First things first:
“Leadership” is not a per se “good” thing. And “leadership” is not a per se “bad” thing. Properly implemented, leadership is not an “end thing” in-and-of-itself at all, but rather a “means” to an end-thing.
Leadership is a means (or method) to or toward an end-thing, the objective.
Leadership without clear vision to an objective is blind, and the ditch of folly awaits. [1.1] Indeed, leadership may be a cause, as such, and, indeed, leadership may be an effect, as such, but leadership is not the end-goal itself.
And, if it is, something is wrong.
Years and years of common-think intelligentsia and academic “leadership” bookselling have conflated the personal “success,” “self-improvement” and “self-help” genre with “leadership,” which is a correlated, but distinct, concept.
“I want to be a leader,” says the student.
“Be very careful with that statement,” says the Master, perhaps Master Yoda with a “Dark Side” reference. [2, MUID181X]
Achieving personal excellence—however defined—is noble, if not self-interested. Whether it is wise depends upon the type of excellence and the purpose.
It is understandable and encouraged that, like Abraham Lincoln, we should want to read every book we can get our hands on. Indeed, whether we frame it as leadership, success, self-improvement, self-help, or social-psychology 101, Master Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People is a masterpiece in essential technique. It might be likened to the introduction for an aspiring master carpenter on how to use a buzzsaw or some other powerful tool. “Remember names,” Master Carnegie teaches on about Page 1, no less than, “Remember to plug it in.” [MUID166X, MUID58X]
But these and similar teachings are about the “how” not the “why.” They are about the technique, not the purpose. They are about the means, not the end. And, understanding the means to an end without understanding the end is folly.
When we talk about “leadership” today—and we talk a lot about it—we’re usually talking about the “science and art of influence over others.” But let’s be very careful with that statement, and let’s be very careful about the subtlety of our conversation. [3]
If we are asked on a job interview, “Why are you a great leader?” it’s a fair and common question—such as some questions are—but let us defer the response, letting our question loom for a moment.
We recognize that principles of leadership have been around sort of forever. Human leadership is a form of social human nature—for a context—that requires no academic basis to exist. Even lions and tigers, and bears and birds, have leaders, with different context criteria, of course. Mother Nature herself wants order, with leadership being one of her methods. [4]
If the apocalypse hit and destroyed all recorded knowledge, human leaders would still naturally arise, from scratch. No education required. No paid-for books or paid-for courses or paid-for seminars required. Sure, E=MC2 might be gone as mathematics, but not leadership. Leadership is a natural condition with or without academic structure. Someone might even posit that any academic structure that does not comport with a basic common sense of the subject of leadership is doing more harm than good.
There is a need or desire. Someone rises as the leader who is perceived to be best suited to accomplish satisfaction of that need or desire, and the context provides framework. Leadership arises like a human tool—or weapon—as a means to an end. Like a tool, the leader stays around as long a there is a use case. Of course, the tool—or leader—may receive the benefit of accolades, shining, and oiling, but that’s merely incidental.
Yes, it might be that leadership in some contexts requires academic training, like the smartest scientist in a group of scientists, but that is a particular implementation of the formula, not the formula itself—the arguments, not the parameters.
If we walked up to Julius Caesar, or Attila the Hun, or Napoleon, and started talking about “Inspirational Leadership,” “Servant Leadership,” “Charismatic Leadership,” (or “tall man dominance leader theories,” or “short man overcompensation leader theories” or “nurturing empathy mother leader theories”) they would probably just stare at us curiously—perhaps ridiculing us for nonsense—and then tell us to stop wasting their time, because there’s too much to do. If we’re lucky, we would stay alive.
Moreover, if we walked up to Jesus, or Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, Jr., and started talking about such things, they might just stare at us, and thank us, and then ask us to excuse them, because there’s too much to do. Thusly, the adage, “Dum scolaris studiis liber, frater eius manet in fossa.“ (“While the scholar studies the book, his brother remains in the ditch.“)
Einstein without a book is one thing. A carpenter without a hammer is one thing. But the rise of Julius Caesar is not the same thing. Leaders will arise. Who arises is a different question. Why the leader arises is a different question. But the leader will arise, by the best fit to the human need or desire—in context—by the self-interest of the relevant grouping. No paid “leadership course” or “degree” required.
Now, in truth, not all leaders are “naturals,” meaning that no training is required. Some people are naturally suited for a leadership role, but context begs the question: charisma goes a long way in politics, and smarts goes a long way in science, and, if you’re Neil deGrasse Tyson, two thumbs up.
Developing human excellence is about placing nurture onto nature, making it better. “Polished brass will pass upon more people than rough gold,” said Lord Chesterfield. But the essential issue is the difference between necessity and preference. A leader will arise, and it might be that a polished leader will arise and be preferred over a natural but untrained leader, but that’s not the essential point. The essential point of distinction is that a leader will arise either way, for better or worse.
Therefore, we have the core question: Why are we socially fixating on per se “leadership” these days?
“I want to be a leader,” says the student. “Leadership is influence. Influence is power. Power is good. I want power, so I want to be a leader.”
We need to be very careful with that thinking. [MUID183X]
When we talk about leadership to a goal or objective (being to satisfy a need or desire), we start with a presupposition of a question that has properly confounded philosophy—in a good way—which is: What is good?
This precise question of “what is good” is a matter addressed in Conflation of Character [*3], not to repeat here, so we will proceed with the understanding that, from the absolute perspective of any group, satisfying their need or desire is “good” to them, whether or not it is philosophically settled, or that it is conformed to an external social definition or standard. That is, a group of addicted persons might determine that their arisen leader is best suited to acquire the satisfaction of that addiction for them, even if not “good” from some other perspective. [5] A leader will arise with perhaps all the relatively “bad” characteristics [*3], but will still arise. The leader who feeds the addiction for the group will be blessed and thanked. Some addictions are only more subtle than others. [6, 7]
The destination may not “be good” to some people for a lot of reasons, but leadership is a technique or a tool, not an objective. Thus, once-again, “Scientia ducendi est quomodo aeroplanum volat, non quo volat.” (“The science of leadership is how the plane flies, not where it flies.”) [*3, 7a]
Now, let us take a step back. In my own travails of teaching a leadership graduate master degree course at a Catholic institution, the students often include priests and candidates for priesthood. This vocation and the intention that it presumes is generally most noble. Often enough, these students introduce themselves thusly:
“I want to be a servant leader.“
Uh-oh. I expect this statement is presupposed to be a “good” thing for the course, as is now widespread and customary in “leadership” training. For my course, not so much. It’s only a slight one-off, and I’ll suggest that we need to be very careful with that statement.
Servant leadership, like many of the other new “types of leadership” taught in our schools—that we certainly could try to explain to Julius Caesar, Attila the Hun, and Napoleon, if we dared—or even Plato, Aristotle or Cicero—are spliced and diced for our students. So be it, the rain falls on the good and bad alike. [1.2]
But this relatively recent term “Servant Leader” should perplex all philosophers worth their salt [1.3] such as it is also for the new branded leadership term “Emotional Intelligence.” [8, *2] The term “Servant Leader” is perhaps not catastrophically oxymoronic, but rather perhaps catastrophically redundant.
If we do not perceive the catastrophic issue with the term “Servant Leader” in its very essence as a concept, something is gravely wrong with us culturally. Do I need to explain?
Such as it is for the new branded term that sells a lot of books, “Emotional Intelligence,” it is not the essential concept of “Servant Leadership” but rather the misleading terminology that tends naturally to adduce bad common-think. The term “Servant Leadership” as an analytical pedagogical concept misplaces the focus of the pedagogy into a sole unique vertical framework of selflessness.
And, yes, just like “Emotional Intelligence,” the term “Servant Leadership” brings out even more of that today common-think empathetic compassionate attribute “lead-from-behind” “bottom-up” leadership. [9] To this, I demur, but we might consider not mentioning it to Julius Caesar.
Of course, great philosophers have addressed the concept of leadership, particularly in social and political settings, and it is handled differently by different philosophers. [10] But, a common denominator tends to appear: the goal of the Common Weal; that is, the goal of leadership—the “good end”—serves society, or at least the political state. [11, 12, 13]
Plato, though Socrates, said in effect that virtuous people don’t seek rule for themselves, but rather are compelled to the task by duty to society, without personal desire for political power. They rule only because they recognize it is necessary for the good of the city:
“But we must not allow those who are going to be guardians to be unwilling to rule… their chief concern must be for the welfare of the city, not for their own.”
(Republic, Book I, 347c, Book VII, 519e)
Different philosophers get to the end differently, with different definitions of “virtue” but the abstract goal tends to be the Common Weal, irrespective of motivation and technique. [*11, *12, *13] For example, a Neitszchean or Ayn Randean might argue that the power of self by the acquisition of leadership technique is necessary, but the end would still be in the interest of the Common Weal. [MUID184X]
But, the question remains: “What is really being served by the leadership?” What is “the end” for it?
If the end of leadership is not ultimately selfless, then it is not virtuous. If leadership is not virtuous, then it is improper as a systemic educational framework, as such. The pedagogical framework is built in virtue or it is not, and, if not, the schools are teaching sophistry or trickery, or treachery, or the technical means and manner of self-interest, or success-think, but they are not teaching virtue. Virtue is the alpha and the omega of leadership, or should be.
In a Socratic manner, for better or worse, I have often challenged the thinking that anyone should ever “want” to become a leader in the first place, if the intention is misplaced or directed to the end of self. The best leaders should endure leadership and not desire it, or desire it only as a means to satisfy a good social end by the society that gives leadership its existence. [14]
Behold, the contented but unhappy leader, governed by duty. [*11] Gandhi was not too happy starving, Lincoln did not look too happy managing the death of a Civil War, Caesar was not too happy in Gaul, nor Washington in Valley Forge, nor Jesus on the cross, nor Socrates drinking hemlock, nor Martin Luther King, Jr. during his protest marches. Leadership, properly exposed, is endurance of self-sacrifice, not self-pleasure. It is oft the happy leader who is a tyrant or trickster.
By application of definition, leadership is a social construct, not an individual construct. Therefore, all leadership—properly implemented and socially responsible—is servant leadership. Accordingly this branded term by the “leadership intelligentsia” is yet another misnomer. The term “Servant Leadership” implies itself as special, by dichotomy, when it is not. Servant Leadership is not special, but common. Servant leadership is not vertical, but horizonal.
Every leader is a servant leader, directly or indirectly, serving to satisfy a social need by virtue of an implementation to an objective by selfless application. If the leadership does not serve a good objective, then it is not leadership as connoted, but merely that element of leadership that is moving people, a self-interested trick or treachery.
Therefore, better dichotomies are more properly Virtuous Leadership v. Vicious Leadership (Self-Interested Manipulation), True Leadership v. False Leadership (Self-Interested Manipulation), Love-Of-Others Leadership v. Love-Of-Self Leadership, or best of all: Leadership v. Nothing.
Leadership is a social construct that has a concomitant social duty. [15]
Servant leadership is leadership itself.
Therefore, there is one and only one goal for self, “I want to do good.” That is all there is to the entire subject.
Contrary to selfish, self-interested, common-think, what naturally must follow to do good may be to lead, to follow, or to get out of the way.
[16] With some hope that the priest entering my course with “I want to be a servant leader,” would exit the course with, “I want to do good and learning more about leadership techniques may help me to do good.” A subtle but important distinction.
The primary objective of leadership is the “good”—the Common weal—not the leadership. [*16]
“Of all the tasks which fall to the lot of the virtuous citizen, none is more excellent or more binding than that of sustaining the well-being of the state.” ~ Cicero
[1] The ONE LinkedIn Reference Set [GRZ183] [LinkedIn #GRZ_183] 1.1 ONE: 1325 [T15:14] (“Blind Lead Blind-Ditch“); 1.2 ONE: 535 [L6:32] (“Rain on Good and Bad Alike“); 1.3 ONE: 485 [M5:13] (“Salt of Earth“)
[3] Critical Thinking and the Conflation of Character, Integrity, Goodness and Virtue [GRZ148] [LinkedIn #GRZ_148]
[4] The Reason Why Political and Economic Systems Fail; The Executive Summary [GRZ145] [LinkedIn #GRZ_145]
[5] Why the Walt Disney Company is the Most Dangerous Company in the World [GRZ146] [#GRZ_146]
[6] Dependency. Or, He Who Feeds Us Enslaves Us – No. 64. The Dog and the Wolf – The Essential Aesop™- Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_64] [Linked #GRZ_98_64]
[7] He Who Feeds Us Enslaves Us – The Business of Aesop™ No. 64 – The Dog and the Wolf [GRZ42X] [LinkedIn #GRZ_42]
[7a] The Lincoln Leadership Dilemma; Or, The Primary Objective [GRZ176] [LinkedIn #GRZ_176]
[8] The Demise of Wisdom by Emotional Intelligence…But Arise Hope, with Intelligent Emotions [GRZ161] [Linked #GRZ_161]
[9] The Rise of the American Hermaphrodite; Or, the Tending Shift of Cultural Narrative Since c.1950. [GRZ210] [LinkedIn #GRZ_210]
[10] Trump v. Lincoln- The Over-Man v. The Philosopher King – Nietzsche v. Socrates – Machiavelli v. Everyone; Or, Political Philosophy 101 [GRZ220] [LinkedIn #GRZ_220]
[11] The Doctrine of the Infant Soldier; Or, The Duty of Everyone [GRZ251] [LinkedIn #GRZ_251]
[12] The Tarpeian Rock; Or, America’s Hard Decisions [GRZ205] [LinkedIn #GRZ_205]
[13] The Political Leadership Narrative; Or, “Don’t Worry, This Won’t Hurt a Bit.” [GRZ207] [LinkedIn #GRZ_207]
[14] The Proseuché (The Prayer of Socrates) Ch. VII [Quid Pro Quo] [GRZ153] [LinkedIn #GRZ153]
[15] VI. Simulation and Dissimulation; Or, The Art of the Lie. – Back to Basics Abridgement Series [GRZ190] [LinkedIn #GRZ_190]
[16] Are You Running With Your Shoes Untied? – Or, the Despise of Failure by Self-Inflicted Wounds [GRZ208] [LinkedIn #GRZ_208]
“Dum scolaris studiis liber, frater eius manet in fossa.“ (“While the scholar studies the book, his brother remains in the ditch.“); “Scientia ducendi est quomodo aeroplanum volat, non quo volat.” (“The science of leadership is how the plane flies, not where it flies.”) ~ grz
[MUID181X] (“Let go of everything you fear to lose.”)
[MUID166X] (Shakespeare, Henry VI, Mark Antony, “How I moved them.”
[MUID58X] Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (St. Crispin Day Speech)
[MUID183X] – Thank You For Smoking “Everyone has a mortgage to pay.”
ChatGPT Review
Gregg Zegarelli’s article “Servant Leadership; Or, A Designation Without Distinction” is a methodical dismantling of contemporary leadership rhetoric, particularly the uncritical glorification of “leadership” as an end-in-itself. He pursues this critique through a disciplined philosophical structure, aligning with his broader pedagogical and civic ethos, which centers on duty, virtue, clarity of language, and the peril of cultural self-deception.
I. Pedagogical Structure
Zegarelli’s teaching method here follows a Socratic-dialectical progression, augmented by his trademark style: juxtaposing ancient wisdom with contemporary distortion, and deconstructing modern jargon through analytical logic.
1. Clarification of Terms
He begins by correcting category errors:
- Leadership is not inherently good or bad.
- It is a means, not an end.
- Without an objective, leadership becomes “blind”—the first red flag of folly (1.1).
This clarity is foundational to his pedagogy: students must first learn to un-conflate concepts. This aligns with earlier teachings in “The Conflation of Character” and “The Reason Why Political and Economic Systems Fail.”
2. Historical and Natural Grounding
He strips away modern pretenses by reminding readers that leadership is natural, primal, and context-driven:
- “No education required. No paid-for courses.”
- It is not a proprietary invention of academics, but something that would re-emerge even after an apocalypse.
This “natural condition” motif echoes throughout Zegarelli’s works, such as in “The Doctrine of the Infant Soldier”—where he stresses that social structures arise to meet needs, not because of theory.
3. The Perils of Misbranding
Zegarelli singles out “Servant Leadership” and “Emotional Intelligence” as terminological distortions. He asserts that these terms are:
- Either oxymoronic (servant–leader implying contradiction)
- Or redundant (since all true leadership serves something socially external)
His criticism is not of the substance, but of the pedagogy: false dichotomies mislead students. This is a critical theme across his ethos—see also “Simulation and Dissimulation” (GRZ190), where linguistic precision is necessary to prevent societal decay.
II. Integration into His Broader Ethos
Zegarelli’s argument fits squarely into his civil-philosophical ethos:
1. Leadership = Duty, Not Desire
Like in “The Prayer of Socrates” and “Trump v. Lincoln,” Zegarelli presents leadership as something that should not be pursued unless compelled by duty:
“The best leaders should endure leadership and not desire it.”
This reflects a Platonic and Socratic view of the Reluctant Guardian, one who serves not out of ambition but out of necessity—a repeating standard in Zegarelli’s moral archetypes (e.g., Lincoln, Gandhi, Socrates).
2. The Centrality of Virtue
He asserts: if leadership is not virtuous, it becomes a form of manipulation:
“Virtue is the alpha and the omega of leadership.”
This recalls his teachings in “The Political Leadership Narrative” and “Are You Running With Your Shoes Untied?”—where he warns of false leaders using techniques for selfish ends, creating systems of power unmoored from moral constraint.
3. The Danger of Leadership Fetishization
He implies that today’s obsession with “being a leader” is an ego-trap:
- It aligns more with Nietzsche’s “will to power” than with civic virtue.
- His critique implicitly rejects much of modern corporate “success-think” and self-help ideology, which sells the technique (“buzzsaw”) but ignores the purpose (“why build at all?”).
This criticism ties into his warnings in “Why the Walt Disney Company Is the Most Dangerous Company in the World” and “The Rise of Corporate Social Intimidation.”
III. Conclusion: The True Lesson
Zegarelli concludes with what might be seen as a pedagogical transformation:
“I want to be a servant leader.” → “I want to do good, and learning more about leadership techniques may help me to do good.”
That subtle shift is his entire thesis in one breath:
- Do not lead to lead. Do good. And lead if necessary to do that good.
- The role follows the purpose; the title is incidental, even burdensome.
This aligns with his broader teaching that titles, brands, and positions are hollow if not animated by moral substance.
IV. Final Take-Aways
- Leadership is a neutral tool, not an ethical endpoint.
- Servant leadership is not a unique form of leadership; it is leadership itself, properly understood.
- Leadership without a moral objective is manipulation.
- Students should be trained in purpose before technique.
- Language matters: when we mislabel, we mislead.
20250501.4o
Copyright 2025 Gregg Zegarelli
This Site https://greggzegarelli.com/adversity/servant-leadership-or-a-designation-without-distinction/
GRZ254.20250501 GRZUID254