Talk:Servant leadership

Actually the first printed use of the phrase "servant leadership" is found in 1954 edition of The Watchtower 7/15 pp. 428-431 as a recap of a public discourse given in British Guiana earlier that year in January by Nathan H Knorr. Later, articles were also printed on the same subject: A Happy Flock Requires Servant Leadership 5/1 pp. 270-276 - The Watchtower—1966 And Cooperate as a Flock with Servant Leadership 1/1 p. 30 - The Watchtower—1967

The Watchtower has a long-standing record of readership and worldwide public distribution. While Jehovah's witnesses publish the magazine, subscribers come from various faiths.

All of these published instances show that the term "servant leadership" was definitely not coined by the person indicated in the Wikipedia article and that point can be verified at wol.jw.org Furthermore, the concept of the leader as the servant is discussed extensively in those journals in the 50s & 60s and continues to be a tenant of belief based upon the scriptures, specifically Matthew 20:27 "And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant" KJV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.128.56.86 (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Binky1110, Jwills725.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Removed NPOV promotion for John Sullivan. Horrorshowj 00:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment[edit]

This page seems to ramble without a very coherent structure. I'm not sure that the histories are relevant since the topic is supposedly about the modern servant leadership model. At the very least these similar, anecdotal "histories" should be clearly grouped with an explanation of their relevance.

I may try to re-organize it along these lines:

I. Servant Leadership (modern origins and primary authors)
II. Characteristics and Principles
III. Similarities to historical leadership approaches
a. Christian
b. Chinese
c. Indian

64.172.226.100 (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I think this article jointed well and I would change nothing at the structure. The article is very interesting and gives some good information to get in into the Servant Leadership topic. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielle87 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a puff piece from top to bottom. The general statement at the top would be OK if it were a statement of objectives or ideals, but it makes unequivocal claims such as "instead of the people working to serve the leader, the leader exists to serve the people." In some contexts this might be possible, but in business and many other contexts it is complete nonsense. Again, this is fine as a general aspiration, but it is not a statement of fact. Somewhat Agree (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When?[edit]

From article: "Servant leadership is a philosophy and practice of leadership, coined and defined by Robert Greenleaf..." When was this term coined? RJFJR (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV in Disadvantages[edit]

I added POV-statement to the second sentence below, under Disadvantages.

"The characteristics of a servant leader seem too excessive and partly too grotesque.[citation needed][19] There are only a few leaders who can fulfil these attributes.[neutrality is disputed]"

That seems purely opinion. I've encountered many leaders who typically exhibit the listed attributes. I also don't understand what is meant by the first sentence above. Its listed reference, [19]www.dgfp.de/perdoc/document.php?id=84516, doesn't exist.

Bmontes777 (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition's concluding sentence[edit]

I removed the definition's concluding sentence, "Servant Leadership is not a concept or a principle. It is an inner standard of living which requires a spiritual understanding of identity, mission, vision and environment." The reasons:

no citation to support it
too amorphous to be useful
appears to be a synthesis offered by an editor (a synthesis is considered original research in the Wikipedia context)

Len Raymond (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Boy Scouts of America uses this type of leadership in its training. It is widely used in BSA's Wood Badge Training. 99.92.224.72 (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Dwayne Wojtowicz[reply]

Article lede[edit]

Just passing through, so I was largely dependent on the article lede to find out what this is about. The list of names is unhelpful, so I've moved it to a lower section for someone else to consider its value. The remaining lede does not summarise the article effectively, hence I've added the hatnote. -- Hymek (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership vs. management[edit]

Is this an article about leadership or management? The two terms are used interchangeably in this article. Words have meaning and leadership and management do not mean the same thing. Maybe a very simplistic idea would help here, you lead people and you manage things. Bullock ✉ 17:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, of course! The article is about a leadership style and philosophy. I've replaced "management" where appropriate with "leadership", and believe the article is a little better for the change; however, I can't swear that I haven't distorted any historical facts in doing so. yoyo (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elaboration on Islam and Servant leadership[edit]

There is only a sentence referring to Islam's view, but I think it is important to elaborate on it since it is an important concept in Islam. The quote mentioned at the end of History before Richard.., is actually a saying (hadith) of Prophet Muhammad. It needs to be properly quoted and cited. The saying also has a context. It would be nice to add it in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.12.194 (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2014‎

Feedback[edit]

The article servant leadership has multiple issues although all the information in the article is relevant to the topic. For one, I was very distracted while reading. The grammar was a distraction for me and it made the article a bit difficult to read. Secondly, the attempt at defining servant leadership in the first paragraph was a distraction for me because it was broad and uninformative. The concept of what exactly servant leadership is, was poorly defined. Another issue I found while reading was a few of the links for the articles were not working thus making the claims unsupported. Lastly, although the work is presented in a neutral fashion, many of the facts are again unsupported. Jwills725 (talk) 01:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Jwills725[reply]

Problems remaining with article[edit]

This article, written much like an essay on Greenleaf, is a wall of text. As it stands, I wonder what value it has for a reader. If they wanted a Greenleaf-centric article they would go to his page. Ifnord (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Ifnord. This article can use some refinements and focus. Shall we tackle it? --- FULBERT (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ifnord and FULBERT thank you both for showing interest in the betterment of this article. Ifnord i'm a bit confused as to how the topic of Servant Leadership should be written about without mentioning Greenleaf often as he is the one who coined the term. How do you suggest we fix this issue? Also, from looking at the page on lead sections i saw the length that a lead section should be based on how long an article is and i believe the lead section is suitable for the length of this article. Do you guys have any suggestions on this?Binky1110 (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lead is fine on this article Binky1110. Insofar as the article itself has a number of issues related to its being wordy and such, but I advocate removing the notice about fixing the lead. Do you agree, Ifnord, or anybody else following this stream? --- FULBERT (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is supposed to concisely explain the subject. Currently, it's a detailed a paragraph, with a quotation in it. That belongs in the body. You will lose readers immediately with such a an overly-detailed lede. Please see WP:MOSLEAD. The body remains a giant wall of imposing text. There is far too much detail for an encyclopedic article, it's not supposed to be an essay or explain the entire topic in such intricate detail. Please see WP:EXCESSDETAIL. As to Greenleaf, is that material covered in his article? If so, consider removing non-essential pieces and directing readers to that article for more information. This article shouldn't be a "tribute" to his work. Additionally, the article would be much more reader-friendly with an image of some kind. A photograph, chart, graphic, anything to break up that text. Ifnord (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]