It is the realisation that leadership is a 'gift' given by those who are led. We cannot impose commitment, only compliance. Commitment is a choice, and it can only be freely given. The servant leader inspires commitment by offering service, support and coaching to their team.

Those with high EQ's and SQ's (spiritual quotient--the ability to integrate, synthesise, synergise) make for the best leaders, because they relish relationships and value emotions (the fossil fuel of performance), and also because they are turned on by SERVING, by making the biggest contribution possible. That's the essence of servant leadership!

2)How does servant leadership differ from other leadership models?

It's not really a model, it's an ATTITUDE, it's a PARADIGM about the nature of life. It assumes that leadership has to grow people while also achieving results. It believes that growing the capability of the team to deliver, and serving them with exceptional energy and imagination in evolving to that level of proactivity and interdependence, is leadership's highest calling. The old Taoist story sums it up perfectly: Of the greatest of leaders it will be said by the team after the task is completed: 'We did it ourself.'

3) Is servant leadership another fad?

If so, it's longevity is without parallel, as it's been with us for over 3,000 years! All religious pioneers were servant leaders, they led by moral example. Philosophical geniuses like Socrates who made a huge impact, served by the force of their ideas. Other great political leaders served their people by inspiring them with vision and character. Yes, charisma has doubtless also played a part here. Charisma gets us attention, but it is servant leadership that KEEPS that attention.

Servant Leadership also is the opposite of influence simply due to hierarchical power. Those who have the appetite to serve more, and to serve more people, deserve leadership. That's been true from the dawn of civilisation!

Taking a leaf from Kouzes and Posner's classic work, servant leaders 'model the way' and 'encourage the heart'. In addition, they help people 'catch fire' with a compelling vision and life-affirming values.

If these things are fads, all fads should be like this! Wouldn't it be great if our fads lasted for milennia and reflected the leadership passion and focus of the most substantive and positively impactful human beings we know about?

4) Is it correct that the skills required for conquering adversity and emerging stronger and more committed than ever are the same ones that make for extraordinary leaders?

If we've got an expansive understanding of leadership, yes. There are a number of elements. One is facing reality, irrespective of how brutal, early. It is meeting crisis early, and even igniting a crisis rather than waiting to react to it.

The second is the emotional balance and focus to engage in 'possibility thinking'. The ability to locate what's possible and galvanise people to ACTUALISE those possibilities.

The third is also about appreciating progress, not perfection. It is about valuing the current step you're taking, as it's always the most important thing going on.

This is what great comebacks are made of. They are certainly an important part of what great leaders exemplify too. Winston Churchill comes to mind: 'Greatness is the ability to go from failure to failure with increasing enthusiasm.' I would add that it is also being stimulated by it to generate ever better ideas and responses!

5) Has a deference to the science of management gotten in the way of leadership?

No, they are part of the same continuum. Management is the rigour, leadership is what is liberated and enabled (ideally!) when we make the rigour and discipline, second-nature. Management is the music scale, leadership is the music.

Without frameworks, there is only chaos. With only frameworks, there is only bureaucracy. Leadership and management NEED each other. The dot.com debris testifies to how dangerous it is to have visionary leadership and paltry management. For a fuller discussion of the harmonics between the two, I would suggest reading LEADERSHIP LESSONS in my book, TIMELESS LEADERSHIP. But the quintessence is this: management provides the ingredients and cooking range, leadership is what allows the souffle to rise.

6) Would you agree with what some people say, that you are a clone of Tom Peters?

Not even Tom Peters is a clone of Tom Peters, as he restlessly reinvents himself...as do I. Moreover, Tom is a provocateur. He ignites with radical new ideas, I work on bringing them to life in hearts, minds and spirits. He provokes, I 'evoke' possibility.

He is a valued partner and I certainly admire his originality, zest and brand tremendously. On the other hand, while many of our ideas align, emotionally engaging leaders through a transformation process is not as central a feature of Tom Peters or his work, and it is the DEFINING feature of what makes my work and that of our company, Sensei, so memorable, so personal, and so human.

Synergies YES. Clones? Only if we look at surface similarities, rather than the complementary, but very distinctive nature of our respective missions and passions.

7) Do you agree with the assessment that charisma has gone out of fashion and that companies have gone wrong by placing too much emphasis on a charismatic ceo? Some recent research shows humility is a more valuable character trait. What do you say to that?

The research doesn't actually show that humility by itself is the key. It's humility WITH passion. I like to call it a co-equal commitment to both culture AND results, rather than the cult of self.

I think that charismatic leaders are sometimes needed to whip us up, or rally us in tough times. I do not think you can ignore charisma, but you have to 'transcend' it. That means you have to have charisma as a tool you can use, not as an ego need you are compelled to satisfy.

Leaders who make it about themselves, rather than deploying their charisma in culture-building and growing other leaders who will significantly outperform expectations, end up succumbing to a dangerous narcotic. But those for whom charisma is just kindling for their servant leadership...BRAVO!

8) There is consensus among management gurus that ceo's institutionalise leadership in their companies through teaching. If you're a leader in the middle of a company, can you build a teaching organization?

You can help create pockets, become an activist for this, help the organisation to reach a 'tipping point' or 'critical mass'. You can use every engagement with your own team as a 'teaching opportunity', you can ensure knowledge networks are created and leveraged. You can actively SEEK coaching from the people you report to, and even from your peers. You can thereby enable them to get the same from you. You can recognise people who add value in this way (great teachers and great learners), and get maximum additional recognition and visibility for them elsewhere. Plato said: 'What is honoured in a country, will be cultivated there.' If teaching and learning are honoured, they will be cultivated.

9) Leadership programs offer everything from white-water rafting to encounter groups. But do they really train leaders?

If you're a real leader, EVERYTHING trains you. So anything that takes you out of your comfort zone, gets you to explore challenging new situations, to open up mentally and emotionally, to communicate in expanded ways, anything that brings you together with others in partnership and collaboration, all of this helps.

I wrote in my first book SYNERGY that there are people who can read the back of a bubble-gum wrapper and get insight into the mysteries of the universe, and others who can read WAR AND PEACE and think it's a simple adventure story. Some will go to these experiences, and come back with little. Leaders 'suck the marrow' from every opportunity and stimulus, and will frequently come back transformed. These opportunities don't train leaders, they help leaders to train themselves!

10) Without compassion, sensitivity, benevolence and kindness, do you agree a person can only be a manager and not a leader?

I'm not sure they can be a good Manager either. I'm not sure about their credentials as a human being frankly without these either. I think it's profoundly UNNATURAL to exclude our most valued human sentiments from the workplace equation. When we deaden the spirit and undermine someone's humanity, we're going to get drones. That is obvious if we spend any time thinking about it.

We need to better integrate who we are with what we do. For most people, these are sentiments that are highly significant to what they value most in their interactions and relationships. I think both management AND leadership can only be possible when these are a signature of our interactions.

Mind you, they aren't the ONLY signatures. Along with them, come the other side of the balance: accountability,honesty, challenge, focus, attention to detail, follow up. These above attributes without human benevolence, produce a boot camp. Human benevolence on the other hand without these areas of performance measurement, produce a support group. We need BOTH elements for robust leadership!

11) Can you sum up your biggest leadership realisation of the past few years?

Yes. It is the distinction between the 'techical' and the 'adaptive'. The biggest reason that change programmes often deliver so little value is that in order to avoid the paradigmatic and emotional upheavals often required to leverage REAL step change, most leaders try to find 'technical' short-cuts to what are essentially adaptive problems.

Have a communication issue? Change the office layout and put in a new IT system.

Having a problem with focus, follow through and idea exchange? Change the organisational structure and redefine key objectives.

Not enough customer connectivity or consumer insight? Commission some focus groups and improve the data bases.

Don't get me wrong. All these more technical initiatives are NECESSARY, they can be powerful ENABLERS. But they are the NOT the core of the adaptive challenge/opportunity we are facing in any of the above instances.

That core IS about mindset, 'heartset', leadership behaviour, what we communicate and get excited about, the energy we put into culture-building and exemplifying what we want, the passionate engagement with which we coach and recognise. The 'soft' stuff in terms of personal challenge and growth IS the hard stuff!

We can't, in short, solve adaptive problems with technical 'quick fixes'. The moment we shift to engaging people in the adaptive realm, there is no boredom, we are rescued from burn-out (which comes from the futility of dealing with symptoms and ignoring the real problem). Everything crackles with vitality...and POSSIBILITY.

Leadership requires EMBRACING and APPRECIATING the adaptive transformations that are necessary to take us and our organisations to the next stage of our evolution. It is all about possibility.

Leadership is then finally about making 'possibility' REAL. It is about energising and empowering everyone to LIVE that possibility imaginatively, passionately and vibrantly!

[an error occurred while processing this directive]