Compare and Contrast Follower-ship and Servant Leadership
These two types of leadership styles, followership and servant leadership, remain easily compared to one another. The forms of leadership contain several similarities. For both models, you ought to encompass reciprocal patience and respect, one must contain versatility and selflessness, and one should require having self-awareness and those surrounding him or her (McAuley, 2016). On the other hand, leadership styles have more straightforward differences. In this point of view, a follower leader follows, and a servant leader remains a leader always. The paper seeks to compare and contract servant and followership leadership styles.
A servant leader involves someone who shares power, builds his or her subordinates, and eventually puts the needs of those subordinates as the first priority. For this reason, a servant leader would serve first hence changing the leadership hierarchy from the top down to the bottom. Moreover, to become a servant leader, one ought to listen at all times to those he or she leads in the army. A servant leader must always act and behave as a good listener due to the reason that not each of the things that your junior soldiers would present regarding a certain situation would always remain pessimistic (McAuley, 2016). Furthermore, some of the information the junior soldiers might share with you as a servant leader might be of a constructive nature and provide you with an enhanced point of view on the mission set. Always maintaining self-awareness and for those soldiers surrounding you demonstrates a trait of being a better servant leader in the army. In this perspective, in the military or in the world, no individual that knows everything.
As a servant leader, being aware of those things that you do not have any idea about and establishing what you can always work on, and what your fellow soldiers do not know, and what the same soldiers can work on assists the entire platoon to complete the required mission efficiently and effectively (Reed, 2016). For instance, a soldier from your platoon knows how to start a vehicle, but another one does not know how to start the same vehicle. As a servant leader will you send the soldier who does not know how to start the vehicle or would you send the soldier who knows and the one who does not know to start the vehicle so that the one who knows could show the one who does not know precisely how to do it? Such a form of leadership style helps the leader to develop the platoon soldiers. Consequently, any servant leader ought to ensure he or she develops their fellow soldiers assuming that those same soldiers will assume the same positions in the future since, in reality, they will resume them eventually.
On the other hand, despite a follower soldier remaining habituated to austerely following to all that the leader speaks, at some point, they ought to learn to make decisions on their own and take action without having to follow every single order given. The main objective of one being a follower is to ensure that one remains as an active follower (Robertson, 2017). In this perspective, a follower must have the ability to give feedback to his or her leader and provide a specific form of advice regarding the most suitable means the team might complete the mission given to them. If the leader is absent but left behind orders that the junior soldiers ought to follow before leaving, the follower must have the capability to comprehend what his or her leader needed done and take the inventiveness to ensure that the team accomplishes the orders issued by the leader. Consequently, a follower must at all times remain as an independent and active thinker to help in formulating the most suitable means that the rest of the team members would utilize to complete the orders left behind. Followers always seem to be ineffective, as well as their leaders do. Followership leadership enables followers to ensure they look better, including their leaders as well since this is the only way the followers that provide completion of the set mission.
Scholars have demonstrated that these two styles of army leadership have both similarities and differences. As a leader, one must remain versatile, patient, and respectful. In this perspective, a follower must always have maximum respect for the individual in charge and at all cost, no undermining any of them. One should trust their judgment and belief that they would always lead them to accomplish the mission and not lead them into an unfortunate situation as long as they would assist in one (Robertson, 2017). When it comes to a servant leader, he or she ought to promote respect for the subordinates by choosing their words carefully when addressing them. In this case, respect has always remained as two-way traffic; hence as a servant leader, once he or she respects them, they would respect him or her in return. In the armed forces, as a servant, and as a follower, one must recall everyone is always a human being. Therefore, one must exercise patience since it remains critical in leading the team. Versatility helps in obtaining options when plans change during the mission process. For this reason, a leader must have the capability and potential to formulate a new workable plan. As a follower, one must have the ability to follow the formulated plan immediately. The leader presents the ideology.
In conclusion, the two styles of leadership contain more similarities and fewer differences within the army leadership. A servant leader in the army remains a leader, but he or she must assist in developing the subordinates to prepare them as future leaders who could resume their position. On the other hand, as a follower, he or she must act independently and aggressively in the event of an absence of orders.
References
McAuley, C. D. (2016). Servant leadership, exemplary followership, and organizational trust: A quantitative correlational study in performing arts organizations (Doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix).
Reed, L. (2016). Servant leadership, followership, and organizational citizenship behaviors in 9-1-1 emergency communications centers: Implications of a national study. Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice, 2(1), 5.
Robertson, D. (2017). A Theological Perspective on Heroic Leadership in the Context of Followership and Servant Leadership. Heroism Science, 2(1), 3.