Key Differences Between Toxic And Servant Leaders

A toxic leader can be defined as leader motivated by egocentrism, self-interest and show no concern for those below him, and his actions negatively affect the organizational climate. They exalt themselves in turf protection, fighting and controlling their followers instead of uplifting them. Toxic leaders are very destructive and they only focus on short term accomplishments and they destroy their followers to achieve those objectives. Their decisions are made hasty and they change their decisions without any justified rationale. Mostly, they lazy around only to make hasty decisions when it is too late and the crisis is already in place. Such decisions have no time to be thought over and therefore, they are continuously changed throughout implementation so as to work effectively and may even be altered completely thereby making the whole process messy (Seeger, 2005).

The principles of Mission Command are build cohesive teams through mutual trust, provide a clear commander’s intent, exercise disciplined initiative, use mission orders and accept prudent risk. Toxic leaders who micromanage subordinates disregard these principles. Their micromanagement hampers subordinate’s ability to conduct operations defined by mission statements. The move to make Mission Command a doctrinal part of the Army education system should go a long way to minimizing the effects of toxic leadership on operations and

Servant leadership is defined by a willingness of a leader to put the needs, desires, recognition and success of their employees and organization above their own interests. They often inspire followership through their example resulting in deeply loyal subordinates that are motivated to emulate the leader’s behavior not out of fear or a desire to please and impress but because of its intrinsic value. Reading through the results of my Seven Habits Profile I noticed that I was comparatively deficient on a few of the foundational and organizational habits such as putting first things first and beginning with the end in mind. Conversely, I had a much higher level of empathetic traits with synergy, seeking first to understand, and thinking win-win taking the top three spots. These traits are highly consistent with servant leadership.

Over the course of my career, I have tried to model various leadership behaviors based upon successful leaders that I have worked with or for. This has led me to incorporate different styles into my own. Considering my current leadership strengths and how I view successful leaders I will use a servant leadership theory to analyze my own competencies. Servant leaders have 9 different aspects comprised of: emotional healing, creating value for the community, conceptual skills, empowering, helping subordinates grow and succeed, putting subordinates first, behaving ethically, relationships, and servanthood (Boone & Makhani, 2005, pg. 86). The aspects of a servant leader are those that I personally value and identify with. In addition to this, it is my belief that servant leaders, because they are people oriented, are more effective in a variety of environments and situations.

The two theories that I chose to do my self-assessment by are the authentic leadership theory and the servant leadership theory. The authentic leadership theory was chosen due to my desire to stay true to who I am and what I stand for. However, the servant leadership theory was chosen because of my desire to meet the needs of others while doing what I can to help others succeed as well as meet their set goals. Being a servant while being authentic are the traits I want in my style of leadership and are assessed throughout this paper along with my strengths and weaknesses in the area of leadership.

Toxic leadership as defined by Wilson (2014) “is a combination of self-centered attitudes, motivations, and behaviors that have adverse effects on subordinates, the organization, and mission performance”. NCOs, just as civilians, range from poor leaders to excellent leaders; but when does poor leadership become toxic leadership and what causes this toxic leadership? Not every soldier is born to lead. Some soldiers are bad decision makers, poor time managers, or just unable to inspire confidence in their fellow soldiers. There is nothing wrong with being a follower if you are a competent individual who can perform the given tasks. A NCO who cannot step up and lead is not a toxic leader, they are a bad leader. With education and training NCOs with poor leaderships skills develop into competent leaders.

Leadership is critical and it refers to the process of influencing followers towards achieving the groups’ goals. Toxic leadership refers to the leadership offered by leaders who abuse power and leave the group they lead in a poorer condition after they are left. Toxic leadership is associated with incompetence, insularity, evil, intemperance (lack of self control), callousness, rigidity and corruption among other bad leadership characters. The leaders involved in toxic leadership are not concerned about uplifting the people they lead (followers). Instead, they make sure they satisfy their self interests. They fight and control instead of caring for their followers. In most cases, the leaders with this leadership style are leaders who bully, abuse, and discriminate the subordinates. In addition, they create a hostile climate, self serving and arrogant, threaten and even yell at their followers among other fierce characters. They do not lead based on their qualifications. However, they apply force to be in leadership positions thus making the lives of their followers a misery . They are selfish in that they work to promote themselves without regard to the welfare of their followers. In most cases, do this by not minding about the future of their group and its members. This paper explores the effects of toxic leadership in the United States.

James A. Autry is the author of the bestselling book The Servant Leader. He has put together the fundamental skills every leader should hold in order for them to successfully run their businesses. Within thirteen chapters, the book has been divided into four categories: a foundation of character and vision, servant leader as manager: the everyday nuts and bolts, the harsh realities of organizational life, and finding the balance. The importance of developing yourself into the character of ‘servant leadership’ is identified to show how to harness productivity, creativity, courage, a nurturing nature, and handle both short and long term management situations. Although a particular purpose or mission leads every organization, all organizations are in a sense the same. The dependency on people is a dominant factor (Autry 2001, xviii).

In the approach on general leadership characteristics, the fundamental difference is authentic leaderships strive to be “real”, whereas servant leaders strive to be “right.” Servant leadership is a style that lays down a set of characteristics that all leaders are supposed to emulate to attain success, and tries to shape the character and personality of the leader. On the other hand, authentic leaders tend to rely on their own unique set of experiences and style that has been learned and developed throughout their career. The main difference between servant and authentic styles, when applying into practice, is the serving of others. One of the primary applications is to give priority to the interest of others. Servant leaders exercise their duty

This paper first explores the significance of the leadership change, followed by an examination of three notable characteristics of servant leadership and their historical influence through the eyes of a famous leader. Whether one studies Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”, Martin Luther King Jr.’s extraordinary passion for equality, or even Vince Lombardi’s coaching

Servant leadership is a theory based on Robert K Greenleaf’s belief that all men have a primary motivation to serve others and through this service they aspire to lead (Parris & Peachey, 2012). Although this leadership model has very little in common with charismatic and situational does however compare to transformational leadership in several areas. The main area of commonality between the two can be found as transformational leaders serve as stewards to change enable the followers to accept the change and move forward with the organization (Tichy & Devanna, 1990, p. 75). In essence, servant leadership becomes the long-term transformational approach to life and work.

In the process of interviewing a servant leader, this paper investigates the defining behavior of servant leadership from a practical and philosophical standpoint. There are practical behavioral characteristics that can be uniformly integrated into the business infrastructure that is founded upon Biblical principles yet not used as a pool to proselytize. Through research and group discussion boards, this paper analyzes the institutional applications and the interpersonal relationships

Through identification and ongoing assessment of her leadership style and ability this leader is able to develop and understand her own strengths and limitations in order to grow and develop into a more effective leader. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of servant leadership, contingency, path-goal styles leadership to gain an understanding of current leadership models, identify this author’s style of leadership and explore why leadership is important to organizations, society and this author.

Leadership and management for many go hand in hand, and may be perceived as one in the same. In the book titled, The Servant (1998), James C. Hunter challenged this mainstream view, and literally turned this concept, which so many are coached on, upside-down. The notions of what characterizes a virtuous leader, as well as what it means to serve others, are the primary focal points of Hunter’s book. He did an eloquent job of revealing his theory concerning effective leadership by using an allegorical approach which, made the content easier to digest and much more personable. The Servant deeply resonated with me, and I gained significant value from the attitudes Hunter presented which, I can apply to my schooling, personal life, and future career paths. I was also able to discern what I felt to be applicable elements regarding the mark of a worthy leader, and arrived at my own theories.

This review acknowledges that additional empirical research is needed on servant leadership especially its current and potential future role in organisations. The authors state that Greenleaf warned that servant leadership would be extremely difficult to apply in an operational setting such as a company.