Introduction
Server leadership and followership are relatively similar concepts that reflect the ability to listen and follow someone’s interests. However, there are certain aspects that significantly distinguish these concepts. The main one is that leadership determines the position of a person endowed with the ability to determine the trajectory of someone’s activity. At the same time, Followership is reflected in successfully completing tasks within a certain framework.
Similarities and Differences
Leadership as a service is very different from other leadership styles when managers try to influence employees and motivate them from a position of power. In some cases, they use leverage or intimidation for this (Eva et al., 2019). Such leaders strive to empower their subordinates, encourage their development and growth, and form a culture of camaraderie and mutual support in the company (Eva et al., 2019). Followership is similar to this quality and can often be considered a definite addition to leadership. However, for the most part, it reflects the ability to achieve goals based on something management. Thus, the defining difference is that server leadership is not the quality of a subordinate (Eva et al., 2019). The manager has additional functions that determine the nature of the activity and do not exist within its framework, which is reflected in the followership.
Conclusion
A server leader puts the needs of employees above his own needs. They devote time to their subordinates, listening to their opinions, offering support, and actively contributing to the creation of a sense of camaraderie in their team or organization. Thus, the ability to listen and perceive the needs of colleagues is a similar feature between these concepts. However, they are distinguished by their degree of responsibility since the server leader forms the interaction of all participants in a particular process.
Reference
Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111–132.