compassionate leadership means being present with your team's needs, but not taking on all of them as your own. You can try saying, 'I hear you, and I care. Here's what I can offer.' This keeps you grounded in empathy while reinforcing that leadership doesn't mean absorbing (or solving) every problem personally.
Ask what your team needs directly
Many servant leaders jump straight into problem solving mode. But often, your team doesn't need a fix; they need a listening ear. Before diving in with a solution, ask: 'What would feel most helpful from me right now?' This helps you offer support while also preventing unnecessary energy drain.
Define and communicate your responsibilities
When roles are unclear, leaders often end up taking on more responsibilities than they should. After all, servant leaders love being helpful. But before taking on extra work, take time to clarify what's truly in your lane and what's not. Then, name that with your team. For example: 'I'm here to be a sounding board through the decision-making process, but the decision is ultimately yours to make, not mine.' This builds ownership on their end and lightens the emotional load on yours.
Let's rebrand servant leadership as compassionate leadership, where compassion is directed both outwardly toward others and inwardly toward ourselves. You cannot be an effective leader if you aren't taking care of yourself first. The familiar adage from airplane safety demonstrations holds: put your oxygen mask on before helping others. You can't help others if you're running on empty, and your team will notice when you're burnt out and not showing up every day as your authentic self.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Chick-fil-A shoots down customer complaints about rumored straw change
Chick-fil-A shoots down customer complaints about rumored straw change

Fox News

time30 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Chick-fil-A shoots down customer complaints about rumored straw change

Some users of the Reddit social media platform have been calling out a beloved fast-food chain for a supposed change in the composition of its beverage straws — but they had a surprise in store when the restaurant clarified its policies. A user on the Chick-fil-A forum on Reddit titled a post this week, "Cfa now switching to paper straws from plastic." "I ordered a drink today from my local cfa and noticed they gave me a paper straw," said the post. "When I asked the owner-operator about this, he said that all the cfa's are also switching to paper straws," claimed the user in the June post. A Chick-Fil-A spokesperson told Fox News Digital on Tuesday that "Chick-fil-A is not transitioning its restaurants nationwide to the use of paper straws." The spokesperson added, "Chick-fil-A abides by local regulation in the communities we serve, so some locations may carry paper straws where required." The post garnered hundreds of reactions, with customers weighing in on the plastic vs. paper straw debate. "It depends on where you live," said one user. Said another person, "They're required to follow local laws and ordinances. This is why some stores (ex: NYC) have paper cups while many stores still have the OG styrofoam cups." "I consider myself a leftist, but I'll be damned if I ever give up plastic straws. Lol paper is the worst," joked one user. Another Redditor wrote, "My location in Atlanta, Georgia, still has styrofoam and plastic straws. It's not good for the environment but great for my drinks." Yet another person claimed, "It's local regulations. We aren't even supposed to give straws, utensils or salad condiments without the guest requesting them." One customer said, "Oh, no, this makes me sad. I'll carry straws in my car if that happens. I get it, but it sucks." "Paper straws suck. Glad I invested in a 5-pack of reusable metal straws," declared one person. "They make that drink hit even COLDER." While there is no federal ban against single-use plastic utensils, some states and cities have put restrictions in place to help reduce waste. New York City and Los Angeles restaurants cannot provide single-use plastic beverage straws unless a customer requests them. In February, President Donald Trump issued an executive order banning the federal use of paper straws. "Plastic straws are often replaced by paper straws, which are nonfunctional, use chemicals that may carry risks to human health, are more expensive to produce than plastic straws, and often force users to use multiple straws," reads the order. The order points out that the switch is counterproductive as "paper straws sometimes come individually wrapped in plastic." "It is therefore the policy of the United States to end the use of paper straws," the order notes.

Cat naps, ‘piddle packs' and amphetamines: Here's what it can take to complete a marathon bombing run
Cat naps, ‘piddle packs' and amphetamines: Here's what it can take to complete a marathon bombing run

CNN

time34 minutes ago

  • CNN

Cat naps, ‘piddle packs' and amphetamines: Here's what it can take to complete a marathon bombing run

The US bombing mission that targeted three nuclear facilities in Iran over the weekend was a massive undertaking that required its B-2 bomber pilots to test the limits of human endurance during a 37-hour mission. Seven stealth bombers carrying two crew members each flew nonstop halfway across the world and back in one of the longest air raids in modern military history. Melvin G. Deaile is one of few people who understands what it is like to be in the cockpit during a marathon operation like the one carried out over the weekend. The retired Air Force colonel was part of the B-2 crew whose 44-hour bombing mission over Afghanistan in 2001 still holds the record for the longest. Deaile described Saturday's operation as an 'incredible feat.' More than 125 aircraft were used in the attack. Apart from the seven bombers that flew east from Missouri's Whiteman Air Force Base to strike Iran, the mission also included other B-2 bombers flying west as part of a feint, as well as fighter jets, reconnaissance planes and refueling tankers positioned along the bombers' routes. 'The thing that to me was more historic than anything is the fact that we had seven jets over the target area, executing seven different bomb runs, all within the matter of 30 minutes,' Deaile said. The retired colonel, now the director of the School of Advanced Nuclear Deterrence Studies at the Air Force's Air Command and Staff College, offered to describe aspects of his 2001 mission but made clear he is only speaking from his own personal experience, has no personal insight into Saturday's raid, and is not speaking on behalf of the Department of Defense. Deaile's record-setting raid took place in the opening days of Operation Enduring Freedom, launched by then-President George W. Bush less than a month after the 9/11 attacks to target al Qaeda and the Taliban. Long-range, high-altitude bombers like the B-2 were needed for the initial salvo over Afghanistan. During his time at Whiteman, mission-qualified pilots were trained on a long-duration simulator to help them plan their sleep cycles, but those simulators typically lasted for only 24 hours. The longest sortie Deaile had flown before his record-setting flight was 25 hours. Bomber crews were identified for the mission ahead of time, but they had no idea when or even whether the operation would take place. Flight doctors gave the crews sleeping pills to help them rest in the days leading up to the bombings, Deaile said. 'We just knew that if the president made the call, we were going to fly the second night,' he said. On the day of his mission, Deaile, who was the mission commander, woke up three to four hours before his takeoff time to participate in briefings with his pilot and the crew of the other B-2 in their formation. They took off heading west in the stealth bomber named 'Spirit of America.' Policy during Deaile's time required both crew members to be in their seats at critical flight moments, including takeoff, refueling, bombardment and landing. In the hours between, the two crew members would take turns sleeping in a small cot behind the seats in the cockpit. 'They may have upgraded it in the last 20 years to something a little bit more comfortable, but it was a modified cot behind the two pilots that the crew member not in the seat could clear out and grab some shut-eye for probably about three or four hours in between air refuelings,' Deaile said. It could be difficult to fall asleep. 'Obviously anybody going into combat has a level of anxiety,' Deaile said, 'but eventually you're going to get some shut-eye, just because your body is going to require that.' Deaile's mission had him heading west across the Pacific, with the advantage of having about 24 hours of sunlight working against the body's natural circadian rhythm to keep the pilots from getting drowsy. Both crew members also had some chemical support to stay awake as the mission dragged on. 'The flight doc did have what we call 'go pills' authorized for use — amphetamines,' Deaile said. He emphasized policies could have changed in the more than two decades between his flight and the recent mission, and that his experience may not mirror those of Saturday's bomber crews. The B-2, made by Northrop Grumman, is one of the most expensive and sophisticated bombers in use. But the toilet situation was primitive. There was a chemical toilet on the plane, but the airmen used it only for what Deaile described as 'more pertinent emergencies' to not overfill it. There was no divider between that toilet and the pilot seats. 'Privacy is the guy looks the other way,' he said. But high altitudes and pressurized cockpits can dehydrate pilots, and drinking water was crucial. Deaile estimated he and the other pilot drank about a bottle of water an hour. They would urinate in 'piddle packs' — essentially Ziploc-like bags filled with kitty litter. Deaile and the other pilot would pass their time by calculating the amount and weight of urine-filled bags they had accumulated: 'These are the things you do when you have 44 hours, right?' Both pilots also packed a lunch and were given meals designed for pilots to eat in flight. But sitting stationary for dozens of hours — there was room to walk around in the cockpit a bit, but not enough to exercise — doesn't burn much energy, and Deaile doesn't recall eating much. They flew their aircraft across the Pacific and south of India before turning north heading toward Afghanistan. The plane was refueled several times in midair. Once the sun started setting, Deaile took one of the amphetamines given to him by the flight doctor to stay alert. The crew dropped their payload over Afghanistan, spending about four hours in total over the country before departing. Deaile's mission was not initially planned to last 44 hours, but once they left Afghan airspace they were ordered to fly back in for another bomb run. Deaile took another upper given to him by the flight doctor. After the second run, the crew landed at Diego Garcia, a military base on an island about 1,100 miles southwest of India. During a mission debrief, the pilots were shown video of the targets they struck. Then they ate a meal, took about an hour to decompress, and finally fell asleep. Steven Basham, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who flew B-2s over Serbia in 1999, their first use in combat, told CNN that taking off was probably 'the most surreal moment' in the lives of the crews in the weekend raid. 'They're actually executing a mission that no one in the world knows, but for a very few, is taking place,' he said. One unique aspect of Saturday's mission is the payload each plane was carrying: 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs that were designed to penetrate deep into the mountains that US officials said fortified aspects of Iran's nuclear program. It was the first time that bomb had been used in combat, and only B-2s are capable of carrying these types of bombs. Seven bombers carried a total of more than a dozen bombs. The impact of the sudden loss of several tons of weight on each aircraft was likely negligible on an aircraft as advanced as the B-2, Basham said. The refuelings on the way back to Missouri were likely some of the hardest the fatigued crew had ever experienced, he said, but 'the one thing that's going to lift them up is they're going to enter the coast of the United States again and they're going to get that 'welcome home' from a US controller.'

MIL Has an Outburst When She Can't Give Toddler Soda—Here's Why I Empathize With Her
MIL Has an Outburst When She Can't Give Toddler Soda—Here's Why I Empathize With Her

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

MIL Has an Outburst When She Can't Give Toddler Soda—Here's Why I Empathize With Her

Here's one lesson I learned quickly after I agreed to let my in-laws be our daughter's primary caretakers while my partner and I worked in the first years of her life: Grandma's house, Grandma's rules. We were lucky: When we asked them to limit her sugar intake and avoid screen time, they dutifully listened—but yes, the occasional package of fruit snacks or episode of Paw Patrol slipped past our carefully erected boundaries. For the most part, we chose to not fight those battles—especially because we're getting all that child care for free. Look, I know that's a hard pill to swallow, and I know that not everyone will agree. I see the other side of the coin, too: Parents should have the final say in what their kid eats, watches, and experiences. Personally, I never saw the harm in my daughter enjoying the occasional processed snack so I didn't intervene. But as I recently discovered on Reddit, not all parents take my un-intrusive stance. On Reddit, a mom recounted a recent incident that quickly escalated: While attending a party, the mom in question hoped to keep her 19 month old child awake in order to maintain her regular nap and sleep schedule. Her mother-in-law offered her grandchild a carbonated lemonade flavored drink, the parents objected, and that's where the interaction really went off the trails. 'MIL then spouted off a tirade about how I was so bossy, strict and soda wasn't going to hurt her,' OP wrote. 'This went on until she eventually called me a bad mom …she then told my partner (of 12 years) that he should leave me as I would run their lives forever.' This probably won't be a popular opinion either, but I have sympathy for the grandmother in the situation. Parenting advice has changed so much in even the last two decades that folks from older generations who raised seemingly healthy kids might feel left behind, embarrassed by their outdated opinions, or defensive of their own parenting choices. Now, did she very clearly overreact? Yes, absolutely. But she probably genuinely didn't think it would harm her granddaughter at all, and felt attacked when her kids rejected what she considered a well-meaning idea. At the end of the day, if you don't want your kid to have lemonade, that's your call, full stop. Parents shouldn't compromise the values they truly believe in even to appease the pushiest grandparent. And grandparents should accept that boundary with grace, even if it's not the choice they would make. 'You're the parent, you decide. End of discussion,' as one person put it in the comments. But I also think, from my own first-hand experience, and from reading Reddit pretty much daily for this very job, that parents and grandparents often find themselves locked in a battle of wills, and the disrespect runs both ways. One commenter wrote, 'I hope OP realizes it isn't about the drink, it's about control,' and that's spot on. Except that the parents themselves are fighting for control too, especially in those early years. The thing is, in parenting control is an illusion. You try to keep out fruit snacks and lemonade for as long as you can and then one day a school friend introduces your kid to Roblox and Ed Sheeran and suddenly you're arguing with her about why she can't quit the soccer team. So I understand why these parents latched on to the lemonade as a way to exert their sense of control over how they are raising their kid, while they still can. But it might benefit both parents and grandparents to adopt a more flexible, open-minded attitude and to perhaps choose more wisely when it comes to what battles are really worth fighting. There's a good chance you and your kid will disagree for longer than you think about everything from what they eat to who they date. You might want to consider saving your energy. Read the original article on Parents

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store