the myth of servant leadership

The Myth of Servant-Leadership: A Feminist PerspectiveDeborah Eicher-Catt

Abstract: Touted by many managerial elite andorganizational theorists as a genderless approach toleadership, the concept of Servant-Leadership (S-L) isquickly gaining popularity across America. In this paper.I offer a feminist interpretation of S-L based upon asemiotic analysis ofthe gendered language and discoursethat constitutes it. First. I describe the essentialdimensions of S-L that articulate it as innocent speech.Second, by carefully reviewing its rhetorical language. Iexpose its gendered connotations. We find that theapposition of "servant" with "leader" instantiatesparadoxical language games that do not neutralizegender bias but accentuate it. Third, at the level ofdiscourse. I argue that the form of S-L operates,essentially, as a myth. My analysis reveals that S-Lperpetuates a mythical theolosv of leadership fororganizational life that upholds androcentric patriarchalnorms.

Touted by many managerial elite and organizationaltheorists as revolutionary thinking, the concept ofServant-Leadership (S-L) is quickly gaining popularityacross America. A range of prominent authors in thebusiness reahn such as Stephen Covey, MargaretWheatley, Ken Blanchard, Peter Senge, Rosabeth MossKanter, and Warren Bennis are praising S-L as a superioralternative to traditional leadership approaches.According to the Indianapolis Business Journal,"Servant-Leadership has emerged as one of the dominantphilosophies being discussed in the world today" (qtd. inSpears 8). Retired AT&T executive, Robert Greenleaf,initially coined the term in 1970. Importantly, S-L appearsto be the panacea to preclude corporate corruption andscandal, employee dissatisfaction, and lagging companyprofits. S-L is also a perceived spark ready to ignitesuccessful non-profit organizational ventures, especiallywith community service orientations.

While S-L is now cited over twenty-one thousandtimes in the Social Science Index, much of the literaturecomes from business trade journals (e.g. Douglas; Galvin;Miller; J. Walker) and the successfully-marketedmaterials produced by the now popular Greenleaf Centerfor Servant-Leadership located in Indianapolis, Indiana(e.g., Greenleaf; Spears and Lawrence). However, otherthan a few academic dissertations that are now surfacing(e.g., Braye; Knicker; and P. Walker), very few scholarshave systematically studied the concept. James Laub, inhis essay "Assessing the Servant-organization," hasdeveloped a preliminary instrument aimed at evaluatingS-L in workplace environments. In two different studies,Robert Russell has tried to explicate the specific role ofvalues inherent in S-L and develop a model of itsfunctioning. Feminist communication researcher, Majia

Nadesan, theorizes that S-L is a form of discourse shelabels "evangelical capitalism" that aims ". . . to mend thecontradictions of public and private, and work and homethrough its ultimate vision of a new social order" (21).Interestingly, S-L has quickly become popularized withinorganizational discourse even though, as Russell admits"...it is systematically undefined and not yet supported byempirical research" ("A Review" 145). Foremost, S-Lappears to be "innocent speech" (Barthes, Mythologies131), especially given the taken-for-grantedness of itsmoral and ethical dimensions. It appears, in other words,to be a neutral concept void of ideological connotationsthat might serve special interests. Particularly, it isthought to advance a genderless approach to leadership(Rhodes). As feminists and other critical theorists arequick to note, however, any apparent naturalization oforganizational language and discourse should be suspect.The pragmatics of communication necessarily disciplinesorganizational life according to prescribed rules forengagement. As we understand it, no "language games"(Wittgenstein; Fairhurst and Sarr) or discursiveformations are value-free or apolitical. As we shall see, S-L is no exception.

In this paper, 1 offer a feminist interpretation of S-Lbased upon a semiotic analysis of the gendered languageand discourse that constitutes it. Specifically, 1 take thediscourse of S-L to be a sign and, as such, amenable todeconstruction. My overall aim is to expose its pragmaticfunction within organizational life as a cultural artifact.Although S-L appears to promote innocent values and isoften culturally-applauded for its potentially-ethical andspiritual influence on organizational life, a closerexamination reveals that it perpetuates a theology ofleadership that upholds androcentric patriarchal norms.By reaching the "threshold of myth" (Barthes,Mythologies 115) through its circulation as a discourseform, it reifies a gendered logic of organization (Acker139-158) that serves political ends. S-L insidiouslyperpetuates a long-standing masculine-feminine, master-slave political economy that, in the end, negates its so-called revolutionary potential to advance genderlessleadership.

To preview, first I describe the essential dimensionsof S-L that articulate it semiotically as "innocent speech,"i.e., as an idealized way of thinking that can only improveor foster productive leader-follower relations notjeopardize them. Second, by carefully reviewing itsrhetorical language and structure, I expose its genderedconnotations. We find that the apposition of "servant"with "leader" semiotically instantiates ensuingparadoxical "language games" (Wittgenstein) that do notneutralize gender bias but accentuate it. S-L perpetuatesan oppositional, gendered logic (Acker 139-158) basedupon a hierarchical arrangement of communicative

Women and Language, Vol. 28, No. 1, Pg. 17

relations that are semiotically induced. Third, I argue thatthe discursive form of S-L operates, essentially, as anorganizational myth (Barthes, Mythologies). As mythicaldiscourse, it promotes a theology of leadership that isinsidiously religious, patriarchal, and oppressive whileappearing to be neutral as a result of its spiritualconnotations. I compare it to an ethical rhetoric (LaniganPhenomenology). We find that S-L is rhetorical discoursethat is politically motivated to reproduce an androcentric,Judeo-Christian doctrine. I conclude that its artificiality asa myth prevents S-L fi'om developing "true" ethicalleaders, i.e., leaders who are visionary meaning-maAer^not merely meaning rt-producers (Thayer 231 -263).

Servant Leadership as Innocent Speech

According to Larry Spears, a chief advocate of S-Lwho is responsible for marketing Greenleaf s ideas, theconcept of S-L came to Greenleaf upon reading HermannHesse's short novel. Journey to the East. Hesse's story isan account of a mythical journey by a group of people ona spiritual quest where the recognition of the true leaderof the group takes place as a result of his acts of serviceand self-sacrifice for the benefit of the whole group. AsSpears tells it, upon reading this story, it seemed suddenlyclear to Greenleaf that a "great leader is first experiencedas a servant to others, and this simple fact is central to hisor her greatness . . . true leadership emerges from thosewhose primary motivation is a deep desire to help others"(3). Accordingly, for those who adopt its basic tenets, itmeans developing an overall attitude toward leadershipthat entails putting the needs of the company andemployees first. It means seeing yourself foremost as a"steward" (Block) of the organization's mission and goalsand then acting as a leader to help others coUaborativelyachieve those goals. Since its language explicitlypromotes an approach to leadership that is essentiallyaltruistic and idealistic, many proponents think it signals atum toward the "spiritual search" in contemporarymanagerial practices (Korac-Kakabadse et al. 165-182.).Purporting to advance more wholistic and collaborativeapproaches to organizational problems, we can assumethat scholars now advocating an agenda for feministethics (e.g., Cole and McQuin; M. Walker; Tronto) mightbe sympathetic to its basic premises and ideals.

Ten characteristics or attributes are central to therhetoric of S-L. According to Spears these are: listening,empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion,conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment tothe growth of people, and building community. Theconcept of S-L is thus thought to encompass the "head,heart, and hands" (Rhodes 1) of those who lead in amanner that re-calls the pathos of human existence andbehavior while simultaneously foregrounding an overallethos within organizational life. Leading with heads,hearts, and hands thus means emphasizing the humandimensions of thinking, feeling, and doing, respectively.Foremost, S-L represents a moral imperative. It is

theorized that the success of this ethical practice willhinge upon the activation of a phenomenon called "thelaw of psychological reciprocity" (Rhodes 1). This lawstates that "human beings are instinctively impelled toreturn to others the feelings and emotions they give to us"(Rhodes 1). This law is, of course, reminiscent of thegolden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them todo unto you."

Linguistically, by joining the opposing terms"servant" and "leadership," Greenleaf creates anapposition (Jakobson). This pairing of terms operatesparadoxically and qualifies rhetorically as a trope. Ingeneral, we know that paradoxes simultaneously representtwo contradictory ideas and the effect ruptures our typicalthinking. As described by semiotician D. Chandler,Michel Foucault well understood how, "...deliberatelyusing unconventional tropes can sometimes help todenaturalize taken-for-granted ways of looking atphenomena" (126, my italics). In the case of S-L, thisrhetorical structure of paradox serves as a trope thatimmediately shatters our typical conceptions about whatconstitutes effective leadership. Only under theserhetorical conditions, Greenleaf thought, would we beprompted to experience new forms of leadership wherethinking outside the box was both necessitated andappreciated. Especially given the rapidly changing natureof organizational life in the latter part of the twentiethcentury, S-L appeared to Greenleaf as a fitting response tothe rhetorical exigencies befalling contemporaryleadership.

Servant Leadership as a Language Game

In many ways, S-L's popularity is not surprising,since the language of S-L, i.e., its logos, appears innocentenough. And yet, upon closer inspection, it is deceptivelyambiguous, especially when it comes to the nature ofleadership responsibility, authority, and accountability.This conceptual ambiguity is partially produced by itsinherent linguistic irony. Subsequently, the ambiguityregarding leadership practices prompts language games(Wittgenstein) between organizational players. That is,regardless of which aspect of the linguistic pairing isprivileged at a given time—"servant" or "leader"—organizational players can compete for the right to re-define the organizational rules accordingly. Much is atstake organizationally, however, given the underlyinggendered implications of the terms involved. Because"leader" is typically a male-identified concept in itsdiscursive use, "servant" automatically becomes the"marked" term (Jakobson) that represents inferiority thatis typically female-identified.

The term "servant" connotes a subjugation of anexistential subject that is dependent upon the presence ofa "master" for his/her social location and organizationallife. The term "servant" thus represents a state ofsubmission, complete with various degrees of oppressiveramifications and power imbalances. At its root, "to


serve" means to be self-sacrificing. The act of servingthus makes the organizational member subject to thewhims and/or dictates of a higher order of discursivestructures. To counteract this negative connotation of theterm "servant," Greenleaf paired it with the term "leader,"which entails and authorizes its opposite-the masterfulposition. The word "servant" thus inhibits whatevernegative connotation "leader" evokes and conversely(Forward 145-165). From a semiotic point of view, theterms are mutually constraining, rhetorically. Whenorganizational leaders attempt to implement thisfluctuating logic within everyday organizational practices,it produces corresponding shifts in the discursive "rules ofthe game" (Wilden). The language of S-L is, therefore,sufficiently ambiguous and abstract that it does not limitorganizational members' specific interpretations andappropriations of it. Rather, the rhetorical language of S-Lcreates an organizational condition known as "strategicambiguity" (Eisenberg 227-242), where politically-motivated members might advance their own agendas inthe context of organizational confusion and anonymity.This ambiguity is particularly strategic because, as notedabove, S-L appears to offer an innocent, communal visionof an ideal organizational culture and climate. It appearsto promote an ethic where service and collaborativeleadership create desired organizational participation,consensus, and cohesion.

The carefully-selected language used to describe S-Lmay also serve to "feminize" leadership. As Ken Rhodes,President of Resultants International, Inc., and proponentof S-L describes it, the "feeling and doing dimensions" ofS-L align with stereotypical female behaviors (2-3).Specifically, these qualities entail empathy, awareness,commitment to the growth of people, healing,stewardship, and community building. While feelings andemotions are socially-sanctioned characteristics forwomen in the workplace, men do not typically endorsesuch behavior for themselves. Many of these apparent softskills are qualities contradictory to traditional,masculinized modes of organizational behavior. Foryears, men have practiced authoritative styles ofleadership and many women, wanting to advance in thecorporate world, have necessarily followed suit. Thesestyles or codes of behavior privilege the rational exerciseof power, authority, and dominance as ideals. Thus, in arhetorical move meant to make S-L more appealing andpalatable to male leaders. Ken Rhodes argues that thisapparent feminization or gender-bias inherent within thelanguage of S-L should be ignored. As he puts it,"servant-leadership is gender neutral because true serviceis genderless and true leadership is gender blind" (3).

Many women in leadership roles or aspiring toacquire them might find some of the rhetoric of S-Lrefreshingly optimistic and forward thinking in today'sorganizational climates. Organizational theorists Fine andBuzzanell (128-156), after all, call for a feministrevisioning of current conceptions of leadership thatsurpass its mere instrumentality and offer, instead, a

feminine gender-based approach. S-L's characteristics ofempathy for others, healing employees' body and minds,and authentic listening to subordinates in the workplaceare certainly skills that support a conception of leadershipat the center rather than top of a communicative web.Such a focus appears to bolster a feminist ethic of care(Tronto) that incorporates critiques of abstract principlesof morality, a dismissal of the idea that only women valueempathy, nurturance or caring, and the promotion of amore situationally-defined approach to morality. In thissense, the feminization of leadership, promoted by thepairing of the words "servant" and "leadership," appearsto successfully de-gender or "de-masculinize" themainstream language of authoritarian leadership. At thevery least, its language problematizes the long-standingsymbolic association of leadership . . . power, hierarchy,and dominance, i.e., an andocentric view (Bem).

On the other hand, the qualities of persuasion,conceptualization, and foresight could be viewed as"masculinizing" S-L, at least in the stereotypic view on"natural" male characteristics and behavior. Furthermore,given that most CEO positions are currently occupied bymales, the encouragement to exhibit submissive qualitiesin managerial and leadership roles could be construed aspolitically motivated. After all, in all likelihood, targetedmiddle- and lower-management positions are likely to beoccupied by women. Thus, leaders positioned higher onthe organizational chain of command could enact"leadership" roles while encouraging lower managementstaflfto exhibit more "servant" characteristics. As long associal conventions align such characteristics as emotionand feeling with women's supposed inherent nature andnot men's, the de-gendering or "de-feminization" of S-Lwill never be possible. Likewise, as long as society thinksof rational "brain power" as inherently only men's nature,the de-gendering or "de-masculinization" of S-L will nothappen. Sad as it may be, we, as a society, have not, asyet, transcended biological essentialism as a way ofthinking when it comes to gender differences. While wemay understand that the underlying assumption positingmen and women as polar opposites may be distorted(Bem), the fact remains that this way of thinking still ". . .permeates social institutions and both women and men areaffected by it (Sullivan and Turner xviii). Bem, for one,argues this gender polarization has status within ourcultural scheme of Western thinking.

In sum, rather than neutralizing any gender bias, theapposition of "servant" and "leadership" instantiates asign of discourse promoting an either/or logic thatrequires a perceived gendered choice. At any given time,a leader must privilege one conceptual orientation overthe other since either creates different rules of the gamepertaining to leadership. Privileging one necessarilyinhibits the other (Forward). Since both orientationsderive from an oppositional logic based upon ahierarchical arrangement of relations-one beingdominant, the other submissive—both also re-instantiate aone-way relationship in discursive practices, remaining


primarily male-centered (Fine and Buzzanell 128-156).This rhetorical move negates any opportunity to createmore two-way communicative relationships that mightadvance more egalitarian and authentic encounters. Giventhis one-way power dynamic, it is not surprising to hearthat S-L can produce negative consequences when appliedin real-world affairs, even within a religious context. Forexample, G.L. Forward found that this dominant-submissive approach to leadership entailed problems forProtestant pastors. The vacillation between servingparishioners and leading them created a climate ofcompetition among constituents. As he indicates, (161)

...when individualism and hierarchy becomemore relevant than community, manifestations ofauthority will be problematic. This dynamic istrue whether individualism and hierarchymanifest themselves in a managerial model orthe seemingly more benign shepherding model.Both approaches result in isolating, one-wayrelationships that place one person above theother. By the time the results of conflict andpower struggles crack this veneer of self-sufficiency ... relationships may be inadequateto counteract the resulting isolation andalienation.

Thus, in both conceptual orientations-dominant andsubmissive-we see over-riding rhetorical appeals to theso-called feminine or masculine aspects of being asprecluding any other possible genderless representationsof leadership. Such orientations keep the organizationalseeker of S-L locked into a communicative dynamic thatfosters bi-polar views of organizational relations, viewsthat do not reliably produce versions of S-L that match itsidealistic rhetoric. More importantly, such orientationssupport a long-standing androcentric view onorganizational structures and processes that universalize"the experience of seeker . . . and never questions theways in which gender relations may make S-L a verydifferent process for women and men" (Fine andBuzzanell 143). As a sign, S-L's rhetorical languagesupports a one-way orientation toward organizationalcommunication and, therefore, stalls more participative,egalitarian approaches to leadership.

Servant Leadership as a Discursive Formation

While the rhetorical language of S-L is intriguing forits ironic mixture of masculinized and feminizedrepresentations, at the level of discourse the fullramifications of its ideological trappings come to the fore.The nagging question about its undefined nature yetpopularized appeal is answered when we consider itspragmatic use as an organizational discourse. Here, Ideconstruct how S-L's wider circulation and use withinorganizational life creates a system of signs orsignifications (Chandler) at a higher order of

representation that produces a socio-cultural web ofpolitically-motivated interconnected concepts. Theemerging organizational practices that necessarily followshape both individual and organizational realities.Understanding S-L as a system of significations or as adiscursive formation, I deconstruct exactly whatideological form this system of signs assumes, the extentto which its form is appropriated for individual and/ororganizational political intentions, and why, in the end, itnegates the purported genderless approach to leadershipits rhetoric announces.

From a semiotic perspective, viewing S-L as adiscursive formation means seeing it as an intricatesystem of on-going significations within business andnon-profit communities that operates at a higher level ororder of signification. It means understanding S-L as amode of signification that operates as both a "plane ofexpression and a plane of content" (Barthes, Elements 89)for those who use it. In other words, S-L has assumed aparticularized form as a discourse, constituted from theunderlying connotative and denotative networks of signsystems that operate beneath it. According to Barthes inElements, these higher orders of signification, such ascreated by the discourse of S-L, are constituted by turninglower-level signifier-signified relationships into operativesignifiers at a higher level of meaning. Such a processproduces what Barthes calls "meta-languages," i.e., asystem of signification ". . . whose plane of content isitself constituted by a signifying system. . ." (Elements90). As such, the discursive form of S-L can be taken as acultural artifact and exposed to semiotic scrutiny. I beginby revealing its ideological implications.

Upon closer inspection we see that S-L serves as arepresentational form at a second level of signification.That is, S-L reflects a collective representation for all whoare hastily marketing it; yet it is something sociallydetermined, a reflection of what we collectively aspire tobe. In such cases, Barthes assigns these meta-languagesthe status of "myth" (Mythologies). According to Barthes,myths are special kinds of speech that take ordinary (i.e.,naturalized) concepts or objects and "decorate" them withcultural significance, adapt them for a certain type ofcultural consumption, and laden them with a type ofsocial usage (Mythologies 109) that is readily at ourdisposal. Myths are created from the typical modes ofrepresentation or language-objects from a first order ofsignification but then act as their own system of meaningin a second, more abstract order of signification. Mythsare representations of reality twice removed from thethreads of socio-cultural meaning that produce them. Thusmyths act as powerful cultural signs that are rooted inmeanings derived from a socio-cultural lexicon or historyof prior significations. Peculiar to myths, according toBarthes, is their dual nature of signification as bothmeaning and form. Barthes (Mythologies 117-118)describes how this process works.


The signifier of myth presents itself in anambiguous way; it is at the same time meaningand form, full [of meaning] on one side andempty on the other. As meaning, the signifierakeady postulates a reading... a sufficientrationality. . .its own value . . .a kind ofknowledge, a past, a memory, a comparativeorder of facts, ideas, decisions. When it [thesignifier of myth] becomes form, the meaningleaves its contingency behind; it empties itself, itbecomes impoverished...the form does notsuppress the meaning...it puts it at a distance, itholds it at one's disposal.

So, the fiinction of discourse as myth is to offer a possibledistortion of reality because when a discursive formreaches the "threshold of myth" (Barthes, Mythologies115), its emptiness becomes an abstraction to beappropriated by those interested in its threads of meaningfor their purposes. Myths are powerful forms because oftheir high level of abstraction while simultaneouslyproviding traces of identifiable representations. Becauseof this quality, they activate an "imaginingconsciousness" (Barthes, Mythologies 123) in us as werecognize bits of historical meaning and appropriate thosemeanings to our interpretive advantage.

Ironically, what has transpired over the thirty yearssince S-L's inception is just such a cultural activation ofconsciousness. Consequently, S-L has become reified andsedimented within our collective imaginary. FromGreenleafs appropriation of Hesse's story and otherspiritual and religious doctrines, to organizationaltheorists' appropriations of Greenleafs basic pairing of"servant" with "leader," the concepts that S-L nowarticulate represent a second order signifier for those whoadvance its cause. That is, these significations havecoalesced into a socially-constructed myth of what theideal leader represents. S-L is viewed as not only a styleof leadership that purports to ethically "hide nothing"about leadership practices (Barthes, Mythologies 121); asa matter of fact, if anything, its signification is built froma perceived foundation of trustworthiness. However, S-Lis also viewed as a type of speech and discourse wherebyits signifying fiinction is "purely" imaginary at the meta-level and can, therefore, act as an "alibi" (Barthes,Mythologies 123) when needed. Accordingly, S-L is ". . .constituted by a sort of constantly moving tumstile whichpresents alternately the meaning of the signifier and itsform, a language-object and a metalanguage, a purelysignifying and a purely imagining consciousness. . . [it is]. . . at once intellective and imaginary, arbitrary andnatural" (Barthes, Mythologies 123).

When we understand S-L's discourse as a blossomingorganizational myth, it no longer surprises us that ". . . itis systematically undefmed and not yet supported byempirical research" (Russell, "A Review" 145). Mythsare, after all, anything but rational speech. In their statusas "stolen language," they appear to satisfy a human

longing to pair the unknowns of experience with partial or"deformed" knowledge, information, and thought(Barthes, Mythologies 125) in an effort to interpret livedreality. Myths do ". . . not rest upon a positive power offormulation and creation, but rather upon a mental defect"as we get ensnared in their "iridescent play of meanings"(Cassirer 6). According to Cassirer, in myth we finddiscourses' "pathological influence" upon us. Althoughadmittedly extreme in judgment, Barthes agrees withCassh-er's basic assessment. Barthes thus questions theethics of myth as a discursive formation when applied as aseemingly innocent but appealing network ofrepresentations. For Barthes, after all, ". . . what isdisturbing in myth is precisely that its form is motivated.For if there is a 'health' of language, it is the arbitrarinessof the sign which is its grounding" (Mythologies 126, myitalics).

As research informs us, the discourse of S-L alsoappears to perpetuate a more benign "spiritualitymovement" (Cavanagh, 45-53; Tischler et al, 203-218)within organizations. In other words, it appears toemphasize "an awareness within individuals of a sense ofconnectedness that exists between inner selves and theworld" (Stamp, qtd. in Korac-Kakabadse et al., 165). Inthis way, S-L fiiUy capitalizes on the rhetorical appeal thatpathos supplies. As explained above, however, RobertGreenleafs initial defmition of a leader was appropriatedspecifically from religious doctrine not mere abstractspiritualism. Thoroughly steeped within the beliefs of theReligious Society of Friends, i.e., Quakers, it is nowonder that Greenleaf proposed such an ideologicalmovement for organizations. According to Bnimback(807-110), Greenleaf initially sought to develop a"theology of institutions," complete with anorganizational hierarchy that would provide the vision forservice, with seminaries and foundations at the top.Unlike the spiritual connotations of leadership we seeincreasingly today, dubbed by Nadesan as "new agecorporate spiritualism" (3-42), Greenleaf wanted thecorporate world to be inftised with and regulated byreligious doctrine. According to some of Greenleafsoriginal writings, the "leader's influence would be of areligious nature, not in a clerical sense, but in the 'rootmeaning of religio,-io bind or rebind," (Brumback 809).S-L is clearly rooted in the meaning systems of a Judeo-Christian ideology that has sought to "bind" Western U.S.sociefy to androcentric principles when it conies toorganizational structures. Nadesan agrees and describesthis aspect of S-L as the "discourse of evangelicalcapitalism [which] derives a certain unifying force fromthe religious tradition within which it is embedded. Thistradition is evangelical Christianity" (21). Historically,such discursive practices have, of course, semioticallymarked women and other marginalized groups as others,as transgressors against society's norms (Sullivan andTurner). Consequently, this makes it even more difficultfor any adversaries of S-L-men or women al ike- todismiss its supposed innocent mission and goals \vithout


conjuring the requisite shame or guilt associated with it.(Again, its success as a pathetic appeal is keenly felt.)

As a result, communities of organizationalinterpreters have readily, if unconsciously, granted S-Liconic status. That is, S-L increasingly represents itsobject, i.e., the apparent innocent idea of spiritual andthus organizational renewal. As a result, we findorganizational consultants asking, "Does your businesshave a soul?" (J. Cole, 9); organizational theoristsadvocating "spiritual intelligence" as a viable goal(Tischler et al, 203-218); and respected leaders claimingthat S-L provides both "new wine and new bottles"(Covey 3) for contemporary theorizing on leadership.Using the ideas of semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce, itappears that S-L's iconicity is accomplished "mainly byits similarity" and by exciting "analogous sensations inthe mind" (qtd. in Chandler 39) to the cultural concepts oftranscendence and rebirth as they have been historicallyapplied in Judeo-Christian doctrine. We are reminded thaticons always serve important social functions becausethey are cultural signs "...more likely to be read as'natural' than [mere] symbolic signs... [and] can behighly evocative" (Chandler 40). Accordingly, we assumethat an effective leader emulates the self-sacrificingnature of spiritual or religious leaders we might admire.Because S-L operates at a second order of signification,leaders who attempt to follow its tenets are deemednaturally spiritual, self-sacrificing, and righteous, eventhough they may remain in charge and authoritative. Asdiscussed earlier, unfortunately these representations alsohelp to reproduce the bi-polar, one-way relationshipscreated in organizations because confusion exists betweendominant and submissive behavioral norms andexpectations. More importantly, by reinstituting such anorientation in the business world, we conflate religiousrepresentations with spiritual ones. Many proponentsbelieve that such spiritual significations, "...enable abusiness person to gain a more integrated perspective ontheir firm, family, neighbors, community and self(Cavanagh 186) while not falling prey to any perceiveddogma that an overt religiosity might induce.Accordingly, in the S-L literature there are manyreferences that accentuate these alternative readings suchas getting in touch with our inner voice and spirit,learning to accept the special and unique spirits of others,learning how healing is a powerful force that mendspeople's broken spirits, and the many beneficialtendencies of the intuitive mind in organizationalcontexts. However, as my analysis shows, the spiritualconnotations of rebirth and renewal only mask the bindingqualities of S-L's religiosity.

In its ascent to popularity, the discourse of S-L hasnot produced a creative, new message to the people ofAmerica about how to lead. Instead, the discourse hasassumed mythic status and merely re-producedandrocentric, cultural code conditions, in semiotic terms,that prescribe leadership practices and organizationalethics steeped in religious thought. As I have shown, its

creative potential as a rhetorical trope to rupture thetraditional theories of leadership has been eclipsed andreplaced by a prescriptive, essentialist, normative rhetoricfor what a good leader is. A myth that appeals to abstract,universal, transcendent principles of leadership such asthese only propagates a status quo that articulates themotivated interests of a few and binds all others to itsprescriptive discourse. At a higher order of signification,S-L's appropriation as a myth subtly re-instantiates atheology of leadership that discursively re-articulates avertical not horizontal ideology of organizationalleadership. As feminist theologians have argued for sometime, such a Judeo-Christian theology establishes andsustains patriarchal conditions of oppressive gender-bias(e.g., Ruether).

We need also to question whose interests theseappropriations of the S-L myth serve. We are lead tobelieve that the interests of employees and staff are theones most served. Of the companies who claim to beservant-led (for example. Southwest Airlines, TDIndustries, Synovus Financial Corporation, AFLAC, TheContainer Store) many base the claim on adoption ofprogressive benefit packages for their employees andintegrated motivational schemes meant to improve workerproductivity. But, providing great benefits and perks andcompetitive wages for employees does not fullyencompass the philosophy of S-L as outlined byGreenleaf (including its spiritual representations andmiscontruals) nor does it sufficiently highlight whoseinterests are served as a function of the entireorganizational structure and culture. Who is authorized toprioritize organizational goals and objectives, handleorganizational complaints and problems, and decide whatbenefits and perks will be offered? Although S-L soundsgood in theory, as mythical discourse how well can it beintegrated into everyday management practices andprovide realistic solutions? For example, of the many topcompanies that are cited in the literature that haveattempted to incorporate a model of S-L, the consultingfirm of Arthur Andersen is listed. As most of us are nowaware, the firm of Arthur Andersen is currently underinvestigation for its role in the Enron and Worldcomaccounting scandals (Toffler and Reingold). While thisinstance may be an atypical enactment of S-L, it doesraise nagging concerns about the underlying motivationsand ethics of those companies who wholeheartedlypromote it. As both Cassirer and Barthes {Mythologies)wam, when we blindly use mythical discourse as asignifier for higher orders of representation in the "realworld," we necessarily bring to the fore ethical issues anddilemmas. Above all, we have seen how myths"naturalize" or "freeze" speech so their social usage isnever ". . . read as a motive, but as a reason" (Barthes,Mythologies 129). However, as Barthes is quick to note,"Motivation is necessary to the very duplicity of myth;myth plays on the analogy between meaning and form,there is no myth without motivated form" {Mythologies126). My deconstruction of S-L as a sign exposes its


politically motivated form derived from its underlyingweb of socio-cultural significations and meanings.

As a result, the mythic discourse of S-L is steeped ina long history of religious doctrine that, on the surface,espouses a rhetoric and discourse that appears to beethical in nature, one made more appealing by its pathos.Instead, it counts as an instance of ethical rhetoric(Lanigan, Phenomenology). That is, S-L represents arhetorical discourse that reifies a historically-sanctioned,prescribed ethic—in this case an androcentric one—that isincreasingly masked by its spiritual connotations. S-Ldoes not present a "vision of a new social order"(Nadesan 21) as it purports to do. While on the surface thelanguage or logos of S-L appears to promote an innocentethic of resistance to standardized, perhaps oppressive,leadership practices; it operates by a logic of rhetoricalsubstitution that maintains, or at least can maintain, thoseoppressive practices. One standardized, prescriptive ethicof leadership is replaced by another. S-L is not, therefore,an ethic manifested through free choice. In the finalanalysis, we see that S-L is yet another discursiveformation or ideology that is not only vertical orhierarchical in organizational structure but based upon anoppressive, patriarchal system of thinking. Accordingly, itreflects a masculinized mode of discourse (Kristeva).Touted as a principle-based leadership model (Covey), S-L does not represent a revolutionary mode of leadershipthat might refiect a postmodern appreciation oforganizational culture, diversity, and heterogeneity ofinterests and motivations. Instead, as a myth ofleadership, it represents a regressive mode of thinking,one thoroughly steeped within religious doctrine that,unfortunately, reflects a modem philosophical perspectivethat nurtures patriarchal and androcentric organizationalnorms and practices.

Conclusion

Organizational consultant. Ken Rhodes, claims that"servant-leadership is gender neutral because true serviceis genderless and true leadership is gender blind" (3). Ifthat were true, then we would see an increase of womenin more responsible leadership positions and more menworking in the service industry where S-L is thephilosophy in use. As it is, surveys of the top Fortune1000 industrial and 500 service companies show that 95percent of senior level managers are still men and of that95 percent, 97 percent are white (Redwood 1-8). Is itpossible to de-gender S-L? Given its rhetorical languageand structure, I contend that it is not; especially since,culturally, we define and distort particular qualities suchas empathy for others and persuasion as naturallyfeminine or masculine characteristics. Moreover, at thediscursive level my semiotic analysis reveals S-L's over-riding masculine connotations stemming from religious,patriarchal ideology. S-L is not innocent speech (Barthes,Mythologies 131), although it seeks to naturalize itselfthrough its web of historically-admired religious

meanings and spiritual representations. As a myth ofleadership, it can be easily appropriated to serve politicalends. It appeals to women leaders because of its apparentparticipatory orientation and its inclusive connotations.After all, on the surface, qualities of S-L appear similar toa feminist ethic of care as applied to organizationalpolitics. Regardless of gendered orientations, its pathos isdefinitely attractive. It also appeals to masculine leadersbecause of its distinctive authorization of persuasion,ingenuity, and power allocation. But as we know, signs lie(Eco). Because S-L is currently operating as a reifiedsocial construction within organizations, infiised with adeceptively innocent discourse that is ultimatelypatriarchal, it prescribes a pre-given androcentric ethos.As a result, it is not possible to de-gender or de-masculinize S-L as a myth.

More important to our pursuit of alternativeleadership approaches that are inclusionary, S-L does notbegin to highlight the creative potential inherent withinorganizational discourse that aims to capture a genuineethical stance. In other words, S-L does not articulate aleadership ethic that might be spontaneously producedthrough on-going communicative deliberations withothers. Instead of premising leadership practices on the"artificiality" of a myth (Barthes, Mythologies 118), as isthe case with S-L, it would behoove leadership theoriststo investigate alternative discursive practices derived frommore genuine modes of communication. If we want toadvance more workplace democracy or a postmoderncommunication ethic (Cooper), for example, we need toexamine ways of creating such a participatory moraldiscourse. To begin, this type of leadership discoursewould need to articulate not an ethical rhetoric but arhetorical ethic (Lanigan, Phenomenology) that awaitsspontaneous activation in organizing processes,structures, and practices. That is, the contours of such aleadership discourse would be shaped by practical ethicsthat are not prescribed in current language use orrepresentational systems at the second order ofsignification. Instead, leadership discourse would beiterated only through on-going first-order systems ofsignifications or discursive transactions, where all partiesto language and discourse—both men and women- wouldbe free to negotiate its ethical and moral boundaries andjudge it accordingly (Cooper). As we advance ourthinking on ethical leadership discourse, we need to beaware that "In all of its expressions, morality [ethics] isfundamentally interpersonal; it arises out of and isreproduced or modified in what goes on between oramong people. In this way, morality is collaborative; weconstruct and sustain it together. . ." (M. Walker 10).Although it is the nature of semiotic systems to endlesslybuild higher orders of significations from underlyingnetworks of culturally-adopted representations, an ethicalleader would appreciate and, therefore, continuallyscrutinize this process. As we theorize new ways tounderstand effective, ethical leadership, we must notforget that the true leader is a meaning-maker (Thayer),


not merely a meaning re-producer. Above all, theorganizational literature informs us that the best leader isa person who is a visionary; a person who genuinelyauthorizes new, effective and appropriate systems oforganizing that ignite members' creativity and passion topursue. The effective leader is not a person who re-authorizes pre-given meaning systems, however innocentand honorable they might appear. To the contrary, weneed more leaders-male and female alike— who engagenot in sedimented speech, but in "authentic speech," i.e.,speech that is ". . . primordial, creative, and expressive ofexistential meaning . . ." (Lanigan, SemioticPhenomenology 14). Such an orientation to theorganizational other as a sign instantiates a fitting orethical response as a rhetorical ethic. It is, in other words,a " . . . rhetoric as speaking [that] refers to ethics as humanvalues" (Lanigan Phenomenology 4). As a response to thesign of the other, a rhetorical ethic is one that emergesfrom within the organizational discourse and is self-signifying of the unique relationships so presented. Itarticulates an ethical stance that is rhetorically constitutedthrough the reflexive, reciprocal, and reversible acts ofexpression and perception realized within the tension thatcomprises all human thought and action. We need leaderswho articulate a rhetorical ethic and authorize others to dothe same. Only in this way, will we prevent leadershipdiscourses from ascending to the powerful threshold ofmyth.

References

Acker, Joan. "Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies; A Theory of GenderedOrganizations." Gender & Society 4 (1990): 139-158.

Barthes, Roland. Elements of Semiology. Trans. Annette Lavers andColin Smith. New York: Hill and Wang, 1964.

—. Mythologies. Trans. Annette Lavers. New York: Hill and Wang,1972.

Bem, Sandra. The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate onSexual Inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

Bennis, Warren. "Becoming a Tomorrow Leader." Focus onLeadership: Servant-leadership for the Twenty-first Century. Eds.Larry C. Spears and Michele Lawrence. New York: John Wiley &Sons, 2002. 101-110.

Blanchard, Ken. "Forward: The Heart of Servant-leadership." Focus onLeadership: Servant-leadership. Eds. Larry C. Spears and MicheleLawrence. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002. ix-xii.

Block, Peter. Stewardship: Choosing Service Over Self-interest. SanFrancisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1993.

Braye, Rubye. "Servant-leadership: Belief and Practice in Women-ledBusinesses." Diss. Walden University, 2000.

Brumback, Gary B. Rev. of Tlie Power of Servant Leadership, by RobertK. Greenleaf. Personnel Psychology 52 (1999): 807-810.

Cassirer, Emst. Language and Myth. New York: Harper and Brothers,1946.

Cavanagh, Gerald F. "Spirituality for Managers: Context and Critique."Journal of Organizational Change Management 12(1999): 45-53.

Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics: The Basics. New York: Routledge, 2002.Cole, Joanne. "Building Heart and Soul." HR Focus 75 (October 1998):

9-10Cole. Eve Browning, and Susan Coultrap-McQuin, Eds. Explorations in

Feminist Ethics: Theory and Practice. Bloomington, IN:Indiana University, Press, 1992.

Cooper, Martha. "Decentering Judgment: Toward a PostmodernCommunication Ethic." Judgment Calls: Rhetoric. Politics.

and Indeterminacy. Eds. John M. Sloop and James P. McDaniel.Boulder, CO: Westview. 1998. 63-83.

Covey, Stephen. "New Wine, Old Bottles." Executive Excellence(December 1994): 3+.

Douglas, Max E. "Servant-leadership: An Emerging SupervisoryModel." Supervision (February 2003): 6-9.

Eco, Umberto. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity Press, 1976.

Eisenberg, Eric M. "Ambiguity as Strategy in OrganizationalCommunication." Communication Monograplis 51 (1984): 227-242.

Fairhurst, Gail, and Robert A. Sarr. The Art of Framing: Managing theLanguage of Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996.

Fine, Marlene, and Patrice Buzzanell. "Walking the High Wire:Leadership Theorizing, Daily Acts, and Tensions." RethinkingOrganizational and Managerial Communication from FeministPerspectives. Ed. Patrice M. Buzzanell, Thousand Oaks:Sage, 2000. 128-156.

Forward, G.L. "Servant or CEO? A Metaphor Analysis of Leadership ina Nonprofit Context." 77ie New Jersey Journal of Communication9(2001): 145-165.

Galvin, Tammy. "A Cultural of the Heart." Training (March 2001): 80-81.

Hersey, Paul, and Ken Blanchard. Management of OrganizationalBehavior: Utilizing Human Resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall, 1977.

Jakobson, Roman. "Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics." Stylein Language. Ed. Thomas A. Sebeok, New York: Wiley, 1960:350-377.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. "World-class Leaders: The Power ofPartnering." The Leader of the Future. Eds. Francis Hesselbein,Marshall Goldsmith, and Richard Beckhard. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1996.89-98.

Knicker, Carol M. "The Elementary School Principal as Servant-leader."Diss. University of St. Thomas, 1998.

Korac-Kakabadse, Nada, Alexander Kouzmin, and Andrew Kakabadse."Spirituality and Leadership Praxis." Journal of ManagerialPsychology \7 (2002): 165-182.

Kristeva, Julia. Revolution in Poetic Language. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1984.

Lanigan, Richard L. Semiotic Phenomenology of Rhetoric. Washington,D.C: Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology andUniversity Press of America, 1984.

—. Phenomenology of Communication: Merleau-Ponty 's Thematics inCommunicology and Semiology. Pittsburgh, PA: DuquesneUniversity Press, 1988.

Laub, James A. "Assessing the Servant-organization: Development ofthe Servant Organizational Leadership Assessment (SOLA)Instrument." Diss. Florida Atlantic University, 1999.

Miller, Mike. "Servant Leadership Inspires Followers." Credit UnionMagazine (September 2003): 20-21.

Nadesan, Majia Holmer. "The Discourses of Corporate Spiritualism andEvangelical Capitalism." Management Communication Quarterly13(1999): 3-42.

Redwood, Rene. "The Glass Ceiling: The Findings andRecommendations of the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission." InMotion Magazine (2 October 1996): 8pp. Online. Internet. 5 Jan.2005. Available http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/glass.html.

Rhodes, Ken. "The Servant Leader: Does Gender Make a Difference?"2001. Available: www.eresusltants.com/power of servantleadership.html.

Russell, Robert F. "The Role of Values in Servant Leadership."Leadership and Organization Development Journal 22 (2001):76-I-.

—. "A Review of Servant Leadership Attributes: Developing a PracticalModel." Leadership and Organization Development Journal 23(2002): 145+.

Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Sexism and God-talk: Toward a FeministTheology. Boston: Beacon, 1993.

Senge. Peter. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Science of the LearningOrganization. New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1990.


Spears, Larry C. "Introduction: Tracing the Past, Present, and Future ofServant-leadership." Focus on Leadership: Servant-leadership forthe Twenty-firsi Century. Eds. Larry C. Spears and MicheleLawrence. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 2002. 1-16.

Sullivan, Patricia A., and Lynn H. Turner. From the Margins to theCenter: Contemporary Women and Political Communication.Westport: CN: Praeger, 1996.

Thayer, Lee. "Leadership/Communication: A Critical Review and aModest Proposal." Handbook of Organizational Communication.Eds. Gerald M. Goldhaber and George A. Bamett. Norwood, NJ:Ablex. 1988.231-263.

Tischler, Len, Jerry Bihermann, and Robert McKeage. "LinkingEmotional Intelligence, Spirituality and Workplace Performance:Definitions, Models and Ideas for Research." Journal ofManagerial Psychology 17 (2002): 203-218.

Toftler, Barbara, and Jennifer Reingold. Final Accounting: Ambition,Creed, and the Fall of Arthur Andersen. New York: Broadway,2003.

Tronto, Joan C. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic ofCare. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Walker, Jennifer. "A New Call to Stewardship and Servant Leadership."Nonprofit World (JuVAugusi 2003): 25.

Walker, Margaret Urban. Moral Understandings: A Feminist Study inEthics. New York: Routledge, 1998.

Walker, Pamela D. "A Case of Servant-leadership." Diss. TheUniversity of San Francisco, 1997.

Wheatley, Margaret. "The Work of the Servant Leader." Focus onLeadership: Servant-leadership for the Twenty-first Century. Eds.Larry C. Spears and Michele Lawrence. New York: John Wiley &Sons, 2002. 349-362.

Wilden, Anthony. The Rules are No Game: Tlie Strategy ofCommunication. New York: Routledge, 1987.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G.EM.Anscombe. New York: Macmillan, 1968.

Deborah Eicher-CatI, Ph.D. 1996, from Southern IllinoisUniversity at Carbondale, is an Assistant Professor of CommunicationArts and Sciences at The Pennsylvania State University, York('[email protected]') where she teaches courses in Gender and Media,Communication Theory, Organizational Communication, and Training& Development.


the myth of servant leadership

Documents