A New Future

(10 minute read)

The leader-first and the servant-first models are two extreme types.

The leader-first’s motivation is the power, control, limelight, and attention they garner as a leader.

In the modern American tech-bro and pod-bro culture, being wealthy is seen as a virtue. Amassing money is venerated as if their value is like honor, dignity, truthfulness, or being ethical. It is misplaced. Being wealthy has nothing to do with being virtuous.

Leaders of these tech and pod companies have a fan-boy base that idolizes and clings to their every word. “THEY MUST be good (virtuous) having earned ALL that money and power,” they testify. The old phrase “might makes right” holds no meaning anymore. But “money makes right” does. And money and power is a mistaken identifier not only for virtue but for the “American Dream” as well.

Historically, the idealized phrase “American Dream” represented the American experiment; our democracy and not economic prosperity. Unfortunately, that transition came later.

Prior to the early 20th century the phrase was used in the context of one very basic democratic principle. Our nation is based on laws and that under those laws all men were to be treated fairly and equally. That rich and poor and everyone in between were seen as being equal. It is the linchpin of our American democracy.

That’s a bitter pill to swallow given the fact that a convicted felon occupies the Oval Office.

Where did it go wrong? The phrase was hijacked and intentionally morphed after the Second World War. Wall Street and politicians swiped the term and used it to describe opportunities for economic and socially upward mobility.

At the same time, American mass media began to develop a celebrity culture. For the first time Americans collectively saw and read about the lives of their favorite Hollywood stars. The big screen, magazines, newspapers, and even radio entertained Americans about the rich and famous.

The American dream was no longer a democratic ideal. It was now a metaphor for amassing riches and moving up the social ladder by gathering money and possessions. Achieve that and we were lead to believe we would lead a life of ease and comfort.

Meanwhile, corporations and politicians began to define the American public as workers and consumers, not as citizens or individuals. “Worker” is a reminder of our subservience to the corporations. What are we working for? For one purpose only; to be a “consumer” and buy the goods “workers” were making and corporations were selling.

Workers and consumers versus citizens and individuals. Am I being too picky here? After all, what’s the difference?

Tell me which phrases works for you and I’ll tell you what side of the political aisle you favor. Tax cuts or tax relief? Global warming or climate change? Liberalism or socialism? Estate tax or death tax? Undocumented immigrants or illegal aliens?

Words matter.

Economic prosperity in America was always a possibility. But to gather money and possessions for the sake of amassing wealth was considered to be vulgar and anti-American. The Morgans, Rockefellers, Carnegies, Vanderbilts, and Mellons et.al., earned (deservedly) the title of “robber barons.” Yes, they each contributed commerce for the American economy. They were also anti-democratic in practice and “interfered with governments, suppressed wages, and generated unprecedented levels of inequality.”

Yet, there has always been a segment of society that idolizes the money makers.

“Money makes right.”

Idolizing those with wealth and power is nothing new. One might think that’s just the way it’s always been. Not true. At one time in the States, being obscenely wealthy was seen “as just that – obscene” and anti-American.

“The wealth divide in this country has reached obscene, and plainly anti-democratic, proportions. It was not always this way. In fact, it’s never been this way. Fifty years ago, J. Paul Getty was the country’s richest man, at $6 billion. Today, even adjusting for inflation, America’s richest people would barely invite Getty to dinner.”

Michael Tomasky, The Obscene Wealth Issue, The New Republic, Yahoo, June 19, 2025

Why all this history about “America First” and the “American Dream?” I believe to be successful in the servant-leadership model I am about to suggest, worldviews need to be challenged. Biases and opinions need to be altered.

All of this corrupted way of thinking is the ethos of our society. It is human nature to take it for granted thinking, that it’s always been this way. It hasn’t. Seeing how we battled anti-democratic political forces before may very well be our way out of it today. Otherwise, we are headed for a time in American history where democracy is smothered by authoritarianism.

The leader-first model believes that their subordinates are there to serve their needs and goals (sound familiar?). “I need to get two more cents for the stockholders of this company,” they say. “I’ve been hired to make that happen. We need to all pull together, otherwise we may have to make cuts.” Translated: YOU’LL be out of a job, not me.

You might be thinking, Jesus, he’s being tough. After all, businesses are meant to turn a profit. I know this. I ran a small company for years. Expansion and growth were always a priority, but never at the sacrifice of my employees. We grew as a company based on what the market would bear. There were many weeks when employees got paid and I didn’t. They were priority number one.

I’m not beating my chest here in a show of being noble. A thousand other business owners have similar stories. It is the sacrifice one has to do to get their business off the ground and running.

In contrast to the leader-first model, the servant-first leader embraces everything about their role as leader. But, they are driven by an inner motivation to serve, to think long term. Their worth comes not from money or status but by equipping, training, and empowering others. A top concern for a servant-leader is, what do my subordinates need to be successful? How can I or we equip them for their roles in this organization?

Unsure about whether a leader is a servant-leader? Robert Greenleaf says study the members in an organization and ask:

• Are they growing as individuals?
• Are they becoming healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, their authentic selves?
• What is the effect on the least privileged in their group? Do they equally benefit or, at the very least, will not be further deprived of their needs?”

If the answers are no, then more than likely you are looking at a leaders-first organization.

In my experience many organizations that I worked for and with failed miserably with these questions. Had I been aware of Greenleaf’s work earlier I might have saved myself a lot of heartache.

Based on these questions, institutions like government, education, business, and churches in America are in trouble today.

What Are We Missing?

According to Greenleaf there are four main obstacles to the servant-leadership model.

1. It is only human to get overwhelmed by the problems in our society. Worrying about societal problems is a worthy endeavor, but only when we have the ability to actually change it. Where we can make a difference is through dialogue and lead by serving in local systems and movements. We have a better chance for single-handedly changing our immediate surroundings than we do an entire nation. We can start with our family, friends, neighbors, and community
2. The tendency for individuals to shrink from responsibility. We run the risk of denying ourselves wholeness and creative fulfillment by failing to embrace the responsibility to lead. For many, it is easier to see themselves as just a servant, not worthy of stepping up to leadership. It is one thing to be a servant and quit another to be a servant and willing to lead. By denying ourselves an opportunity to lead we may be guilty of stifling our own growth. Tragically, many with a servant nature have a tendency to deny any kind of leadership (see #4)
3. In the context of education, the system lends itself to an elitism that favors individuals with initials and titles. This works two ways. Those that have earned higher degrees that have the expectation to be deferred to as “the expert.” The rest of us are supposed to cede to it. Graduate degrees are a mark of someone beginning to master knowledge in a certain area. You are not an expert just yet. As we’ve seen in earlier posts, no one can know everything about a particular subject. Being intimidated by those with a PhD (rather than judging them by their character or achievements) leads to gaps in cooperation and understanding
4. Finally, interpreting a servant-leader’s collaborative approach as being too soft or lacking in authority and decisiveness. This is especially tricky today given the emphasis placed on personalities with authoritarian tendencies. Until the servant-leadership model is fully understood many people may mistake it for feebleness. Servant-leadership isn’t promoting wishy-washy, tell-me-how-you-feel behavior (though at times one might have to ask). It is confidence in knowing that as a leader “I” don’t know everything but collectively “we” could make a difference. Ego goes out the window. To take personal ownership of the failures and give credit to the team for the successes is the inner motivator for a servant-leader

If there ever was an institution that would gain from the servant-leadership model it is the institution of higher education. What might education look like if every teacher and administrator took on the mantle of servant-first?

Educational systems are not only about exchanging facts and information. Education is about liberation, empowerment, and transcendence. If that is true, then education, at its best, changes and molds people. It helps them decide who they will become and how they will live in the world. It matters very little the discipline being taught. Teachers teach people and the better teacher influences the whole person, “head, heart, and hands.”

The highest purpose of an education is that learners are given the opportunity to learn how to become “fully human.” Being fully human is defined as reaching our fullest potential. Educators help create a society that fosters others reaching theirs. A teacher helping in that and serving the common good of all can only be a good thing.

Such a vision calls for ways of educating so that students are less passive and more engaged. From the sciences to humanities encouraging students to become active agents in their own learning is our main priority. Instead of only receiving facts and information, learners are encouraged to find and develop their own interests and abilities. As citizens they learn of their own capacity for freedom and responsibility becoming transformed participants in their society.

In the next article we will look at an unlikely individual that was the epitome of a servant-leader.

Read The University In Crises (Pt. 12)

Sources:

• Robert Greenleaf, Servant Leadership – A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, Paulist Press, 1977
• Parker Palmer, The Courage to Teach – Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life, Wiley and Sons, 2007