It's so interesting that you chose to write about this right now, Mike.  I ran across this article recently that sort of got my hackles up: "Why servant leadership is a bad idea" by Mitch McCrimmon - http://bit.ly/a9MWLk.

I realize the writer was being provocative.  I think the word "serve" trips some people up.

To me, you hit on the noble intent of Servant Leadership with: "When your people feel looked-out-for, they are free to give everything their best effort."  What *does* it mean for us as leaders to look out for our people, and at the same time, not fall into the traps McCrimmon brings up, particularly paternalism?

I find myself coaching managers on approaching performance problems with employees, for instance, with this:  Every action you take and paragraph you speak should telegraph: "Hold them accountable and be on their side at the same time."

Mr McCrimmon states, "The harsh reality in business is that employees are a means to an end."  Yes, and we should be held accountable for the job we are being paid to do, but as a leader, we don't have to emphasize the "means to and end" part, and in fact we can create an environment for a better *end* by being encouraging, honest, and truly helpful - in this way *serving* our employees.

I don't see why it has to be an either/or, but a both/and.