“BUILDING TRUST THROUGH SERVANT LEADERSHIP”
BUILDING TRUST THROUGH SERVANT LEADERSHIPA thesis presented to the Faculty of theU.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partialfulfillment of the requirements for the degree ofMASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCEGeneral StudiesbyJOHN VICKERY, MAJOR, United States ArmyB.B.A., North Georgia College and State University, Dahlonega, Georgia, 2005Fort Leavenworth, Kansas2016Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Fair use determination or copyrightpermission has been obtained for the inclusion of pictures, maps, graphics, and any otherworks incorporated into this manuscript. A work of the United States Government is notsubject to copyright, however further publication or sale of copyrighted images is notpermissible.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEForm ApprovedOMB No. 0704-0188Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing datasources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or anyother aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate forInformation Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware thatnotwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently validOMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)2. REPORT TYPE3. DATES COVERED (From - To)10-06-2016Master’s ThesisAUG 2015 – JUN 20164. TITLE AND SUBTITLE5a. CONTRACT NUMBERBuilding Trust Through Servant Leadership5b. GRANT NUMBER5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER6. AUTHOR(S)5d. PROJECT NUMBERJohn Vickery, Major5e. TASK NUMBER5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)8. PERFORMING ORG REPORTNUMBERU.S. Army Command and General Staff CollegeATTN: ATZL-SWD-GDFort Leavenworth, KS 66027-23019. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’SACRONYM(S)11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORTNUMBER(S)12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES14. ABSTRACTArmy Leadership doctrine directs leaders to build trust by upholding the Army values and exercising leadership consistent withthe Army leadership principles outlined in the Army Leader Requirements Model. However, these are not pragmatic trustbuilding methods for leaders to implement in their units, thus potentially hindering the exercise of Mission Command.This research exploits the relationships between the Army’s leadership philosophy and Servant Leadership theory, and offersServant Leadership as potential method to build mutual trust in Army units. Unlike traditional military leader approaches thatfocus on the goals of the organization, Servant Leaders prioritize the development of the individuals. Using the ServantLeadership models of lead researchers, experts, and practitioners, this thesis emphasizes a practical framework that might helpleaders better build cohesive teams.By inculcating the principles of Servant Leadership into leaders’ personal leadership philosophy, they can set favorableconditions for subordinates to exercise valuable Mission Command. Evidence of this practice is found in several prominentmilitary leaders, and they all have proven tremendously effective in building high performing teams that resulted in missionaccomplishment.15. SUBJECT TERMSServant Leadership, Mission Command, and Trust16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:a. REPORTb. ABSTRACTc. THIS PAGE(U)(U)(U)17. LIMITATIONOF ABSTRACT18. NUMBEROF PAGES19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON19b. PHONE NUMBER (include area code)(U)76Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18ii
MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCETHESIS APPROVAL PAGEName of Candidate: Major John VickeryThesis Title: Building Trust through Servant LeadershipApproved by:, Thesis Committee ChairTimothy McKane, M.S., MemberMajor Kenneth Rich, Ph.D., MemberRoger Linder, M.A.Accepted this 10th day of June 2016 by:, Director, Graduate Degree ProgramsRobert F. Baumann, Ph.D.The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student author and do notnecessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College orany other governmental agency. (References to this study should include the foregoingstatement.)iii
ABSTRACTBUILDING TRUST THROUGH SERVANT LEADERSHIP, by Major John Vickery, 76pages.Army Leadership doctrine directs leaders to build trust by upholding the Army valuesand exercising leadership consistent with the Army leadership principles outlined in theArmy Leader Requirements Model. However, these are not pragmatic trust-buildingmethods for leaders to implement in their units, thus potentially hindering the exercise ofMission Command.This research exploits the relationships between the Army’s leadership philosophy andServant Leadership theory, and offers Servant Leadership as potential method to buildmutual trust in Army units. Unlike traditional military leader approaches that focus on thegoals of the organization, Servant Leaders prioritize the development of the individuals.Using the Servant Leadership models of lead researchers, experts, and practitioners, thisthesis emphasizes a practical framework that might help leaders better build cohesiveteams.By inculcating the principles of Servant Leadership into leaders’ personal leadershipphilosophy, they can set favorable conditions for subordinates to exercise valuableMission Command. Evidence of this practice is found in several prominent militaryleaders, and they all have proven tremendously effective in building high performingteams that resulted in mission accomplishment.iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI am exceptionally grateful for the assistance from my advisory committee, Mr.Tim McKane, Mr. Roger Linder, and Major Kenneth Rich for their encouragement andguidance during this project. It has truly been a rewarding experience. I would also like tothank my family. To Jennifer, Aubrey, and Parker, I am blessed by your love andunderstanding; and I am thankful for your persistent inspiration and reassurancethroughout this endeavor.v
TABLE OF CONTENTSPageMASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE THESIS APPROVAL PAGE . iiiABSTRACT. ivACKNOWLEDGMENTS .vTABLE OF CONTENTS . viACRONYMS . viiiILLUSTRATIONS . ixCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .1Overview . 1Primary Research Question . 6Secondary Research Questions: . 6Assumptions. 6Definitions . 7Limitations . 8Conclusion . 9CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .10Building Trust and Building Teams. 10Trust and the Army’s Leadership Philosophy . 14Trust and Mission Command . 18The Philosophy of Servant-Leadership. 20Servant Leadership: Theory, Practice, and Healthy Organizations . 24Summary . 33CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .34Description of Design . 34Data Collection Procedures . 35Data Analysis and Interpretation . 36Servant Leader Study Summary . 37Servant Leader Study I: Colonel Ralph Puckett . 37Servant Leader Study II: Lieutenant General Lewis “Chesty” Puller . 38vi
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS .39Introduction . 39Relationships between Army Philosophy and Servant Leadership . 39Servant Leadership Theorist Commonalties . 43Servant Leader Analysis I: Colonel Ralph Puckett . 44Servant Leader Analysis II: Lieutenant General Lewis “Chesty” Puller. 52Summary . 57CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION.59Significance of the Research. 59Findings . 60Recommendations . 62Summary . 63BIBLIOGRAPHY .65vii
ACRONYMSALRMArmy Leadership Requirements ModelSLTPServant Leadership: Theory and Practiceviii
ILLUSTRATIONSPageFigure 1. Army Leadership Requirements Model .15ix
CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTIONOverviewIn the age of a downsizing Army, coupled with increasingly complex challengesand operating requirements, finite resources and fewer Soldiers will inevitably forcedecentralized operations that demand steadfast trust from leaders at every level.However, most Soldiers would agree not every leader has been effective in building thetrust necessary for optimal mission accomplishment. The Army’s Mission Commanddoctrine, Army Doctrine Reference Publication 6-0, suggest commanders earn trust byupholding the Army values and exercising leadership consistent with Army leadershipprincipals; however, 1 this doctrine fails to provide concrete methods for building andsustaining trust necessary for truly enabling subordinate leaders to make critical decisionsat the point of action. Today more than ever presents an urgent need for an inculcation oftrust within military formations. That said the Army is facing two unique challenges, bothof which will demand a substantial level of trust to achieve the desired effects in thecomplex environment of today and in the future.The first of the two issues is the overwhelming amount competing requirementsdeemed necessary for Continental United States and Outside Continental United Statesbased operations. From the growing number of adversaries that threaten western security,to the flood of garrison-based tasks created by sequestration and downsizing, successfullymeeting these challenges on multiple fronts will require drastic decentralization,1Department of the Army, Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-0, MissionCommand (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, March 2014), 2.1
expecting leaders, many who are young and inexperienced, to make important decisions,often with limited to no guidance. The second, and potentially more important, is theissue of culture and climate. Many outspoken officers have questioned organizationaltrust when the bureaucracy and administrative nature of garrison takes up more time thantraining readiness. 2 The inundation of tasks and duties that bear no relation to a unit’sMission Essential Task List degrades the sense of purpose vital to build and sustainorganizational trust. One former officer states “junior leaders are sick of administrativerequirements imposed by regulation, and that it is somewhere between highly impracticaland impossible to comply with the deluge of administrative requirements.” He goes on toargue that “our officers, just like the rest of our troops, want to be training or fighting, notsitting at a computer making PowerPoint slides or wasting hours clicking through onlinetraining modules.” 3 This culture of compliance potentially degrades the trust necessary tobuild confidence, competence, and commitment within the Army’s leaders, androadblocks success in complex and adverse conditions.In another report, it is said there are 12 United States generals currently in Iraqinvolved in the fight against ISIS. However, only 5,000 troops are currently deployed toIraq and Syria. 4 That means that there is roughly one general for every 416 Soldiers orMarines, a responsibility normally assumed by a lieutenant colonel. This account in2Tim Mathews, “Reframing the Military’s Junior Officer Retention Problem,”Task and Purpose, November 3, 2015, accessed November 14, y A. Youssef, “21 Generals Lead ISIS War the US Denies Fighting,” TheDaily Beast, March 31, 2016, accessed April 5, 2016, es.html.2
particular seems to challenge senior leader trust and their belief in the philosophy ofMission Command.Although not found in today’s doctrine, Servant Leadership, a theory firstdeveloped by civilians may have the potential to enable the trust needed in ambiguoussituations, allowing more efficient and successful operations in decentralizedenvironments, instantaneously building confidence and adaptability within ground-forceleaders. The challenges mentioned above lead to essence of this research. The purpose ofthis study is to discover the Servant Leadership phenomenon for building a level of trustthat will truly enable leaders at all levels to operate decentralized now, and into thefuture.Although many of the military’s past and present leaders have published troves ofdocuments about the importance of trust within Army, few have provided pragmaticmethods of inculcating it into their formations, specifically the theory of ServantLeadership. This leads to the importance of this topic, that an urgency must be generatedto revolutionize trust-building theories that enable true mission command in thechallenges of the future. One potential way is to inculcate Servant Leadership into theArmy’s Leadership Philosophy.The ground theory of Servant Leadership has been discussed by civilianacademics and philosophers for decades, most notably by Robert Greenleaf. Hisphilosophy is a set of practices that enriches the lives of individuals, builds betterorganizations, and ultimately creates a more just and caring world. 5 This civilian5Robert Greenleaf, Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of LegitimatePower and Greatness (New York: Paulist Press, 1977), 13.3
viewpoint can easily be translated to fit the Army profession to motivate Soldiers andstimulate leader development, promote teambuilding, prioritize the welfare of Soldiers,and improve the organization as a whole. A leader’s role in this model is determininginternal motivations of their Soldiers, and then supporting the Soldiers in achieving thosegoals. This idea has long been used, unintentionally, by many military leaders to igniteSoldiers’ intrinsic motivation, maximizing unit potential. Furthermore, it advises thatleaders must sometimes place themselves in a roll that supports subordinate efforts toaccomplish assigned missions, simultaneously and indirectly building confidence andtrust in junior leaders.The literature review will disclose several aspects of the Army’s leadershipphilosophy, specifically that of trust and Mission Command. The Literature Review isorganized in a fashion that first defines and describes how building trust fits into theArmy’s leadership model, the importance of trust in building effective teams, and howtrust relates to the philosophy of Mission Command. These subtopics primarily referencecurrent Army doctrine and various other articles written by current and former Armyofficers. As expected, there is a tremendous amount of published information about histopic. The second portion of the Literature Review describes the theory of ServantLeadership. It explains in detail how it originated, the principals of Servant Leadership,how it has been effective in improving civilian organizations, and most importantly, howcurrent practitioners are working to advance this theory in civil and governmentalorganizations. The last part of the Literature Review provides a brief synopsis of twomilitary leaders that have implemented Servant Leadership to influence subordinates andbuild trust in their organizations. Colonel Ralph Puckett and Lieutenant General Lewis4
“Chesty” Puller both exhibited traits of Servant Leadership that enabled trust to beestablished and strengthened within their commands. Chapter 4 will expand on theirindividual leadership styles and compare them with the principals of Servant Leadership.All three portions of the Literature Review are critical to the analysis of this researchdescribed in Chapter 4.As mentioned in the opening paragraph, current Army doctrine, specifically ArmyDoctrine Publication 6-22 (Army Leadership) and Army Doctrine Publication 6-0(Mission Command), fails to provide pragmatic methods to build and sustain trust withinArmy formations. It does provide several charts, such as the Army LeadershipRequirements Model (ALRM), illustrated in chapter 2. However, these are merelyintangible bullet points, declaring that if leaders possess these attributes andcharacteristics, then they will be successful. Audiences will benefit from this research bygaining a deep understanding of how and why Servant Leadership is a tremendouslyeffective method to build and sustain trust. Additionally, readers will see how militaryleaders in the past have used this theory generate indisputable, positive results, on and offth
Servant Leadership theory, and offers Servant Leadership as potential method to build mutual trust in Army units. Unlike traditional military leader approaches that focus on the goals of the organization, Servant
Servant Leadership Through his initial work on servant leadership, Greenleaf (1977) provided a foundation for the contemporary study and emerging discipline of servant leadership. The key to Greenleaf’s conceptualization of servant leadership is his understanding of what characterizes the servant
EDUC 406: Servant Leadership (6 semester hours) provides students with an overview and awareness of servant leadership and the values of servant leadership in the education and/or organizational workplace settings. Student Learning Outcomes EDUC 406: Servant Leadership is intended to address the following course learning outcomes.
Servant Leadership Overview Servant Leadership is a concept that has been around for ages, however the phrase "servant leadership" is attributed to Robert K. Greenleaf, in his essay titled, The Servant as Leader (1970). Servant Leadership focuses on the growth and well-being of others and their communities.
Isaiah 40 —66: The Servant . 4 Jacob/Israel is God’s servant 48:20 Jacob, God’s servant to be free from Babylon 49:3 * Servant in whom God will show his glory 49:5 * Servant with a ministry to Jacob, to bring them back to God 49:6 * Servant is a light to the nations, bringing salvation
Servant Leadership The Institution as Servant by Robert K. Greenleaf Seven Pillars of Servant Leadership – Practicing the Wisdom of Leading by Serving by James W. Sipe and Don M. Frick The Servant Leader-How to Build a Creative Team, Develop Great Morale, and Improve Bottom-Line Performance by James A. Autry
1. Servant-leadership is a weak form of leadership. 2. Only "powerful" people can be servant-leaders. 3. Servant-leadership is not the same as service leadership which is based in service rather than serving. 4. Servant-leadership sounds good in theory, but it's not practical.
A. The Evolution of Servant Leadership Though Robert K. Greenleaf pioneered the concept of servant leadership more than 50 years ago, servant leadership is more relevant today than ever before. Greenleaf wrote that the servant leader focuses “primarily on the growth and well-b
target language effectively, independently and creatively, so that they have a solid basis from which to progress to A Level or employment. Engaging and popular topics . Our specification includes both familiar and new topics that you have told us you like and that motivate your students. Manageable content . Our content has been structured across five themes. This flexible programme of study .
