Who gets to be a Servant Leader?
By Suru Douglas, Senior Group Director, Real Chemistry
Should “servant leadership” have a resurgence because we need it in a low-trust world? According to the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer, employers rank among the most trusted institutions globally, often ahead of government and media. As confidence in public institutions fragments, people are retreating into smaller circles of trust: their employers, their managers, their immediate teams. That shift changes the weight carried by business Leadership.
At the same time, organisations are navigating artificial intelligence, economic volatility, geopolitical uncertainty and rising workforce expectations. Command and control leadership have not disappeared. In moments of crisis, clarity and decisiveness still matter. But sustainable performance cannot be commanded into existence.
Gallup’s 2025 State of the Global Workplace report found that only 21% of employees worldwide are engaged. 70% of team engagement is attributable to the manager. Engagement influences productivity, retention and profitability. In that context, leadership is not only about strategy. It is about whether people trust those making decisions.
Trust grows when people believe power is being used in their interest rather than simply imposed upon them. This is where servant leadership becomes relevant. First articulated by Robert K. Greenleaf, servant leadership argues that a leader’s primary responsibility is to serve the growth and success of others. It redefines authority. Power is used to develop capability rather than concentrate control. Servant leadership therefore offers a credible response to both declining trust and rising complexity.
But there is a question that deserves equal attention.
Who, exactly, is being asked to serve?
In many corporate environments, women and people of colour are frequently over indexed on mentoring, culture building and emotional intelligence. Much of this work is essential, yet it is rarely the work most visibly rewarded.
In that context, the call to “serve more” does not sound visionary. It sounds familiar. The world may need more humility. But humility is not equally distributed.
When misapplied, servant leadership risks becoming another way of asking those still fighting for institutional credibility to give more of their time and energy. It can subtly reinforce hierarchy: the powerful retain structural advantage while the conscientious absorb the burden of culture-building.
True servant leadership assumes power first. It is the responsibility of those with decision rights, budget control and promotion authority. It asks them to use power to expand opportunity and not simply preserve position.
If business now functions as a social anchor in a low trust environment, then responsibility must sit alongside power. Those with the most authority must be the most intentional about how they deploy it.
The debate, then, becomes not whether servant leadership is relevant in business but whether we are directing it at the right audience.
If you are still fighting to be heard, servant leadership may not be for you. Visibility, sponsorship and strategic self-advocacy might be.
In a low-trust world, leadership is no longer only about delivering shareholder returns. It is about stewarding influence responsibly. We do need more servant leadership. But we need it most from those who hold the most power. Servant leadership is not a call for the already stretched to stretch further. It is a call for those with authority to carry more of the weight in championing and advocating for others. That is how trust as a society is rebuilt.