Marcia Moment The Death of the Manage-Me WorkplaceT

Marcia
Moment
The Death of the Manage-Me Workplace
The
Dr. Mary Donohue
CEO, Donohue Learning
www.donohuelearning.com
The Marcia Moment: The Death of the Manage-Me Workplace |
Dr. Mary Donohue | [email protected] 1
The Marcia Moment:
The Death of the Manage-Me Workplace
Introduction
We all feel like Jan Brady—underappreciated.
There is an iconic moment in the ’70s TV show The Brady
Bunch when the middle sister of six
kids, Jan, yells, MARCIA, MARCIA, MARCIA! in her
frustration at all the attention her perfect older
sister gets. She can’t figure out why no one appreciates her.
This paper deals with Marcia Moments that team members
experience in the workplace. A root
cause of workplace frustration is training programs that end up

crippling sales productivity and
causing turnover because these programs fail to help managers
understand that people need
to work to learn and not learn to work. In other words, learning
is what inspires, and engages,
employees.
In a study we conducted throughout 2016 with five thousand
participants from across North
America, we found that:
• 77% of activities and initiatives organizations are undertaking
to engage their
leaders, develop future leaders, and recruit emerging leaders are
simply wrong,
according to data.
• 23% of our participants felt they were learning from or
engaged with other
generations at work.
• 70% of workforces are disengaged from their colleagues and
their work. That
means that fewer than three people in a meeting of ten
participants are not
thinking of work and nor do they really care.
• 7% were fully engaged and really enjoyed their jobs and
reported no problem with
generational communication.
Companies have to find a solution to the cohort that is having
its Marcia Moment.
The High Cost of Your Marcia Moment in 2017
Gen Xers make up 43% of most workforces and many are in

leadership positions. Millennials make
up 44% of most workforces and are close on Gen X’s heels as
leaders. Gen Xers, who are now the
reigning minority of the workforce, are having their Marcia
Moment, and in 2017 you will see this
play out in the workforce in terms of cost:
• PWC, in Pulse of the Profession (2013), stated that 56% of a
projected budget is at
risk due to ineffective communications.
• Our investigative research presented with Purdue University
in November (2016)
indicated a slightly lower number. In our research, we identified
that disengagement
is costing companies $2600 per employee per month, which for
a typical Fortune 500
company can run upwards of $200 million, and that may be a
conservative number.
In the face of these statistics, our research and work with
organizations has led us to conclude that companies need to
shift their training from a manage-me to a develop-me culture
that allows team members to appeal to and communicate
effectively with all generations in the workplace.
The workplace needs to provide the tools and ways to
measure outcomes for each employee so that he or she can
create their own “bespoke” or personal learning ecosystem
in a supportive environment using technology. Such an
ecosystem can be developed within a company’s existing

learning management system. It enables team members
to specialize in soft skill development, including how to
influence and motivate each generation. Hard skills can be
taught using a learning ecosystem
as well; however, our study only investigated the value of
teaching the generational soft skills
mentioned previously. The outcomes that were achieved are:
Personal results: Our students were 34% happier at work, earned
15% more income, and were
delighted to discover that three hours per week were freed up,
which many of them used to do
something that was fun.
Enterprise results: An 11% increase in productivity and a 34%
increase in engagement scores over
a one-year period, and a 50% reduction in the turnover of high-
potential Millennials, as well as a
general lessening in their desire to leave.
The Research
Over the course of the last 24 months, we were hired to speak or
provide programming across
North America to over 6500 people, including chiefs of police,
Fortune 500 employers in the retail,
banking, mining, health care and transportation sectors, and to
gaming companies.
Our quantitative study was based on a mixed-method approach
to research. A survey including
one short-answer question was sent to a sampling of one
thousand people we engaged within the
last twelve months. All had identified an interest in
understanding the generations.
We had a 20% response rate, with a margin of error of 5%, and

a confidence level of 95%. Our
qualitative study was based on information focus groups and
biographical research with students
who volunteered.
Definitions
We chose to define generations in the context of technology:
Boomers:
born between 1945 and 1960
are audio-techs
Gen Xers:
are digital-techs
Millennials:
are online-tech
“If you have an idea, just shout it out.”
Other Terms and Definitions Used in This Paper
✿✿ Marcia Moment: an individual’s detachment that manifests
depression. This drives lack
of engagement in the workplace.
✿✿ Manage-Me Training Culture: a task-focused traditional
type of training intended to
educate i) leaders who operate in silos; and ii) high-potentials.

✿✿ Develop-Me Training Culture: bespoke personal learning
system that is part of a
teaching culture that focuses on soft skills and engagement. Aka
silo-busting cohort
training, focused on building intellectual, cultural and
communication capital.
✿✿ Me-time and Me-time Evaluation Tools: Millennials crave
time with their manager.
Managers will migrate from annual evaluations to scheduling
short bursts of time
with their team.
✿✿ Problem-presenting meetings and problem-solving meetings
are meetings that will replace
the PowerPoint deck and allow people to talk to each other and
apply their insights
and solutions to the project at hand. Data will be fluid on
Google docs. Clients won’t
be walked through a PowerPoint; rather, they will be walked
through an experience
or a story.
✿✿ Generational Literacy: understanding the shift from task to
technology and how it
affects each of the generational cohorts in the workplace.
✿✿ Work Moms and Dads: what Millennials demand in order to
navigate their careers and
workplace culture. These terms are replacing “work husband” or
“work wife.”
✿✿ Enterprise Learning Ecosystem: a learning ecosystem that
enables team members to
connect with each other through a video-based learning
environment.

✿✿ Personal Learning Ecosystem: online testing and learning
material that enable an
individual to connect the links between an organization’s
culture and its heroes, and
has the effect of limiting the natural prejudice one generation
feels for the other that
reduces engagement.
✿✿ Communication Capital: an aspect of a Millennial’s skill set
that enables them to get the
message out (be it brand, team or internal messaging) using the
new currency, social
media. Used to generate sales and attract and retain new
employees.
✿✿ Intellectual Capital: an aspect of a Gen Xer’s skill set that
enables them to understand
the value of your business and your people, and how this
relationships works with
both internal team members and external customers. Gen Xers
use this skill to build
strategies and tactics that move the organization through
change.
✿✿ Cultural Capital: an aspect of a Boomer’s skill set that is
underpinned by their
knowledge of how the organization developed and what makes
it tick. Boomers
use this knowledge to build Millennial teams and create a
sustainable leadership
development.
✿✿ I-Workplace: a workplace where we communicate through
i) the Internet (email, text,
etc.) and ii) information downloads (for example, long, long

meetings and conference
calls); and iii) with investors who want their returns.
✿✿ Predictable Learning Engagement: understanding how
engaged employees retain
information and relate it to other employees.
The Marcia Moment
People may laugh at the analogy of characters in a
sitcom, but the overwhelming response to our travels
across North America that provided me with the
opportunity to speak to and with over fi ve thousand
people across North America confi rmed that the
Marcia Moment was very much in evidence. All seemed
to be suffering from this malaise. Everyone seemed
frustrated and upset over not being understood or
appreciated, and the target of the frustration was “coworkers in
the other generations.” The
failure of generations to connect with each other was creating a
detached psychological state.
This state, according to the tenets of group therapy, can cause
depression. We see this depression
manifested in lack of engagement in the workplace.
People felt that they had no infl uence over their teams. One
Gen Xer said, “Why can’t they
[Millennials] just listen to me? Why do I have to explain
everything? Why do they need me all the
time?” Conversely, a Millennial asked me to teach him “more
tools to keep the attention of my
manager, who never listens and is always too busy.”

Technology Accountability, Motivation and Learning
Dr. John Dewy, a famous psychologist and education reformer,
said that the driver of human
nature was the desire to be important. The poet and playwright
George Bernard Shaw said
if you teach a man he will never learn, but if you allow a man to
do it he will master it. The
biggest learning gaps we found were between Gen X and
Millennials; therefore, the biggest gap
concerning accountability and motivation exists between Gen X
and Millennials. This is because
each generation has a signifi cantly different relationship with
technology.
The differences are fascinating. Gen X became accustomed to
technology at work through digital
access, meaning full electronic participation in the Internet, but
this was accomplished through
programs like PowerPoint and Word and accessing fi le folders
online; some even remember
when data was stored on discs. The Internet was an individual
experience. Work and training
were individual experiences. Managers managed you and you
managed your tasks. This is called
“manage-me.”
Millennials are accustomed to online access, meaning the
Internet is a group activity used to
engage and communicate with thousands of people. It allows
them to be approachable and to
share online. This experience is called “develop-me.”
From manage-me to develop-me: This is what is driving the
shift from manage me – an
independent self-driven learning culture of Gen X – to the

develop-me culture – a community-
focused sharing-based learning culture embraced by
Millennials.
It is worth noting that Millennials crave development more than
money. Being associated with a
large fi rm and maybe having a big salary are fun, but these are
not key factors in what Millennials
say they need or want.
The new leadership buzzword will soon be “me-time.” “Me-
time” is defi ned as short bursts of
time with a leader or team mentor who will walk you through
your tasks and deliverables. Unlike
an annual 360 review, “me-time” is a concise and current
discussion of how you are feeling and
the status of your projects. Me-time can be scheduled weekly,
daily or bi-monthly. This shift in
MANAGEMe
DEVELOP
Me
management reflects the Millennials’ need for continuous
feedback that was gratified in their
youth by teachers, parents and technology, but at work this need
isn’t being met.
The Gen X beloved standard of PowerPoint will vanish. Instead,
you will see problem-presenting

meetings and problem-solving meetings where data is fluid on
Google docs. Clients won’t be
walked through a PowerPoint but rather through an experience
or a story.
We have found that annual evaluations don’t work with
Millennials or Gen X. This is primarily
because of the fact that technology is giving us constant
feedback, even though our boss may still
be attached to the old way of giving feedback. Millennials want
a “me-time evaluation.” We found
in our research that the following questions work well for 87%
of the population studied when you
are executing with a monthly calendar. To do this, embed the
questions in your calendar with a
memo to follow up with your team members.
Questions for “Me-Time Evaluations”:
1. What are you most proud of? Why?
2. In which area(s) would you like to improve? Why?
3. How do you learn from mistakes? Please give an example.
4. Do you have the resources and tools you need to perform
your job?
If not, how should we be investing in you?
5. What have I done to help you do your job better?
6. What have I done to hinder your job performance?
7. How do you learn? Provide an example.
8. What are your goals for the next six months/year?

9. How do you like to be rewarded? Conversely, what should
happen
if you don’t reach your goals or a team member doesn’t reach
their goals?
10. How have you moved sales forward? Have you directly
brought
in a new lead or have you supported new leads or client care?
Please provide an example.
11. What do you think I will say your strengths and areas of
improvement will be?
12. Do you have any concerns?
Generational Literacy
The generation gap has been building since the Great Vowel
Shift in the 1400s. Michael Skapinker,
a columnist with the Financial Times, wrote:
We are probably in the midst of a vast generational change,
where instead of the
majority aspiring to traditional literacy and a skilled minority
attending to the
computers, it will be the other way around. It could be the
literary equivalent of the
Great Vowel Shift of the early 1400s. As author David Crystal
explains in The Fight for
English, before the shift “loud” would have been pronounced
“lood” and “leaf” would

have been “layf”.
Michael went on to say that “Grandparents and grandchildren in
1450 probably had considerable
diffi culty understanding each other,” which sounds familiar.
To be engaged you have to know with whom you are working.
We found that less than 23%
of the population we interacted with understood that they had a
problem with generational
communication, and 83% couldn’t or wouldn’t identify where
the communication bottleneck was
occurring (i.e., between Gen X and Millennials). In the face of
statistics, 70% of the participants
felt that they were well versed in understanding how the
different generations in the workplace
process communication. This is a common bias. Poor
engagement levels run counter to this
common belief.
The correlation between generational communication and
engagement should not be a surprise.
Why do teenagers run away? Because no one understands them.
Why do employees leave? Because no one understands them.
Here are emails from participants in
our research:
Jane, Millennial participant, 2016: “I spend my days in work
meetings, whether I am
working remotely or in the offi ce. Then they expect me to
spend my evenings doing
the actual work. My manager doesn’t understand. Nothing we
start ever seems to
get fi nished and more just gets piled on.”

Mike, Gen X workshop participant, 2016:“How do I drill into
Millennials’ heads the
concept of accountability? We can’t all just leave at 5:00. There
is a lot of work
to be done.”
Organizations have to stop treating their workforces as if they
are one generation. The same old
carrots aren’t motivating anyone; to the contrary, they are
alienating people. To turn this around
the data suggest you should implement the trends of 1) Work
Moms and Dads; 2) Learning
Ecosystems; and 3) the I-Workplace.
Trend 1: Work Moms and Dads
Gen X is throwing up their hands in frustration.
Gen X pioneered the concept of work wives and
husbands, defi ned as colleagues who share the
craziness of work. Gen X is task obsessed. They can’t
even think about leaving work until the job is done.
Millennials demand that their managers – Gen X – become work
moms and dads and help them
navigate the workforce and achieve success in their careers.
Millennials think about the job as one
part of their life, not their entire life.
9 TO 5
TIME
OVER

Gen X has to manage up and satisfy their Big Thinker Boomer
Bosses. Think of Boomers as the
Marcia Brady’s of the corporate world. They were smarter and
prettier and got all the attention
primarily because the size of their cohort allowed for it. Stuck-
in-the-middle Gen X also has to
manage down and develop the brilliant Millennial generation.
Think of Millennials as the lovely
spoiled Cindy, always the focus of attention who secretly solves
problems with Alice for the
benefit of the family.
Gen X is the smallest cohort in the workforce and has been
tasked with negotiating the shift from
the “manage-me workforce” to the “develop-me workforce.”
Being generational literate is not about understanding the
differences; it’s about understanding
the stress triggers and how to reduce them. Stress triggers
constrain motivation, trust and loyalty.
We found that less than 25% of leaders felt they or their
companies were generationally literate.
Less than 20% understood the financial consequences of
treating the workplace as if everyone
was one homogeneous generation.
A generationally literate leader understands the motivators that
build loyalty, and they report
that their teams thrive whether they are in the office next door
or in a country across the pond.
Generational leaders also understand that the psychological
contract (the unwritten rules of the
team) between leadership and its followers is rooted in
technology anchors and stress triggers.
Full disclosure: we just launched a first-of-its-kind certificate

program with Schulich Executive
Education Centre (SEEC), Schulich School of Business, York
University, to do this.
2. Learning Ecosystems: Stop Treating Everyone the Same
1. A Personal Learning Ecosystem is composed of online testing
and learning material that
enable an individual to connect the links between the
organization’s culture and its heroes,
and has the potential to mitigate the natural prejudice one
generation feels for another that
reduces engagement.
2. An Enterprise Learning Ecosystem is community of team
members who interact through
a technology platform. It is designed to enhance and transfer
cultural capital. Outcomes
include coworker engagement, the definition of cultural heroes
and rebels, and the sharing
of the ethics and morals and drivers of success of the
corporation.
To begin building your eco-system, it is always advantageous to
understand the strengths of what
each part of the system brings to the table. Each generation’s
hidden talents are discussed below.
Millennials: An Organization’s Communication Capital
– Millennials compose 44% of your workforce.
– Millennials are your Communication Capital. These are the
people whom you
want in your workforce to invigorate others with excitement for
new ideas. They

drive engagement when you motivate them, and because of the
Internet they are
motivators. They know how to get people to move from one
action to another using
the new currency – social media.
– They are trendsetters. They understand people and what
makes them feel good.
– They align with the ethics and morals of the organization.
– They are charmers – the people who sail through any
corporate event.
– They are motivated by action – don’t ask these people to sit
through long meetings.
– Millennials need to learn how to take charge of any situation
and how to make
people feel at ease in a meeting.
– Texting is the new watercooler chat. Millennials grew up on
gossip (ET Tonight,
People, US Magazine); if anything is happening in the
organization, they know about
it and are texting their friends about it.
– Physical traits: big hand movements; their head tends to look
down to the right or
left when they are composing an answer to a question. They are
note takers. When

speaking, they will often touch others to emphasize a point.
Gen X: Your Intellectual Capital
– Gen X composes 43% of your workforce.
– They are your Intellectual Capital. They are the heart of your
organization. They
understand the value of your business and its people, and how
these relationships
have worked with customers both internal and external.
– They are motivated by how they see themselves in the
organization. They align work
to the vision of the organization.
– They often have higher concentration levels and can put their
heads down and avoid
gossip (think engineer, techie and mathematician).
– They often think through their answers before they speak.
– One example of how they use their strengths is this: they are
the problem solvers in
your organization. They have the answers, but don’t have to
broadcast it.
– Don’t push them too far on time lines, because they will shut
down, and don’t break
your word to them or they will shut down entirely.
– Don’t withhold information – without information their
actions will seem pointless.
– Physical traits include small hand movements and are kept
close to the chin; their

head tends to look up to the right or left when composing an
answer to a question.
When they speak with others, they often look away, often
preferring technology for
communicating because it gives them time to form their
response.
Boomers: Your Cultural Capital
– Boomers compose 13% of your workforce.
– They are your Cultural Capital. They have all the knowledge
about how the
organization developed and what makes it tick, and can build
trends for the
organization.
– They are motivated by helping others and the organization; in
other words, they
work to the mission.
– They are team builders. They listen and are the people that
others always look to
assess the “real situation.”
– They are never afraid to have difficult conversations, give
feedback or accept
feedback.
– They need a lot of positive validation, that they are doing the
right thing by building
the team.
– They are talkers; these people walk and talk through the
office.

– One example of how they use their strengths is to build social
support pillars.
– Physical traits include very few hand movements, but when
they do use hand
movements they are forceful. Their head tends to look across to
the right or left when
composing their answer. They will remember what you say.
When speaking with
others, they will look directly at the speaker. They are
frustrated by no eye contact.
MILLENNIALS
Communication
Capital
GEN X
Intellectual
Capital
BOOMERS
Cultural
Capital
Develop-
Me
Culture

3. The I-Driven Workplace: It Demands an Opportunity for Infl
uence
We are in a multigenerational workforce, and like it or not you
can no longer treat your workforce
as one homogenous group. As team members and as leaders, you
must learn to use your inner
knowledge of generations to successfully negotiate the
psychological contract that is at the center
of the I-Driven Workplace.
The I-Driven Workplace is a workplace where we communicate
with others through (Internet)
email, text, etc. This workplace is characterized by information
downloads and super-long
conference calls with investors who are anxious about their
returns. This workplace is creating a
high stress rate among not just Gen X but Millennials, because
in an I-Driven Workplace you have
very little infl uence. Prior to the Internet and the technical
marvel that is today’s workplace, our
infl uence was solely based on our relationships with people and
how we responded to people and
the written word; for example, newspapers and memos.
Overwhelming we found in the research that employee feel the
I-Driven Workplace creates i) a
lack of personal connection to the workplace; ii) reinforces the
belief that management doesn’t
care – you are lucky to have a job; and iii) allows leaders who
don’t know how to manage people
to hide.

To repair this the damage of the I-Driven Workplace, it is
imperative to understand the different
points of influence for each generation.
To motivate
them, use the phrase/
ideas below:
To influence their
ability to innovate,
use the phrase/ideas
below:
To influence
productivity, use
the phrase/ideas
below:
Generation
Boomer
“Our leader
needs you.”
Please share your
knowledge.”
Boomers are driven
by legacy.
“Let’s review the
numbers. Our

leader needs to
know.”
Gen X “It’s important
work. Only you can
get it done.”
“We need you
to help increase the
team’s ability to get
the job done.”
“Numbers are
driven by the task.”
Gen Y
Millennial Convey to them that
“team development
is fun.”
Encourage them to
discuss the problem
with peers (they will
do so anyway) and
provide a solution.
Social media as
conversation. Their
key to interacting
with people.

Conclusion: When We Learn at Work, We Thrive
Millennials, as we have established, would like a clear
development roadmap and guidance
system to navigate the organization. In other words, they want
help. Gen Xers, on the other hand,
feel you own your destiny. You “have to own” your own
development.
They want to receive training, even when they are in a senior
role and moving to a C-Level role.
Learning is their socialization. Remember, this is the generation
that was the first to have equal
numbers of male and female students at university.
Gen X needs to figure out how to develop Millennials, because
Millennials will eclipse them in due
course. Millennials need to figure out how to inspire both Gen
X and Gen Z. The key is don’t train
for task; train for intelligence.
Why is it that some companies can offer fair compensation
packages and still have productivity
issues, while other companies can offer $25,000 or less a year
and have very high productivity?
The answer is culture.
It’s all about culture. And our culture is shifting. To be an
engaged organization, the data suggest
that you should focus on your people and soft skills. We found
that when learning is delivered

in both a personal learning and/or enterprise supported learning
ecosystem, that for every ten
students:
• On average, 1.5 students would not get involved
• 3.5 will retain and repeat the information learned to three
people
• 5 employees will become cultural enthusiasts and share the
information with three
team members or other employees
• 1 employee will become the cultural trigger and share the
information with 10 team
members or other employees
These people began to shift the culture of disengagement and
depression to a culture of learning
and thriving, negating the Marcia Moment effect.
No matter how big your technology, advertising or lobbying
budget, if your employees don’t feel
good (and data on low engagement levels tell us they are not
happy), they are not going to make
your customers happy and move product.
At the end of the episode, Mr. and Mrs. Brady teach Jan that
you have to work hard to get
recognition and success. Our job as leaders of Gen X and
Millennials is to create the engagement
tools and environment that allow everyone to be recognized, and
we hope this paper has pointed
you in the right direction to do that.
By the way, at the end of the episode Jan did get recognition

and understanding, as did the
participants who used these tools. In fact, they increased their
personal income, found more
time for themselves, and were far less stressed than their
colleagues who continued to treat and
communicate with each generation as they had always done.
For more information, please contact:
Mohammad Mahasneh
Director of Communications–Donohue Learning Technologies
+1 (647) 404-0020 | [email protected]
www.DonohueLearning.com
administrative
sciences
Article
Can Servant Leaders Fuel the Leadership Fire?
The Relationship between Servant Leadership and
Followers’ Leadership Avoidance
Martin Lacroix 1,* and Armin Pircher Verdorfer 2
1 Faculty of Social Sciences and Cultural Studies, University of
Giessen, Karl-Glöckner-Straße 21,
35394 Giessen, Germany
2 School of Management, Technical University of Munich,
Arcisstraße 21, 80333 München, Germany;
[email protected]

* Correspondence: [email protected]
Academic Editors: Dirk van Dierendonck, Sigrun Gunnarsdóttir
and Kathleen A. Patterson
Received: 14 January 2017; Accepted: 21 February 2017;
Published: 27 February 2017
Abstract: This study tested the effect of servant leadership on
followers’ inclinations to strive for
and, in contrast, to avoid leadership responsibility. Results from
a study in the health care context,
including two waves of data from 222 employees, revealed that
servant leadership had a small
but positive effect on followers’ leadership avoidance. This
effect was influenced by followers’
implicit conception of an ideal leader. Specifically, servant
leadership was found to reduce leadership
avoidance when the congruence with the followers’ ideal leader
prototype was high. Furthermore,
followers’ core self-evaluations and affective motivation to lead
mediated the relationship between
servant leadership and reduced leadership avoidance.
Implications of these patterns for theory and
practice and avenues for future research are discussed.
Keywords: servant leadership; leadership avoidance; motivation
to lead; core self-evaluations
1. Introduction
One of the core tenets of servant leadership theory is that
servant leaders instill in followers a
desire to serve others [1,2]. Research in this field has
convincingly argued that servant leaders are
uniquely effective in developing and nurturing service values
among followers. More specifically,
it is thought that servant leaders represent strong role models

that influence followers via learning
processes and vicarious experiences and, thus, eventually imbue
the importance of service within
their teams [2]. Empirical support for this notion comes from a
study conducted by Walumbwa,
Hartnell and Oke [3] who surveyed leaders and their followers
from several multinational companies
in Kenya. They found servant leadership to be positively related
to service climate, which represents
a “collection of behavioral features or activities of the
departments all focusing explicitly on service
quality” [4] (p. 1022). More recently, Liden Wayne, Liao and
Meuser [5] further substantiated this
notion. In a study conducted in the USA with restaurant leaders
and their teams, they found that
servant leadership shapes a serving culture in organizations that
goes even beyond the service climate
with its emphasis on customer service. Rather, the notion of
serving culture explicitly refers to an
organizational environment in which all members, leaders and
followers “share the understanding
that the behavioral norms and expectations are to prioritize the
needs of others above their own and to
provide help and support to others” [5] (p. 1437).
In the present article we build upon and extend the above
evidence by addressing a related, yet
rarely discussed and hitherto not empirically tested implication
of servant leadership. Greenleaf [1] and
several other scholars in his tradition have framed the implicit
expectation that those who are served by
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 6; doi:10.3390/admsci7010006
www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci
http://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci

http://www.mdpi.com
http://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 6 2 of 11
servant leaders will understand their true potential, take on
these practices and thus eventually become
servant leaders themselves (e.g., [6]). From this follows that
servant leaders should be able to reduce
motivational barriers in followers to strive for or accept
leadership responsibility. In fact, despite
the primacy of a genuine motivation to serve in the conception
of servant leadership [1], leadership
per definition includes a motivation to lead [7]. In other words,
someone who views leadership
responsibility as inherently daunting and unattractive is
unlikely to become a servant leader. That
said, the main aim of the present research is to investigate the
link between servant leadership and
followers’ motivations to lead and, eventually, leadership
avoidance, which represents a fundamental
obstacle to assuming leadership responsibility [8]. Our
theoretical model posits that servant leaders
are positive role models that instill in followers an attractive
conception of being a leader. However,
we assume that followers’ implicit conception of an ideal leader
(i.e., ideal leader prototype) affects the
strength of this relation. Furthermore, we introduce follower
core self-evaluations [9] as an additional
intermediate mechanism through which servant leadership
impacts followers and which we describe
in more detail below.
A second aim of our research relates to measurement adaption.
Specifically, we use the 28-item

servant leadership questionnaire developed by Liden, Wayne,
Zhao and Henderson [10] and adapt it
for use in German-speaking countries. Not only is servant
leadership still measured with somewhat
different instruments (see [7] for a more detailed discussion of
this issue), but at the same time,
research on servant leadership is also becoming more and more
international. Thus, the availability
of different psychometrically valid servant leadership measures
for use in different cultural contexts
will enable researchers to compare result patterns not only
across cultures, but also across different
measurement approaches.
2. Servant Leadership as a Pathway to Reduced Leadership
Avoidance
In the present research, we build upon and seek to extend prior
evidence showing that servant
leaders stimulate serving behaviors among their followers [3,5].
However, besides fostering a serving
culture and stimulating followers to prioritize service quality,
we posit that servant leaders also instill
in followers a positive and attractive conception of being a
leader. This means that followers come
to view leadership responsibility as an attractive challenge
instead of being deterred from fear of
failure and expectations of pressure and stress [8]. In fact, an
important premise of servant leadership
theory is that servant leaders are particularly likely to become
attractive role models for their followers
due to their unique concern for others and strong ethics [2].
Thus, drawing on processes related to
vicarious and observational learning [11], we propose a direct
link between servant leadership and
followers’ inclination to be less skeptical and averse to

assuming leadership responsibilities themselves.
Accordingly, we specified the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Servant leadership is negatively linked to
followers’ avoidance of leadership (i.e., finding
leadership responsibility daunting).
However, we propose that this relationship is not adequately
conceptualized solely as a direct
effect and several intervening mechanisms need to be
considered. First, we draw on leader
categorization theory [12] and hypothesize that followers’
responses to servant leadership are
considerably influenced by the degree to which leaders display
what followers believe to be the
qualities of an ideal leader (i.e., ideal leader prototype, see
[13]). That said, it is plausible that the
tendency of followers to develop a positive and desirable
conception of leadership responsibility is
partially dependent on whether they perceive their leader to
match their ideal leader prototype [2].
Therefore, we specified the following prediction:
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 6 3 of 11
Hypothesis 2: The direct link between servant leadership and
reduced leadership avoidance is moderated by
followers’ ideal leader prototype. The more followers perceive
their leader to match their ideal leader prototype,
the stronger the effect of servant leadership will be on
followers’ reduced leadership avoidance.
Second, besides the moderation effect pertaining to the ideal
leader prototype, we propose a

series of intermediate mechanisms in our framework. Our
overall model is depicted in Figure 1, which
represents a larger process that starts with servant leadership
and culminates in followers’ reduced
leadership avoidance. First, following Felfe et al. [8], the most
proximal antecedent to the avoidance
of leadership is a lack of genuine motivation to lead. Second,
we contend that motivation to lead
represents a function of specific internal resources on the part
of followers, most notably a sense of
self-worth and ability [9]. These resources, in turn, have been
consistently described as an outcome
of supportive and ethically positive leadership in the literature.
In what follows, we delineate the
theoretical rationale for the various links in our proposed model
in more detail.
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 6 3 of 11
reduced leadership avoidance. First, following Felfe et al. [8],
the most proximal antecedent to the
avoidance of leadership is a lack of genuine motivation to lead.
Second, we contend that motivation
to lead represents a function of specific internal resources on
the part of followers, most notably a
sense of self-worth and ability [9]. These resources, in turn,
have been consistently described as an
outcome of supportive and ethically positive leadership in the
literature. In what follows, we
delineate the theoretical rationale for the various links in our
proposed model in more detail.
Figure 1. Predicted model linking servant leadership to
followers’ leadership avoidance. MLT =
motivation to lead. The dashed lines represent additional paths

that were tested as part of the partial
mediation model.
In the proposed framework, the immediate precursor of
leadership avoidance is a lack of
motivation to lead. Chan and Drasgow [14] described
motivation to lead as an individual’s
preference to strive for a leadership role or position, which is
reflected in three dimensions. First, the
affective-identity component of motivation to lead suggests that
a person considers oneself as
having intrinsic leadership qualities and thus simply enjoys
leading others. Second, the
social-normative aspect is characterized by experiencing a sense
of duty and obligation to lead.
Third, the non-calculative aspect accounts for people who
neglect the personal costs of leading in
their decision. In our approach, we focus on the affective
component because previous research has
consistently identified it as the most influential predictor for
leadership potential (e.g., [14]) and
career ambitions [8,15]. Moreover, we focus on the non-
calculative aspect because it reflects, to some
extent, a non-egocentric attitude and is thus somewhat
consistent with the humble attitude of
servant leaders [16]. In fact, individuals scoring high on this
dimension are not genuinely concerned
with their own interests when it comes to striving for or
accepting a leadership role. Prior research
has provided solid empirical evidence for the inherent, negative
link between the motivation to lead
and leadership avoidance [8]. In line with this, we developed
the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Motivation to lead (affective and non-calculative)
is negatively related to leadership avoidance.

Next, we build on Liden, Panaccio et al. [2] and introduce
followers’ core self-evaluations [9] as
a mechanism through which servant leadership is assumed to
positively influence followers’
motivation to lead.
The Mediating Role of Core Self-Evaluations
The concept of core self-evaluations (CSE) is generally
described as a broad, integrative trait
consisting of self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of
control and emotional stability [9]. As
Liden, Panaccio et al. [2] point out, servant leadership appears
as particularly suitable to foster the
self-esteem (i.e., the appraisal of self-worth) and self-efficacy
(i.e., the appraisal of one’s ability to
successfully complete tasks and reach goals) components. In
fact, by showing genuine concern for
followers’ needs and by standing back and giving them support
and credit, servant leaders
consistently demonstrate confidence in their followers and
signal that they are worthy and capable
individuals. Moreover, servant leaders empower their followers
and provide opportunities to use
and develop their talents and skills. This helps followers to
solve problems at work autonomously
Figure 1. Predicted model linking servant leadership to
followers’ leadership avoidance.
MLT = motivation to lead. The dashed lines represent additional
paths that were tested as part of the
partial mediation model.
In the proposed framework, the immediate precursor of
leadership avoidance is a lack of

motivation to lead. Chan and Drasgow [14] described
motivation to lead as an individual’s
preference to strive for a leadership role or position, which is
reflected in three dimensions. First, the
affective-identity component of motivation to lead suggests that
a person considers oneself as having
intrinsic leadership qualities and thus simply enjoys leading
others. Second, the social-normative
aspect is characterized by experiencing a sense of duty and
obligation to lead. Third, the non-calculative
aspect accounts for people who neglect the personal costs of
leading in their decision. In our approach,
we focus on the affective component because previous research
has consistently identified it as the
most influential predictor for leadership potential (e.g., [14])
and career ambitions [8,15]. Moreover,
we focus on the non-calculative aspect because it reflects, to
some extent, a non-egocentric attitude
and is thus somewhat consistent with the humble attitude of
servant leaders [16]. In fact, individuals
scoring high on this dimension are not genuinely concerned
with their own interests when it comes to
striving for or accepting a leadership role. Prior research has
provided solid empirical evidence for the
inherent, negative link between the motivation to lead and
leadership avoidance [8]. In line with this,
we developed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Motivation to lead (affective and non-calculative)
is negatively related to leadership avoidance.
Next, we build on Liden, Panaccio et al. [2] and introduce
followers’ core self-evaluations [9] as a
mechanism through which servant leadership is assumed to
positively influence followers’ motivation
to lead.

Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 6 4 of 11
The Mediating Role of Core Self-Evaluations
The concept of core self-evaluations (CSE) is generally
described as a broad, integrative trait
consisting of self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of
control and emotional stability [9]. As Liden,
Panaccio et al. [2] point out, servant leadership appears as
particularly suitable to foster the self-esteem
(i.e., the appraisal of self-worth) and self-efficacy (i.e., the
appraisal of one’s ability to successfully
complete tasks and reach goals) components. In fact, by
showing genuine concern for followers’ needs
and by standing back and giving them support and credit,
servant leaders consistently demonstrate
confidence in their followers and signal that they are worthy
and capable individuals. Moreover,
servant leaders empower their followers and provide
opportunities to use and develop their talents
and skills. This helps followers to solve problems at work
autonomously and successfully and, thus,
more generally allows for experiences of success and
achievement. Such experiences, in turn, likely
convey to followers a sense of control and influence over
outcomes (i.e., locus of control), helping them
also to feel more calm and secure in challenging situations (i.e.,
emotional stability).
Next, we argue that followers’ core self-evaluations positively
relate to their motivation to
lead and, thus, eventually, to lower levels of leadership
avoidance. Support for this notion comes

from theoretical as well empirical work on core self-evaluations
showing that the effects of core
self-evaluations on individuals’ psychological functioning and
behaviors are best described through
an approach/avoidance framework [17]. According to this
perspective, most human experiences differ
with regard to their sensitivity to positive or negative
information [18]. Thus, personality traits reflect
distinct temperaments depending on whether the focus is on
approaching pleasurable opportunities
(i.e., positive stimuli) or avoiding unfavorable, painful
experiences (i.e., negative stimuli). Since
its introduction, core self-evaluation (with its focus on self-
worth, feeling secure, competent and in
charge) has been consistently linked to both the adoption of
approach goals [19] and the avoidance of
threats [20]. More recently, Ferris et al. [21] conducted two
studies with students as well as dyads from
the working context and found core self-evaluations to foster
positive outcomes (such as organizational
citizenship behavior and reduced levels of workplace deviance)
through both high approach tendencies
and low avoidance tendencies.
With the above processes in mind, we argue that followers with
high core self-evaluations are
more sensitive to positive aspects and experiences when
interacting with and observing their leader.
In turn, they are less likely to notice and emphasize problematic
and overly demanding leadership
experiences. Taken together, it is plausible that more approach-
oriented individuals think more
positively about the challenges associated with a leadership
role, focus more on the opportunities (i.e.,
affective motivation to lead) and are less concerned about
potential personal costs (i.e., non-calculative

motivation to lead). Against this background, we specified the
following prediction:
Hypothesis 4: The relationship between servant leadership and
motivation to lead (affective and non-calculative)
is mediated by followers’ core self-evaluations.
3. Method
3.1. Participants and Procedure
For the purpose of our research, we conducted a two-wave
online study in the German health
care sector. Specifically, we collected publicly available e -mail-
addresses from four German university
hospitals by searching the homepage of clinics, medical centers
and specialized institutes related to
medical treatment and research as well as centralized service
departments related to management and
support topics of hospitals. Data were collected at two times
separated by about eight weeks to allow
us to reduce common method bias [22].
Overall 6243 potential respondents were contacted via e-mail
out of which 815 (13.1%) accessed
the online survey. The introductory letter explained the purpose
of the study, provided assurances
of confidentiality and informed respondents that participation in
this study was strictly voluntary.
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 6 5 of 11
Overall, 504 participants completed the survey and provided
data on perceived servant leadership

and ideal leader prototype. Responses from seven participants
were eliminated due to missing data,
resulting in a sample of 497 participants at Time 1 (i.e., 8%
response rate).
Approximately eight weeks later, the 497 respondents who
participated at Time 1 were asked
to complete an online survey measuring core self evaluations,
motivation to lead, and leadership
avoidance. Five out of 227 participants provided invalid
responses, resulting in a total of 222 matched
usable surveys at Time 2 (i.e., 3.5% response rate).
3.2. Sample
The overall sample that was used in the present research can be
divided into two sub-samples.
Sub-sample 1 (N = 275) covers the respondents who
participated exclusively at Time 1 and did not
complete the survey at Time 2. Subsample 2 (N = 222) refers to
those participants, who filled in the
survey both at Time 1 and Time 2.
In sub-sample 1, 67% of the respondents were female. In terms
of age, the distribution was as
follows: 20.4% were 20–29 years, 41.8% were between 30–39
years, 21.1% were 40–49, 14.9% between
50–59, and 1.8% were above 60 years old. With regard to
tenure, 50% had been working for less than
five years in their current organization (8.7% less than one year,
45.5% more than one and less than
five years; 20.0% less than 10 years and 25.5% more than 10
years). Most participants in sample 1 were
physicians (40.4%), 20% were nursing or medical technical
assistants, and 8.4% worked in central and
administrative services (other professions: 30%).

In subsample 2, 71% of the respondents were female. Between
14.9% were 20–29 years, 34.7%
were 30–39 years, 22.5% were 40–49 years, 24.3% were 50–59
years, and 3.2% were above 60 years old.
For more than 50% of the respondents, organizational tenure
was over five years (4.1% less than one
year, 37.4% more than one and less than five years; 18.9% less
than 10 years and 39.2% longer than
10 years). With regard to the occupational background, the two
major groups were physicians and
nursing or medical technical assistants (23% each). Nine
percent worked in central and administrative
services (other professions: 45%).
3.3. Measures
Unless otherwise indicated, all scales used in our study were
anchored with a response format
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Servant leadership was measured at Time 1 by using the 28-item
scale developed by Liden et al. [10].
Since no German version was available, we followed the
guidelines by Brislin [23] and adapted the
original items for the use in German-speaking samples (the
translated items can be obtained from the
first author of this study).
To measure ideal leader prototype we adopted an item from Van
Quaquebeke et al. [24]. Participants
were asked to respond to the following question: “To what
degree does your current leader match
your conception of an ideal leader”. The item was included at
Time 1 and responses were given on a
five-point scale ranging from 1 (not all all) to 5 (very well).

Core self-evaluations were assessed at Time 2 with the German
adaptation [25] of the core
self-evaluations scale developed by Judge and colleagues [9].
Sample items include “I complete
tasks successfully” (i.e., self-efficacy), “I determine what will
happen in my life“(i.e., locus of control),
“Overall, I am satisfied with myself” (i.e., self-esteem), and
“Sometimes I feel depressed” (i.e., emotional
stability, reverse coded).
Motivation to lead was measured by using four items for the
affective dimension and four items for
the non-calculative dimension taken from the scale developed
by Chan and Drasgow [14] and adapted
by Felfe and colleagues [8]. This measure was included in Time
2. Sample items were “I am the type of
person who likes to be in charge of others” (i.e., affective
motive) and “I am only interested to lead a
group if there are clear advantages for me (i.e., non-calculative
motive, reverse coded).
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 6 6 of 11
Avoidance of leadership was captured at Time 2 by using three
items developed by Felfe et al. [8].
A sample item was: “The pressure that comes with a leadership
role is daunting to me”.
4. Results
4.1. Measures
First, we applied confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by using

the software MPLUS 6 [26] and
tested the factorial validity of the newly adapted servant
leadership measure. In two separate samples
(i.e., subsample 1 and 2), we compared three factor models. The
first model was a one-factor model in
which all 28 items were loaded on one single servant leadership
factor. The second was a first-order
factor model in which items loaded onto their respective factors
and the seven factors were allowed to
correlate. The third was a second-order factor model in which
items were loaded onto their respective
factors and the seven factors were loaded on a second-order
latent servant leadership factor. The
results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. They indicate that
the adapted measure is best represented
by seven related facets describing different attributes of servant
leadership (We also tested the factor
structure of the seven-item short form [27], obtaining excellent
psychometric properties. The detailed
results can be requested from the first author of this study.)
Table 1. Results of confirmatory factor analyses for the servant
leadership measure.
Model χ2 df χ2/df TLI CFI RMSEA ∆χ2
Subsample 1
One-factor model 1663.91 350 4.75 0.748 0.766 0.117
First-order model 730.19 329 2.2 0.918 0.929 0.067 933.71 ***
Second-order model 784.11 343 2.29 0.914 0.922 0.068 879.80
***
Subsample 2
One-factor model 1332.007 350 3.81 0.777 0.793 0.112
First-order model 657.674 329 2.00 0.920 0.931 0.067 674.33

***
Second-order model 691.32 343 2.02 0.919 0.927 0.068 640.69
***
Notes: ∆χ2 represents the difference in χ2 values between the
respective model and the one-factor model,
*** p < 0.001.
Next, we conducted CFA to assess the integrity of the
measurement model underlying our
hypotheses tests in subsample 2. Given the relatively large
number of parameters in the proposed
model and the relatively small sample size, we used item
parcels as indicators for some latent constructs.
Specifically, for servant leadership, seven parcels were created
based on the preexisting dimensions [10].
The same procedure was applied for core self-evaluations and
we created four parcels representing
the components of core self-evaluations (i.e., self-esteem, self-
efficacy, locus of control, emotional
stability). For the remaining latent variables (i.e., affective and
non-calculative motivation to lead as
well as leadership avoidance), items were used as indicators
since these measures consisted of three to
four items only. Results showed that the hypothesized five-
factor model fit the data well (χ2 = 328.96,
df = 199, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 1.65, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.95,
RMSEA = 0.05). Next, we compared this
model with two alternative models in order to establish
discriminant validity. First, we tested the
fit of a single-factor model in which all indicators were loaded
onto a single factor. This procedure
yielded a fairly poor model fit (χ2 = 1791.54, df = 209, p <
0.001, χ2/df = 8.57, CFI = 0.43, TLI = 0.37,
RMSEA = 0.19) which was clearly inferior to the fit of the five-

factor model (∆χ2(10) = 1462.58 p < 0.001).
Second, the proposed five-factorial model was preferable over a
three-factor model in which all
motivation to lead and leadership avoidance indicators were
covered by a single factor (χ2 = 1052.32,
df = 206, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 5.11, CFI = 0.69, TLI = 0.66,
RMSEA = 0.14, ∆χ2(7) = 723.36, p < 0.001).
In summary, the revealed pattern supports our measures’ utility
to capture the target constructs
under investigation.
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 6 7 of 11
4.2. Hypotheses Tests
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics, internal consistency
reliabilities, and correlations among
the study variables. In order to test our hypotheses in detail, we
conducted structural equation
modeling (SEM) in MPLUS. The results of this analysis are
depicted in Figure 2.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations.
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Servant Leadership 3.05 0.86 (0.78)
2. Ideal Leader Prototype 2.90 1.37 0.86 *** (-)
3. Core Self-Evaluations 3.86 0.58 0.29 *** 0.25 *** (0.78
4. Affective MTL 3.36 0.89 0.08 0.04 0.27 *** (0.86)
5. Noncalculative MLT 3.39 0.91 0.00 −0.05 0.41 * −0.23 **
(0.88)
6. Leadership Avoidance 2.55 0.88 −0.02 0.04 −0.49 *** −0.49
*** −0.20 ** (0.78)

Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, MTL =
Motivation to lead.
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 6 7 of 11
Figure 2. Estimated regression coefficients for the predicted
model. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001,
MLT = motivation to lead. The dashed lines represent non-
significant paths. Affective and
non-calculative MTL were allowed to correlate (factor
correlation = −0.32, p < 0.001).
Surprisingly, servant leadership was positively related to
leadership avoidance (β =.16, p < 0.05),
which is in contrast to Hypothesis 1. To test the proposed
moderating role of the ideal leader
prototype in this link, we conducted a regression analysis using
the Process macro for SPSS [28]. This
analysis revealed a significant servant leadership × ideal leader
prototype interaction with b = −0.22,
p < 0.01, 95% CI [−0.33, −0.10]. The direction of the
moderation effect is in the expected direction.
Thus Hypothesis 2 was confirmed. To visualize the nature of the
revealed effect we followed the
procedures developed by Dawson [29] and plotted the
interaction (Figure 3). The revealed pattern
indicates that servant leadership is more likely to reduce
leadership avoidance when the ideal leader
prototype is high, but not at lower levels.
Figure 3. The moderating role of ideal leader prototype. SL =
servant leadership, ILP = ideal leader
prototype.

Hypothesis 3 stated a negative relationship between the
motivation to lead and leadership
avoidance. As shown in Figure 2, both the affective component
(β = −0.56, p < 0.001) and the
non-calculative component (β = −0.23, p < 0.001) had a
negative effect. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was
confirmed.
Furthermore, in line with our expectations, servant leadership
was positively related to core
self-evaluations (β = 0.32, p < 0.001), which in turn predicted
the affective (β = 0.32, p < 0.001) and the
non-calculative (β = 0.17, p < 0.05) components of the
motivation to lead. In order to test the specific
indirect effect from servant leadership on motivation to lead
through core self-evaluations,
bootstrapping (with 10,000 bootstrap samples) was used to
create a bias-corrected confidence
interval (CI) for the indirect effect. The specific indirect effect
was 0.10%, 95% CI [0.037, 0.168] for
affective motivation to lead, and for non-calculative motivation
to lead, it was 0.05, 95% CI [0.001,
1
2
3
4
5
Low SL High SL
L

ea
de
rs
hi
p
av
oi
da
nc
e
Low ILP
High ILP
model. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001,
correlation = −0.32, p < 0.001).
leadership avoidance (β = 0.16, p < 0.05),
moderating role of the ideal leader prototype
in this link, we conducted a regression analysis using the
Process macro for SPSS [28]. This analysis
revealed a significant servant leadership × ideal leader
prototype interaction with b = −0.22, p < 0.01,
95% CI [−0.33, −0.10]. The direction of the moderation effect is

in the expected direction. Thus
Hypothesis 2 was confirmed. To visualize the nature of the
revealed effect we followed the procedures
developed by Dawson [29] and plotted the interaction (Figure
3). The revealed pattern indicates that
servant leadership is more likely to reduce leadership avoidance
when the ideal leader prototype is
high, but not at lower levels.
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 6 7 of 11
model. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001,
correlation = −0.32, p < 0.001).
leadership avoidance (β =.16, p < 0.05),
moderating role of the ideal leader
prototype in this link, we conducted a regression analysis using
the Process macro for SPSS [28]. This
analysis revealed a significant servant leadership × ideal leader
prototype interaction with b = −0.22,
p < 0.01, 95% CI [−0.33, −0.10]. The direction of the
moderation effect is in the expected direction.
Thus Hypothesis 2 was confirmed. To visualize the nature of the
revealed effect we followed the
procedures developed by Dawson [29] and plotted the
interaction (Figure 3). The revealed pattern
indicates that servant leadership is more likely to reduce
leadership avoidance when the ideal leader
prototype is high, but not at lower levels.

servant leadership, ILP = ideal leader
prototype.
(β = −0.56, p < 0.001) and the
negative effect. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was
confirmed.
the affective (β = 0.32, p < 0.001) and the
non-calculative (β = 0.17, p < 0.05) components of the
motivation to lead. In order to test the specific
indirect effect from servant leadership on motivation to lead
through core self-evaluations,
create a bias-corrected confidence
interval (CI) for the indirect effect. The specific indirect effect
was 0.10%, 95% CI [0.037, 0.168] for
affective motivation to lead, and for non-calculative motivation
to lead, it was 0.05, 95% CI [0.001,
1
2
3
4

5
Low SL High SL
L
ea
de
rs
hi
p
av
oi
da
nc
e
Low ILP
High ILP
servant leadership, ILP = ideal
leader prototype.
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 6 8 of 11

(β = −0.56, p < 0.001) and the
negative effect. Therefore, Hypothesis 3
was confirmed.
the affective (β = 0.32, p < 0.001) and
the non-calculative (β = 0.17, p < 0.05) components of the
motivation to lead. In order to test the
specific indirect effect from servant leadership on motivation to
lead through core self-evaluations,
create a bias-corrected confidence interval
(CI) for the indirect effect. The specific indirect effect was
0.10%, 95% CI [0.037, 0.168] for affective
motivation to lead, and for non-calculative motivation to lead, it
was 0.05, 95% CI [0.001, 0.108]. This
pattern confirms that in our data, core self-evaluations fully
mediated the relationship between servant
leadership and motivation to lead. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was
confirmed.
5. Discussion
Our study set out to explore the mechanisms through which
servant leadership may impact
followers’ inclinations to become leaders themselves. We
proposed that servant leaders represent
strong role models conveying to followers the message that
leading others represents an attractive
and desirable responsibility. Surprisingly, we found a small but
positive and statistically significant
effect of servant leadership on followers’ leadership avoidance.

This pattern is partially in line with
prior research indicating that features of constructive leadership
may sometimes have counterintuitive
or even negative outcomes [30]. Indeed, in our data, followers
seem to react somewhat cautiously
to leaders who consistently place the good of followers over
their own self-interests. Thus, they
may come to view the standards of being a leader as highly
demanding and, to some degree, even
daunting. In an effort to shed light on this pattern, we
investigated followers’ implicit perceptions of
an ideal leader (i.e., ideal leader prototype) and identified it as
an important boundary condition for
the proposed main effect. Specifically, we found that servant
leadership reduced leadership avoidance
among followers when the congruence with the ideal leader
prototype was high. In contrast, servant
leadership had no meaningful impact on followers at low levels
of congruence. This partially reflects
the results reported by Meuser, Liden, Wayne and Henderson
[31]. In their study, servant leadership
was found to predict follower performance and organizational
citizenship behavior more effectively
when followers desired this type of leadership.
With regard to the proposed mediation effects, we found
considerable support for core self-
evaluations and affective motivation to lead as the central
mechanisms linking servant leadership to
less leadership avoidance. In contrast, non-calculative
motivation to lead appeared as less influential
in this regard. From this pattern we draw two conclusions. First,
our study expands initial evidence
for a positive relationship between servant leadership and
followers’ core-self evaluations [32] and
provides strong empirical support for Liden, Panaccio et al.’s

notion of core-self evaluations as an
essential explanatory mechanism for the effects of servant
leadership. In terms of motivation to lead,
core self-evaluations seem particularly functional in fostering
positive affects about leading others,
whereas they only marginally explain followers’ calculative
considerations about leadership (i.e., costs
of leading relative to the benefits). Second, in line with prior
research, the affective dimension
of motivation to lead seems the most effective in lowering
leadership avoidance relative to the
non-calculative dimension (e.g., [8,33]). Notably, with our
results, we replicated this pattern in the
health care context where previous studies did not account for
this differentiation so far (e.g., [34]).
In summary, our results contribute to servant leadership
research in several ways. The literature on
servant leadership agrees that theoretical development in the
field is still at an early stage (e.g., [2,7,35]).
Thus, understanding how servant leadership works and how it
relates to outcomes represents an
important priority. The main contribution of the present study is
the examination of a central
assumption in the servant leadership philosophy, namely that
servant leaders fuel the leadership fire in
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 6 9 of 11
followers. Specifically, the inclusion of specific intervening
mechanisms (i.e., moderator and mediator
variables) enables us to untangle when and under what
circumstances the proposed relationship is
more likely to appear.

Another major empirical contribution of the present effort is the
presentation of a psychometrically
sound version of Liden et al.’s [10] measure for use in German-
speaking samples. With this,
we expand the cross-cultural applicability of servant leadership
and promote research in more
international contexts.
Besides the above theoretical implications, our study provides
practical implications as well.
In line with prior conclusions on the practical value of servant
leadership, our findings suggest
that servant leadership is instrumental in promoting follower
self-actualization. More importantly,
however, it follows that the effectiveness of mentoring
programs aimed at leadership development
and succession planning can be improved further by
incorporating training in servant leadership skills.
Here, our results highlight the importance of followers’ implicit
leadership preferences. Of course,
leaders can change followers’ preferences very littl e. However,
following Liden, Panaccio et al. [2],
we suggest that when leaders take the time and are empathic and
sensitive to the needs of followers,
they can identify individual and tailor-made ways to serve their
followers. This, in turn, is likely to
establish more congruence between the displayed and the
expected leader behaviors, and thus will
eventually result in positive follower responses.
6. Limitations and Future Research
Despite its contributions, our study is not without limitations,
most notably the cross-sectional
data used for testing our hypotheses. In cross-sectional designs,

causality is not clear, and in our case,
given the close interaction between leaders and followers,
causation might be reciprocal. It is, for
instance, conceivable that followers with a high motivation to
lead receive more attention and support
from their leaders. Thus, although complex and difficult to
undertake, future research would strongly
benefit from longitudinal studies on the effects of servant
leadership, ideally including repeated
measures from newcomers in organizations or teams.
A second limitation is the relatively small sample size and the
exclusive focus on the health care
context. On the one hand, this certainly limits the
generalizability of our results across populations; on
the other hand, it enhances our confidence that our results can
be generalized to other fields in health
care and, to a limited degree, to other service settings.
Nonetheless, future research should replicate
our study by using more diverse settings and larger samples.
A third issue, one that is both a limitation and, we believe, a
strength, is the focus on motivation
to lead and leadership avoidance as focal outcome variables.
This is a strength because motivation to
lead represents a strong proxy for assuming responsibility and
eventually realizing one's full potential.
On the other hand, it is a weakness because motivation to lead
is not sufficient for developing servant
leaders. In fact, according to Van Dierendonck [7], servant
leadership combines the motivation to lead
with a need or a motivation to serve. Interestingly, Ng, Koh and
Goh [36] found no correlation between
leaders’ need to serve and their affective motivation to lead.
Thus, future research should adapt the
scale developed by Ng et al. [36] and assess followers’ needs to

serve as an outcome of perceived
servant leadership.
Fourth, in our study we included followers’ general conceptions
of an ideal leader (i.e., leader
prototype). Although we found a high correlation between this
measure and actually perceived servant
leadership behaviors (r = 0.86), we realize that this
conceptualization is different from the genuine
servant leadership prototype [2]. The servant leadership
prototype refers to the degree to which the
followers’ ideal leader prototype is consistent with servant
leadership theory. Thus, future research
should enlarge our approach and explicitly ask respondents
whether and to what degree they desire a
leader who engages in servant leadership behaviors.
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 6 10 of 11
Author Contributions: Martin Lacroix conceived and designed
the study, performed the data collection and the
data analysis; Armin Pircher Verdorfer contributed to the data
analysis; both authors contributed equally to the
writing of the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Greenleaf, R.K. Servant-Leadership: A Journey into The
Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness; Paulist Press:
New York, NY, USA, 1977.
2. Liden, R.C.; Panaccio, A.; Hu, J.; Meuser, J.D. Servant

leadership: Antecedents, consequences, and contextual
moderators. In The Oxford Handbook of Leadership and
Organizations; Day, D.V., Ed.; Oxford University Press:
Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 357–379.
3. Walumbwa, F.O.; Hartnell, C.A.; Oke, A. Servant leadership,
procedural justice climate, service climate,
employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A
cross-level investigation. J. Appl. Psychol.
2010, 95, 517–529. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Schneider, B.; Ehrhart, M.G.; Mayer, D.M.; Saltz, J.L.;
Niles-Jolly, K. Understanding organization-customer
links in service settings. AMJ 2005, 48, 1017–1032. [CrossRef]
5. Liden, R.C.; Wayne, S.J.; Liao, C.; Meuser, J.D. Servant
leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual
and unit performance. AMJ 2014, 57, 1434–1452. [CrossRef]
6. Sendjaya, S. Personal and Organizational Excellence through
Servant Leadership; Springer: Dordrecht,
The Netherlands, 2015.
7. Van Dierendonck, D. Servant leadership: A review and
synthesis. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1228–1261. [CrossRef]
8. Felfe, J.; Elprana, G.; Gatzka, M.; Stiehl, S. Instrument Zur
Erfassung Von Führungsmotivation [Instrument to
Assess Motivation to Lead]; Hogrefe: Göttingen, Germany,
2012.
9. Judge, T.A.; Erez, A.; Bono, J.E.; Thoresen, C.J. Are
measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and
generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core
construct? J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 83, 693–710.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

10. Liden, R.C.; Wayne, S.J.; Zhao, H.; Henderson, D. Servant
leadership: Development of a multidimensional
measure and multi-level assessment. Leadersh. Q. 2008, 19,
161–177. [CrossRef]
11. Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory; Prentice Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1977.
12. Lord, R.G. An information processing approach to social
perceptions, leadership perceptions and
behavioral measurement in organizational settings. In Research
in Organizational Behavior; Staw, B.M.,
Cummings, L.L., Eds.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1985;
pp. 85–128.
13. Van Quaquebeke, N.; Graf, M.M.; Eckloff, T. What do
leaders have to live up to? Contrasting the effects of
central tendency versus ideal-based leader prototypes in leader
categorization processes. Leadership 2014, 10,
191–217.
14. Chan, K.Y.; Drasgow, F. Toward a theory of individual
differences and leadership: Understanding the
motivation to lead. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 481–498.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Felfe, J.; Schyns, B. Romance of leadership and motivation
to lead. J. Manag. Psychol. 2014, 29, 850–865.
[CrossRef]
16. Pircher Verdorfer, A. Examining Mindfulness and Its
Relations to Humility, Motivation to Lead, and Actual
Servant Leadership Behaviors. Mindfulness 2016, 7, 950–961.
[CrossRef]

17. Chang, C.; Ferris, D.L.; Johnson, R.E.; Rosen, C.C.; Tan,
J.A. Core self-evaluations a review and evaluation of
the literature. J. Manag. 2012, 38, 81–128. [CrossRef]
18. Elliot, A.J.; Thrash, T.M. Approach-avoidance motivation in
personality: Approach and avoidance
temperaments and goals. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 82,
804–818. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Judge, T.A.; Bono, J.E.; Erez, A.; Locke, E.A. Core self-
evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of
self-concordance and goal attainment. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005,
90, 257–268. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Srivastava, A.; Locke, E.A.; Judge, T.A.; Adams, J.W. Core
self-evaluations as causes of satisfaction: The
mediating role of seeking task complexity. J. Vocat. Behav.
2010, 77, 255–265. [CrossRef]
21. Ferris, D.L.; Rosen, C.R.; Johnson, R.E.; Brown, D.J.;
Risavy, S.D.; Heller, D. Approach or avoidance (or both?):
Integrating core self-evaluations within an approach/avoidance
framework. Pers. Psychol. 2011, 64, 137–161.
[CrossRef]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018867
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20476830
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.19573107
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0034
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.693
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.481
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2012-0076

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0534-8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311419661
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.804
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.257
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01204.x
Adm. Sci. 2017, 7, 6 11 of 11
22. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff,
N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A
critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J.
Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
23. Brislin, R.W. Translation and content analysis of oral and
written material. In Handbook of Cross-Cultural
Psychology; Triandis, H.C., Berry, J.W., Eds.; Allyn & Bacon:
Boston, MA, USA, 1980; pp. 389–444.
24. Van Quaquebeke, N.; Van Knippenberg, D.; Brodbeck, F.C.
More than meets the eye: The role of subordinates’
self-perceptions in leader categorization processes. Leadersh. Q.
2011, 22, 367–382. [CrossRef]
25. Stumpp, T.; Muck, P.M.; Hülsheger, U.R.; Judge, T.A.;
Maier, G.W. Core self-evaluations in Germany:
Validation of a German measure and its relationships with
career success. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 59, 674–700.
[CrossRef]
26. Muthen, L.K.; Muthen, B.O. MPlus User’s Guide, 5th ed.;
Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles, CA, USA,

1998–2007; p. 676.
27. Liden, R.C.; Wayne, S.J.; Meuser, J.D.; Hu, J.; Wu, J.; Liao,
C. Servant leadership: Validation of a short form of
the SL-28. Leadersh. Q. 2015, 26, 254–269. [CrossRef]
28. Hayes, A.F. Moderation & Conditional Process Analysis.
Introduction to Mediation, 1st ed.; Guilford Press:
New York, NY, USA, 2013.
29. Dawson, J.F. Moderation in management research: What,
why, when and how. J. Bus. Psychol. 2014, 29, 1–19.
[CrossRef]
30. Pierce, J.R.; Aguinis, H. The too-much-of-a-good-thing
effect in management. J. Manag. 2013, 39, 313–338.
[CrossRef]
31. Meuser, J.D.; Liden, R.C.; Wayne, S.J.; Henderson, D.J. Is
servant leadership always a good thing? The
moderating influence of servant leadership prototype. In
Proceedings of the Paper Presented at the Meeting
of the Academy of Management, San Antonio, TX, USA, August
2011.
32. Tischler, L.; Giambatista, R.; McKeage, R.; McCormick, D.
Servant leadership and its relationships with core
self-evaluation and job satisfaction. J. Values-Based Leadersh.
2016, 9, 8.
33. Popper, M.; Amit, K.; Gal, R.; Mishkal-Sinai, M.; Lisak, A.
The capacity to lead: Major psychological
differences between leaders and nonleaders. Mil. Psychol. 2004,
16, 245–263. [CrossRef]
34. Mascia, D.; Dello Russo, S.; Morandi, F. Exploring

professionals’ motivation to lead: A cross-level study in
the healthcare sector. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2015, 26,
1622–1644. [CrossRef]
35. Northouse, P.G. Leadership: Theory and Practice; Sage
Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013.
36. Ng, K.Y.; Koh, C.; Goh, H.C. The Heart of the Servant
Leader: Leader’s Motivation-to-Serve and Its Impact on
LMX and Subordinates’ Extra-Role Behavior. In Knowledge
Driven Corporation: Complex Creative Destruction;
Graen, G.B., Graen, J.A., Eds.; Information Age Publishing:
Charlotte, NC, USA, 2008; pp. 125–144.
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00422.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410060
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1604_3
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.958516
http://creativecommons.org/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.Introduction
Servant Leadership as a Pathway to Reduced Leadership
Avoidance Method Participants and Procedure Sample Measures
Results Measures Hypotheses Tests Discussion Limitations and
Future Research

[email protected] www.100mustreads.com 1
Start With Why
How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action
Notes by Frumi Rachel Barr, MBA, Ph.D.
Author: Simon Sinek
Publisher: Penguin Group
Copyright year: 2009
ISBN: 978-1-59184-280-4
Author’s Bio: Simon Sinek teaches leaders and organizations
how to inspire people. From members
of Congress to foreign ambassadors, from small businesses to
corporations like Microsoft and
American Express, from Hollywood to the UN to the Pentagon,
those who want to know how to inspire
people want to learn about The Golden Circle and the power of
WHY. Sinek is quoted frequently by
national publications and teaches at the Strategic
Communications Program at Columbia University.
Author’s big thought: In studying the leaders who‘ve had the
greatest influence in the world, Simon
Sinek discovered that they all think, act, and communicate in
the exact same way—and it‘s the
complete opposite of what everyone else does. Sinek calls this
powerful idea The Golden Circle, and it
provides a framework upon which organizations can be built,
movements can be led, and people can

be inspired. And it all starts with WHY. Starting with WHY
works in big business and small business, in
the nonprofit world and in politics.
Those who start with WHY never manipulate, they inspire. And
people follow them not because they
have to; they follow because they want to.
Introduction: Why Start with Why?
This book is about a naturally occurring pattern, a way of
thinking, acting and communicating
that gives some leaders the ability to inspire those around them.
We can all learn this pattern. With a little discipline, any leader
or organization can inspire
others, both inside and outside their organization, to help
advance their ideas and their vision.
The individuals and organizations that naturally embody this
pattern are the ones that start with
Why.
There are leaders and there are those who lead. With only 6
percent market share in the United
States and about 3 percent worldwide, Apple is not a leading
manufacturer of home computers,
yet the company leads the computer industry and is now a
leader in other industries as well.
Martin Luther King‘s experiences were not unique, yet he
inspired a nation to change.
The Wright brothers were not the strongest contenders in the
race to take the first manned,
powered flight, but they led us into a new era of aviation and, in

doing so, completely changed
the world we live in.
Their goals were not different than anyone else‘s, and their
systems and processes were easily
replicated. Yet the Wright brothers, Apple and Martin Luther
King stand out among their peers.
They stand apart from the norm and their impact is not easily
copied. They are members of a
very select group of leaders who do something very, very
special. They inspire us.
Great leaders are able to inspire people to act. Those who are
able to inspire give people a
sense of purpose or belonging that has little to do with any
external incentive or benefit to be
gained. Those who truly lead are able to create a following of
people who act not because they
were swayed, but because they were inspired. For those who are
inspired, the motivation to act
is deeply personal. They are less likely to be swayed by
incentives. Those who are inspired are
willing to pay a premium or endure inconvenience, even
personal suffering. Those who are able
to inspire will create a following of people—supporters, voters,
customers, workers—who act for
the good of the whole not because they have to, but because
they want to.
The organizations and leaders with the natural ability to inspire
us all have a disproportionate

amount of influence in their industries. They have the most
loyal customers and the most loyal
employees. They tend to be more profitable than others in their
industry. They are more
innovative, and most importantly, they are able to sustain all
these things over the long term.
Many of them change industries. Some of them even change the
world.
PART I: A WORLD THAT DOESN’T START WITH WHY
Chapter 1: Assume You Know
Every instruction we give, every course of action we set, every
result we desire, starts with the
same thing: a decision. There are those who decide to
manipulate and there are those who start
from somewhere very different. Though both courses of action
may yield similar short term
results, it is what we can‘t see that makes long-term success
more predictable for only one. The
one that understood why.
Chapter 2: Carrots and Sticks
If you ask most businesses why their customers are their
customers, most will tell you it‘s
because of superior quality, features, price or service. In other
words, most companies have no
clue why their customers are their customers. This is a
fascinating realization. If companies
don‘t know why their customers are their customers, odds are
good that they don‘t know why
their employees are their employees either.

There are only two ways to influence human behavior: you can
manipulate it or you can inspire
it.
From business to politics, manipulations run rampant in all
forms of sales and marketing.
Typical manipulations include: dropping the price; running a
promotion; using fear, peer
pressure or aspirational messages; and promising innovation to
influence behavior—be it a
purchase, a vote or support.
When companies or organizations do not have a clear sense of
why their customers are their
customers, they tend to rely on a disproportionate number of
manipulations to get what they
need. And for good reason. Manipulations work.
For transactions that occur an average of once, carrots and
sticks are the best way to elicit the
desired behavior. Manipulations are a perfectly valid str ategy
for driving a transaction, or for
any behavior that is only required once or on rare occasions.
In any circumstance in which a person or organization wants
more than a single transaction,
however, if there is a hope for a loyal, lasting relationship,
manipulations do not help.
Knowing you have a loyal customer and employee base not
only reduces costs, it provides
massive peace of mind. In contrast, relying on manipulations
creates massive stress for buyer
and seller alike.
The danger of manipulations is that they work. And because

manipulations work, they have
become the norm, practiced by the vast majority of companies
and organizations, regardless of
size or industry. With every price drop, promotion, fear-based
or aspirational message, and
novelty we use to achieve our goals, we find our companies, our
organizations and our systems
getting weaker and weaker.
The reality is, in today‘s world, manipulations are the norm.
But there is an alternative.
PART 2: AN ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE
Chapter 3: The Golden Circle
The Golden Circle concept discussed by the author was
inspired by the Golden Ratio—a simple
mathematical relationship that has fascinated mathematicians,
biologists, architects, artists,
musicians and naturists since the beginning of history.
The Golden Circle provides compelling evidence of how much
more we can achieve if we
remind ourselves to start everything we do by first asking why.
The Golden Circle is an alternative perspective to existing
assumptions about why some leaders
and organizations have achieved such a disproportionate degree

of influence.
The Golden Circle shows how these leaders were able to
inspire action instead of manipulating
people to act.
This alternative perspective is not just useful for changing the
world; there are practical
applications for the ability to inspire, too. It can be used as a
guide to vastly improving
leadership, corporate culture, hiring, product development,
sales, and marketing. It even
explains loyalty and how to create enough momentum to turn an
idea into a social movement.
It all starts from the inside out. It all starts with Why.
WHAT: Every single company and organization on the planet
knows WHAT they do. Everyone
is easily able to describe the products or services a company
sells or the job function they have
within that system.
HOW: Some companies and people know HOW they do WHAT
they do. Whether you call them
a ―differentiating value proposition,‖ ―proprietary process‖ or
―unique selling proposition,‖ HOWs
are often given to explain how something is different or better.
Many think these are the
differentiating or motivating factors in a decision. WHY: Very
few people or companies can
clearly articulate WHY they do WHAT they do.
By WHY Sinek means what is your purpose, cause or belief?
WHY does your company exist?
WHY do you get out of bed every morning? And WHY should

anyone care?
An inspired leader, every single one of them, regardless of
their size or their industry, thinks
acts and communicates from the inside out.
Apple:
Apple‘s success over time is not typical. Their ability to remain
one of the most innovative
companies year after year, combined with their uncanny ability
to attract a cult-like following,
makes them a great example to demonstrate many of the
principles of The Golden Circle.
A marketing message from Apple, if they were like everyone
else, might sound like this: We
make great computers. They‘re beautifully designed, simple to
use and user-friendly. Wanna
buy one?
This is how most companies create their message. First they
start with WHAT they do—―Here‘s
our new car.‖ Then they tell us how they do it or low they are
better.
This time, the example starts with WHY:
o Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo.
We believe in thinking
differently.

o The way we challenge the status quo is by making our
products beautifully designed,
simple to use and user-friendly.
o And we happen to make great computers.
o Wanna buy one?
There is something more, something hard to describe and near
impossible to copy that gives
Apple such a disproportionate level of influence in the market.
The example starts to prove that
people don‘t buy WHAT you do; they buy WHY you do it.
It‘s worth repeating: people don‘t buy WHAT you do; they buy
WHY you do it.
Companies try to sell us WHAT they do, but we buy WHY they
do it. This is what Sinek means
when he says they communicate from the outside in; they lead
with WHAT and HOW.
It‘s not WHAT Apple does that distinguishes them. It‘s WHY
they do it. Their products give life to
their cause.
Their products, unto themselves, are not the reason Apple is
perceived as superior; their
products, WHAT Apple makes, serve as the tangible proof of
what they believe. It is that clear
correlation between WHAT they do and WHY they do it that
makes Apple stand out. This is the
reason we perceive Apple as being authentic. Everything they
do works to demonstrate their
WHY, to challenge the status quo. Regardless of the products
they make or industry in which
they operate, it is always clear that Apple ―thinks different.‖

Apple‘s WHY, to challenge the status quo and to empower the
individual, is a pattern in that it
repeats in all they say and do. It comes to life in their iPod and
even more so in iTunes, a
service that challenged the status quo of the music industry‘s
distribution model.
Apple did not invent the mp3, nor did they invent the
technology that became the iPod, yet they
are credited with transforming the music industry with it.
Apple‘s ―1,000 songs in your pocket‖ told us WHY we needed
it.
And it is Apple‘s clarity of WHY that gives them such a
remarkable ability to innovate, often
competing against companies seemingly more qualified than
they, and succeed in industries
outside their core business.
When an organization defines itself by WHAT it does, that‘s
all it will ever be able to do.
Unless Dell, like so many others, can rediscover their founding
purpose, cause or belief and
start with WHY in all they say and do, all they will ever do is
sell computers. They will be stuck in
their ―core business.‖
Apple‘s WHY was formed at its founding in the late 1970s and
hasn‘t changed to this date.
Regardless of the products they make or the industries into
which they migrate, their WHY still
remains a constant. And Apple‘s intention to challenge accepted
thinking has proved prophetic.

Although their competitors all had a clear sense of WHY at
some point, over the course of time,
all of Apple‘s competitors lost their WHY
Any company faced with the challenge of how to differentiate
themselves in their market is
basically a commodity, regardless of WHAT they do or HOW
they do it.
It is only because Apple‘s WHY is so clear that those who
believe what they believe are drawn
to them. Those people who share Apple‘s WHY believe that
Apple‘s products are objectively
better, and any attempt to convince them otherwise is pointless.
A simple claim of better, even with the rational evidence to
back it up, can create desire and
even motivate a decision to buy, but it doesn‘t create loyalty. It
is the cause that is represented
by the company, brand, product or person that inspires loyalty.
Knowing your WHY is not the only way to be successful, but it
is the only way to maintain a
lasting success and have a greater blend of innovation and
flexibility. When a WHY goes fuzzy,
it becomes much more difficult to maintain the growth, loyalty
and inspiration that helped drive
the original success.
Consider the classic business school case of the railroads. If
they had defined themselves as

being in the mass transportation business, perhaps their
behavior would have been different.
Perhaps they would have seen opportunities that they otherwise
missed. Perhaps they would
own all the airlines today.
In all cases, going back to the original purpose, cause or belief
will help these industries adapt.
Instead of asking, ―WHAT should we do to compete?‖ the
questions must be asked, ―WHY did
we start doing WHAT we‘re doing in the first place, and WHAT
can we do to bring our cause to
life considering all the technologies and market opportunities
available today?‖
Chapter 4: This Is Not Opinion, This Is Biology
A very basic human need, the need to belong, is not rational,
but it is a constant that exists
across all people in all cultures. It is a feeling we get when
those around us share our values
and beliefs. When we feel like we belong, we feel connected
and we feel safe. As humans we
crave the feeling and we seek it out. No matter where we go, we
trust those with whom we are
able to perceive common values or beliefs.
We want to be around people and organizations who are like us
and share our beliefs.
When a company clearly communicates their WHY, what they
believe, and we believe what
they believe, then we will sometimes go to extraordinary
lengths to include those products or
brands in our lives. This is not because they are better, but

because they become markers or
symbols of the values and beliefs we hold dear. Those products
and brands make us feel like
we belong and we feel a kinship with others who buy the same
things.
The principles of The Golden Circle are much more than a
communications hierarchy. Its
principles are deeply grounded in the evolution of human
behavior. The power of WHY is not
opinion, it‘s biology. The levels of The Golden Circle
correspond precisely with the three major
levels of the brain.
The Neocortex, corresponds with the WHAT level. The
Neocortex is responsible for rational and
analytical thought and language. The middle two sections
comprise the limbic brain. The limbic
brain is responsible for all of our feelings, such as trust and
loyalty. It is also responsible for all
human behavior and all our decision making, but it has no
capacity for language.
When we communicate from the outside in, when we
communicate WHAT we do first, yes,
people can understand vast amounts of complicated information,
like facts and features, but it
does not drive behavior. But when we communicate from the
inside out, we‘re talking directly to
the part of the brain that controls decision-making, and our
language part of the brain allows us
to rationalize those decisions. The part of the brain that controls
our feelings has no capacity for
language. It is this disconnection that makes putting our
feelings into words so hard.

When a decision feels right, we have a hard time explaining
why we did what we did. Again, the
part of the brain that controls decision-making doesn‘t control
language, so we rationalize.
It‘s not that people don‘t know, it‘s that they have trouble
explaining why they do what they do.
Decision-making and the ability to explain those decisions exist
in different parts of the brain.
Whether you defer to your gut or you‘re imply following your
heart, no matter which part of the
body you think is driving the decision, the reality is it‘s all in
your limbic brain.
Our limbic brain is powerful, powerful enough to drive
behavior that sometimes contradicts our
rational and analytical understanding of a situation. We often
trust our gut even if the decision
flies in the face of all the facts and figures.
Our limbic brains are smart and often know the right thing to
do. It is our inability to verbalize the
reasons that may cause us to doubt ourselves or trust the
empirical evidence when our gut tells
us not to.
Companies that fail to communicate a sense of WHY force us
to make decisions with only
empirical evidence. This is why those decisions take more time,
feel difficult or leave us

uncertain. Under these conditions manipulative strategies that
exploit our desires, fears, doubts
or fantasies work very well.
Decisions started with WHY—the emotional component of the
decision- and then the rational
components allowed the buyer to verbalize or rationalize the
reasons for their decision.
This is what we mean when we talk about winning hearts and
minds. The heart represents the
limbic, feeling part of the brain, and the mind is the rational,
language center.
Absent a WHY, a decision is harder to make. And when in
doubt we look to science, to data, to
guide decisions. Companies will tell you that the reason they
start with WHAT they do or HOW
they do it is because that‘s what their customers asked for.
Great leaders and great organizations are good at seeing what
most of us can‘t see. They are
good at giving us things we would never think of asking for.
Because our biology complicates our ability to verbalize the
real reasons why we make the
decisions we do, we rationalize based on more tangible factors,
like the design or the service or
the brand. This is the basis for the false assumption that price or
features matter more than they
do. Those things matter, they provide us the tangible things we
can point to to rationalize our
decision-making. But they don‘t set the course and they don‘t
inspire behavior.
As an example, the makers of laundry detergent asked

Marcia Moment The Death of the Manage-Me WorkplaceT

Marcia Moment The Death of the Manage-Me WorkplaceT

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Marcia Moment The Death of the Manage-Me WorkplaceT

Similar to Marcia Moment The Death of the Manage-Me WorkplaceT (8)

More from MoseStaton39

More from MoseStaton39 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Marcia Moment The Death of the Manage-Me WorkplaceT