Servant Leadership: Ontological Conflict
Upon receiving negative feedback from numerous surveys, a renowned healthcare institute, Cleveland Clinic, became concerned and sought to simultaneously improve the patient experience and the engagement of their employees by developing a new strategy (Patrnchak, 2015, p1). The institution inaugurated servant leadership into their organizational structure, changing the cultural dynamics for both employee and patient, which ultimately resulted in positive change for all stakeholders. The following analysis of a case study written by Patrnchak (2015) titled “Implementing Servant Leadership at Cleveland Clinic: A Case Study in Organizational Change” explores the problems faced by Cleveland Clinic. Additionally will be an examination of the strategic solutions the clinic utilized, including radical reconditioning. An article written by Ellikar (2016) titled “Understanding Ontological Conflict Between Servant Leadership and Organizations” will serve as a backdrop in examining the obstacles Cleveland Clinic’s leadership encountered while undertaking the change toward radical reconditioning. Furthermore, Ellikar’s (2016) article will reveal how the Cleveland Clinic leadership was successful in identifying and responding to the problems within the organization, and in implementing the principles of servant leadership.
The aforementioned negative feedback given to Cleveland Clinic was made apparent by the results of the Gallup Q engagement survey and the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers Systems (HCAHPS) survey. Among the problems faced by Cleveland Clinic in 2008 were the following:
the HCAHPS results indicated patient satisfaction was low,
employee engagement was merely within the 44th percentile,
the ratio of engaged to actively disengaged employees at Cleveland Clinic was 2.57:1, while the ratio was 9.5:1 amongst other esteemed universities (Patrnchak, 2015, p3).
As was reported by research conducted at the Harvard Business School, it is not surprising Cleveland Clinic’s low patient satisfaction was paired with disengaged employees; in 2005 a study done on the service industry asserted the existence of a significant correlation between favorable employee experiences and positive reviews from consumers (Gelade & Young, 2005; Patrnchak, 2015, p3).
In response to the identified organizational problems, the leadership of Cleveland Clinic developed a strategy in which they hoped the clinic would be recognized as a favorable place for their staff to both work and grow. The strategy was based upon the assumption that the work and engagement of the employees would determine the organization’s capacity to achieve their mission, and that the company would have to demonstrate heightened care for their staff for employees to become engaged in their work. Some methods the clinic intended to employ to demonstrate heightened care for their employees was inclusive of providing ample opportunities for their employees to develop both personally and professionally (Patrnchak, 2015, p4). The strategy developed by Cleveland Clinic’s leadership is in alignment with the principles of servant leadership which has been described as a leader tending to the needs of their subordinates before tending to their own needs, most commonly through offering humble support that nurtures the personal and professional development of their subordinates (Northouse, 2016; Wilson, 2017).
As measured by the HCAHPS and Gallup Q engagement survey, the company’s shift into servant leadership was a success. Further evidence of the clinic’s success is demonstrated in that according to the U.S. News & World Report, in 2013 Cleveland Clinic ranked #4 amongst the USA, but as of 2021, Cleveland Clinic was ranked #2 in the world, second only to Mayo Clinic (Patrnchak, 2015; World’s Best Hospitals, 2021). However, while the positive changes reported in the Gallop Q engagement survey and the HCAHP survey do not directly identify servant leadership as the cause of the aforementioned improvements to Cleveland Clinic’s performance, it can be deduced the impact of the organization’s utilization of radical reformation via adherence to servant leadership principles made a significant contribution to their current success (Patrnchak, 2015, p12).
While a healthcare institution such as Cleveland Clinic employs humanitarian workers [nurses, midwives, social workers, etc.], they are bureaucratic organizations, where servant leadership rarely exists (Wilson, 2017). It is a rarity for servant leadership to exist within corporate or bureaucratic organizations. However, the model of ontological conflict presented by Elliker (2016) purports that servant leadership ontology aims to generate a community of healthy new leaders, while organization ontology aims to achieve goals through clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and processes. Within the initial model of ontological conflict, the embryonic conflict between servant leadership ontology and organizational ontology is when the newly empowered subordinates present change to roles and processes at speeds beyond what the institution is capable of managing, which is one obstacle the leadership of Cleveland Clinic was likely to have encountered amidst the radical implementation of servant leadership (Elliker, 2016, p79).
Elliker (2016) suggests that for servant leadership to be sustained within the organization, a balance must exist, in which the empowered subordinates remain subordinates, and the bureaucratic organization doesn’t lose its capacity for flexibility (Elliker, 2016, p79). Further emphasis on the necessity for balance exists within Elliker (2016) stating that the best strategy for a servant leadership model to be sustained within a large bureaucratic organization such as the Cleveland Center is for servant leaders to exhibit self-sacrificing leadership that strays from both seeking power and independence (Elliker, 2016, p82).
While servant leadership is not often seen within large bureaucratic organizations, as Patrnchak’s (2015) case study depicts, there exists the potential for servant leadership to enhance the performance of an organization such as the Cleveland Clinic, by nurturing the wellbeing and growth of its subordinates. However, as Elliker (2016) asserted, the synchronicity of the servant leadership ontology and organizational ontology can only be sustained with conscientious balance performed by both leader and subordinate. Organizations of industries aside from healthcare and the social sciences, who are unafraid to embark upon radical reconditioning, might also experience the benefit of elevated feedback from both staff and consumers by adopting servant leadership. This leaves the question as to whether servant leadership might be effective in Project Management; it is certainly a leadership style counterintuitive to current ways of managing projects and programs, especially within organizations possessing a corporate or bureaucratic orientation.
To Cite this in APA7:
Drost, A.R. (2023). Servant leadership: Ontological conflict. The Braided Strategist. https://www.thebraidedstrategist.com/articles/servant-leadership-ontological-conflict
References
Elliker, J. (2016). Understanding ontological conflict between servant leadership and organizations. Servant Leadership Theory & Practice, 3(2), 72-89.
Gelade, G. & Young, S. (2005). Test of a service profit chain model in the retail banking sector. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 1–22. http://www.business-analytic.co.uk/article-spc.pdf.
Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patenchak, J.M. (2015). Implementing servant leadership at Cleveland Clinic: A case study in organizational change. Servant Leadership Theory and Practice, 2(1), 36-48.
Wilson, S.M. (2017). Servant leadership and social work careers. Pennsylvania State University. https://sites.psu.edu/leadership/2017/03/31/servant-leadership-and-social-work-careers/
World’s Best Hospitals 2021. (2021). Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/best-hospitals-2021
