Critical Analysis: Servant Leadership in Social Entrepreneurship

This report critically examines the servant leadership style of social entrepreneurs, focusing on the hidden aspects of power, manipulation, and control within this leadership model. Using qualitative data from social enterprises in Palestine and Lukes's third dimension of power framework, the report explores how the concept of 'service' in both social enterprises and servant leadership can be a form of subtle power. The analysis reveals a political model of servant leadership, illustrating how social entrepreneurs might exert power over their followers under the guise of social mission, value creation, and community service. The study highlights the potential for domination and control, suggesting that the outwardly altruistic nature of servant leadership may mask underlying power dynamics. The report contributes to the literature on leadership by investigating the darker side of servant leadership, particularly in the context of social entrepreneurship, and calls for empirical scrutiny of social enterprises, their objectives, and their leaders.

Copyright © 2020, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited
Chapter 4
73
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-7998-1108-4.ch004
ABSTRACT
This chapter critically examines the servant leadership style of social entrepre
Qualitative data from social enterprises in Palestine and Lukes third dimension
power framework are used to explore the intricate forces of power, manipulati
and domination hidden within the service and follower-oriented model of serva
leadership. Insights are provided on how the concept of ‘service’, the focal asp
in both social enterprises and servant leadership, could be another facet of sof
and insidious power exercised by the social entrepreneurs over their followers
political model of servant leadership is developed that demonstrates how socia
entrepreneurs could be imposing power and control over their followers under
guise of social mission, creation of social value, serving and empowering their
followers and the community.
Social Entrepreneurs
as Servant Leaders:
Revealing the Implied Nature of
Power in Servant Leadership
Devi Akella
Albany State University, USA
Niveen Eid
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0284-8155
Birzeit University, Palestine

74
Social Entrepreneurs as Servant Leaders
INTRODUCTION
In an effort, to move from the highly political and unethical business environm
ideologies pertaining to social enterprises and servant leadership have g
momentum. Social entrepreneurship is a phenomenon which combines the ide
of both private organizations and non-profit organizations, i.e., social mission a
a profit objective. Social enterprises have been described as a “radical innovat
in the nonprofit sector” (Dart, 2004, p. 411), as “innovative approaches for dea
with complex needs” (Johnson, 2000, p. 1) and the “answer to worklessness, s
isolation and inequality” (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Develop
2006 as cited in Bull, 2008, p. 268). These organizations primarily revolve arou
upliftment of the society, with a “tremendous hunger for doing things for other
(Saldinger, 2015, p. 1). Social enterprises undertake a strategic role in the eco
development of the society and its youth. The leaders of social enterprises bel
in service to the society and its citizens (Sabella & Eid, 2016). Social entrepren
thus are a special type of entrepreneurs, a “special breed of leaders” (Dees, 1
p. 6) who are motivated and passionate about service to the community, creat
social value by addressing and resolving social problems and providing service
the poor (Seelos & Mair, 2005). Social entrepreneurs thus show an affinity tow
servant leadership, where the leaders are also “affirmative builders of a better
(Greenleaf & Spears, 2002, p. 24).
It was Greenleaf (1977) who first coined the oxymoron term of “Serv
Leadership”, to describe a leader whose chief motive was to serve as opposed
lead. A leader who placed the interests of others’ needs, aspirations and intere
above his/her own (Greenleaf & Spears, 2002). Servant leaders are esse
altruistic and moral people. These leaders have been described as stewards (B
1993; Senge, 1990), who regard their followers as their responsibility. The role
the leader is that of a role model, a risk taker, a servant who promotes others
Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, 1997). Servant leaders are valu
character-driven, performance and process oriented as well. Individuals who a
driven by inner motivation, possess a shared vision, with the ability to develop
hone the talents of others. They strive to serve, add value and make a differen
(Eva, Mulyadi, Sendjaya, van Direndonck & Liden, 2018; Page & Wong, 2002; v
Dierendonck, 2010).
“Social entrepreneurs [thus] may have specific leadership attributes that all
classifying them as servant leaders” (Petrovskaya & Mirakyan, 2018, p. 755). I
other words, social entrepreneurs or rather good and ethical entrepreneurs ca
conceptualized as good leaders or servant leaders (Petrovskaya & Mirakyan, 2
However, recently questions have been raised about the problematic i
surrounding social enterprises (Akella & Eid, 2018; Bull, 2008; Dey & Steyaert,

75
Social Entrepreneurs as Servant Leaders
2012). Social enterprises, it has been argued possess all ingredients of a “dang
ideology” which requires reconciling two contrasting ideologies such as ‘social
and ‘enterprises’, i.e., social mission with profit objectives (Bull, 2008). Social
enterprises use market-based solutions to achieve social agendas and m
(Dart, 2004). This could result in social enterprises behaving as “businesses cl
to the private system…” (Pearce 2003 as cited in Bull, 2008, p. 269) thereby r
questions about different aspects of social entrepreneurship and strongly advo
for critiques which would bring social enterprises, their objectives (Dey & Stey
2012) and their leaders under empirical scrutiny (Klotz & Neubaum, 2016; Mill
2015; Reid, Anglin, Baur, Short & Buckley, 2018).
This chapter will add towards the literature on leadership styles of so
entrepreneurs by critically investigating the servant leadership style of s
entrepreneurs. Servant leadership and its various facets are examined under t
critical lens of power, domination and manipulation to understand how s
entrepreneurs effectively manage their followers to fulfill the social mission an
profit objectives of their organizations. Furthermore, there are very few critica
studies which investigate sensitive but significant issues pertaining to the dark
of the servant leadership style of social entrepreneurs i.e., issues pertaining to
role of power, control, influence and domination (Klotz & Neubaum, 2016; Mille
2015; Reid et al., 2018). For instance, it can be argued that the exterior façade
the spiritual side of servant leadership could be camouflaging another st
invisible form of domination and control. Power can also be exerted while serv
the employees, the organization and the community at large. Service need no
an attitude of servility instead it could be another facet of power and its dimen
(van Dierendonck, 2010).
This chapter develops an empirically oriented power framework which facili
an understanding of the power dynamics behind the social entrepreneur’s goa
service and development of followers. The chapter will integrate Lukes (1974;
and his arguments of third dimensional power to understand power and its intr
forces within this leadership model concerned with service and development o
followers. Qualitative data gathered from two case studies, in the form of sem
structured and in-depth interviews with the owners and senior executives of tw
social enterprises in Palestine will be used to deconstruct the servant leadersh
style of social entrepreneurs.
BACKGROUND
Entrepreneurs are usually concerned with discovering business opportunities a
exploiting them to earn profits (Santos, Caetano, Baron & Curral, 2015; Shane

76
Social Entrepreneurs as Servant Leaders
Venkataraman, 2000). In contrast social entrepreneurs, in addition to earning
have a social mission involving solving social problems within the society and
creation of a social value (Gurvits, Nikitina-Kalame & Sidorova, 2015; Iyengar,
2014; Petrovskaya & Mirakyan, 2018). Social entrepreneurs respond to the ma
institutional and state failures by establishing and operating commercial enter
which contribute towards the upliftment of the society. More emphasis is laid o
social values, social returns and social impacts instead of profitability (Iyengar
2014). These entrepreneurs use business acumen to tackle a variety of social
existing within the society such as poverty, hunger, lack of education and heal
facilities and caring for the environment (Fowler, 2000). The focus of these soc
enterprises is on “creation of viable socio-economic structures, relations, instit
organizations and practices that yield and sustain social benefits” (Fowler, 200
p. 649). Social entrepreneurs thus are sensitive to the suffering experien
people within a society (Petrovskaya & Mirakyan, 2018). They possess persona
characteristics such as empathy (Mair & Noboa, 2003), compassion (Miller, Gri
McMullen & Vogus, 2012) and altruism (Tan, Williams & Tan, 2005).
These entrepreneurs are focused on helping people in the society, a concep
element which integrates them with the style of servant leadership. Servant Le
describes a leadership style where the leader places emphasis on serving his/h
followers. Greenleaf (1977) constructed this entire notion based on Herman He
story, “Journey to the East”. In this story there are a band of men who go on a
mythical journey, where the central figure is Leo who accompanies the band in
capacity of a servant. Leo happens to have extraordinary presence whose valu
appreciated when he disappears, and the entire group falls apart. Later the na
the story finds out that Leo was the titular head of the Order, a great and noble
Servant leadership is also rooted in the religion of Christianity and the teachin
Jesus Christ. It was Jesus Christ who taught his disciplines the concept of serva
leadership. His words were “I am among you as one who serves” (The Holy Bib
Luke 22, p.27). Here the greatness of a leader was measured in terms of his/h
ability to serve his/her employees or followers. A leadership philosophy where
leaders were interested in transforming their followers to become “healthier, f
autonomous and more likely themselves to become servants” (Greenleaf, 197
p. 13-14). The leader here is a servant first “…one [who] wants to serve…then
conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead…the difference manifests itself in
care taken by the servant—first to make sure that other people’s highest prior
needs are being served” (Greenleaf, 1977, p. 13).
Servant leadership attributes include humility, trust, integrity, serving other
needs before one’s own, collaboration, unconditional love and learning (Bucha
1998; DePree, 1992; Graham, 1991; Spears, 1998), modeling, pioneering, teac
and delegation, credibility, visibility, influence and appreciation of others (Russ

77
Social Entrepreneurs as Servant Leaders
2000; Russell & Stone, 2002). The new roles of leaders are that of coordinating
facilitating, coaching, supporting and nurturing the employees, ensuring open
effective communication and resolving intergroup conflict (Wong & Page, 2003
There is a clear emphasis on the service aspect, within the organization- servic
the followers, outside the organization- service to the stakeholders, to the com
and to the society (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). Servant leaders aim at creation
better society by serving others (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006).
Servant leadership in this chapter is approached from a contingency perspe
or a skill-based ideology. Social entrepreneurs are conceptualized as servant le
in terms of their behavior as a leader, which is dependent on the leader’s valu
followers’ expectations from the leader as social beneficiaries and the failure o
society and government in solving social issues such as poverty and unemploy
However, it can’t be denied that the concept of servant leadership does ove
with other types of leadership styles such as transformational, ethical, virtuous
authentic in terms of the moral dimension and commitment to the followers. F
instance, like transformational leadership, servant leadership is also follower c
and people oriented, encompassing concepts such as vision, trust, integrity, m
and credibility (Stone, Russell & Patterson, 2004). However, while the focus of
transformational leadership is on engaging followers to support the objectives
the organization. Servant leaders focus more on service, building an environm
of trust for their followers and in their professional development (Greenl
1977). Ethical leadership is a combination of transformational leadership with
strong ethical foundation where the leader demonstrates “normatively approp
conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships and [promot
such conduct to the followers through two-way communication, reinforcement
decision-making” (Brown, Trevino & Harrison, 2005, p. 120). For servant leade
as well, ethics is an important component in their dealings with their followers
stakeholders and with the society at large. But the essence of servant leadersh
is on the element of service in the leader-follower relationship which is not the
basis of ethical leadership. In ethical leadership, in the context of leader-follow
relationships, it is more about moral values and open dealings with one’s follow
(Reddy & Kamesh, 2016). Similarly, authentic leadership as a leadership const
incorporates morals, integrity and concern for others. Authentic leaders encom
attributes such as hope and trust, being self-aware and true to oneself (Brown
Trevino, 2006; Crawford, Dawkins, Martin & Lewis, 2019). The focus here is on
the leader and his/her characteristics, being “deeply aware of how they think a
behave” and are perceived by their followers in terms of moral values (Avolio,
Luthans & Walumbwa, 2004, p. 4). Service to others is not the core co
here. Another style of leadership, gaining a major foothold within the theories
leadership is virtuous style of leadership (Newstead, Dawkins, Macklin & Martin

78
Social Entrepreneurs as Servant Leaders
2019), where virtues such as fairness, justice, care and integrity are fundamen
be considered a good leader. A virtuous leader is a leader who by integrating g
values enables “eudemonia” or a prosperous and flourishing society (Newstea
et al., 2019). Virtuous leadership concentrates on explaining how virtues inste
of service to followers are relevant in the creation of a thriving society. Servan
leadership’s focus is on the attention given to the followers, in the interest sho
the leaders in nurturing and developing their followers to their full potential (R
et al., 2018). The interests of the followers are given priority over the leader’s
interests. The servant leader gives importance to helping others and on develo
the resources of the community (Reid et al., 2018). Hence, the service aspect
servant leadership, makes it different from other moral forms of leadership sty
such as ethical, virtuous, authentic and transformational (Reid et al., 2018).
Servant leadership’s concern for social service and welfare and its stewards
dimension (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011) binds it to social entrepreneursh
Social entrepreneurship discusses the role of the leader at the external enviro
level, social impact in terms of opportunity exploitation and establishment of b
ventures with a social purpose (Reid et al, 2018). While servant leadership dea
with the social agenda at the internal organizational level, in terms of manage
of followers, relationships with stakeholders and the society. In other words, bo
social entrepreneurship and servant leadership are driven by social mission, w
former is at the entrepreneurial level, the later is at the leadership level (Petro
& Mirakyan, 2018). There is thus a strong likelihood that “…social entrepreneu
be an appropriate population where servant leaders may be located” Petrovsk
Mirakyan, 2018, p. 762). It can therefore be surmised that social entrepreneur
social enterprises with their agendas of social mission and economic developm
lend themselves to the study of servant leadership.
However, in spite of social entrepreneurship’s affiliation to being “goo
entrepreneurs and of servant leadership to being “good” leaders, who are con
about their followers, community and the society (Petrovskaya & Mirakyan, 20
The concept of social entrepreneurship is “poorly defined” trying to merge two
irreconcilable terms such as “social” and “enterprise” (Bull, 2008; Mair & Mart
2006). The fact, cannot be ruled out or ignored that social entrepreneurs desp
having the term ‘social’ in front of ‘entrepreneurship’, are still entrepreneurs w
operate businesses where the element of profit is intact (Peredo & McLean, 20
Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum & Shulman, 2009). In other words, social entrepre
can be motivated by concepts similar to traditional entrepreneurs (Peredo & M
2006; Zahra, et. al, 2009) like generation of profits and control of employees. T
loosely juxtaposition of social and profit agendas within social entrepreneurshi
has strongly advocated the need for research projects especially empirically d
which critically analyze the concept of social entrepreneurship, features of soc

79
Social Entrepreneurs as Servant Leaders
enterprises, their leaders and their leadership styles (i.e., servant leadership) (
& Eid, 2018; Bull, 2008; Dey & Steyaert, 2012).
But there has been a singularly lack of debate in the form of critical studies
social enterprises (except to mention a few such as Akella & Eid, 2018; Bull, 20
Dey & Steyaert, 2012) and their leaders and their leadership style, in this cont
servant leadership (excluding a few like Wong & Page, 2003; Christman, 2007
Minnis & Callahan, 2010). In fact, issues pertaining to power and domination h
largely remained sidelined in empirical studies pertaining to social enterprises
leadership styles (Reid et al., 2018). But ironically even social entrepreneurs n
to use power over their followers, even if it is an altruistic style of leadership li
servant leadership. Of course, leaders do not have to always use strict and exp
techniques to influence subordinates and one’s followers. But leadership can b
tough, power can still be exercised, control still be maintained, and reg
domination still be sustained under the domain of servant leadership. For insta
servant leadership covers two areas: servanthood and leadership. Servanthood
covers responsibilities pertaining to developing people and in helping build the
organizations. The emphasis is on visioning, teambuilding, training and motiva
While leadership revolves around establishment of the business, developing pe
valuing people, building community, displaying authenticity and integrity and
leadership and decision making (Wong & Page, 2003). The servant leader build
community which believes in shared vision, s/he relinquishes control and legiti
authority (Peck, 1997). Leaders are no “longer bosses, commanders, controlle
big shots. Instead they are supporters, partners and providers” (Kouzes & Posn
1993, p. 7). A servant leader just needs greater leadership skills, in the area of
relationships, to seek employee obedience. The exterior façade of spiritual pow
could be camouflaging another stronger invisible form of domination and contr
As aptly remarked “a leader is best when people barely know that s/he exits. N
so good when people obey and acclaim him. Worse when they despise him [sic
If you fail to honor people, they [will] fail to honor you. But a good leader, who
talks little, when his work is done, his [sic] aim fulfilled they will all say, we did
this ourselves” (Lao Tzu cited in Wong & Page, 2003, p.11). Power can be exer
through service to the employees, the organization and to the community at la
Service need not imply an attitude of servility instead it could be another facet
power and its dimensions (van Dierendonck, 2010).
The objective of this chapter is not to measure the traits nor the behavior of
social entrepreneurs, but the types of power dimensions used by them to acco
their goals and objectives and to ensure the cooperation of their followers in to
The next section explores different types of power and which facet of power is
appropriate for social entrepreneurs in fulfilling their leadership responsibilitie

80
Social Entrepreneurs as Servant Leaders
MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER
This chapter develops a political model of servant leadership which demonstra
positive exercise of invisible and insidious power used by social entrepreneurs
Lukes (1974; 2005) third dimension power and empirical analysis of qualitative
gathered from two social enterprises located in the West Bank region of Palest
To explore the power dimensions of servant leadership, it is essential to stu
less visible dimensions of power, operating collective forces and social arrange
to suppress potential issues and avert conflict by helping to shape men’s [sic]
and preferences and acting against their real interests” (Lukes, 1974, p. 10). L
(1974) argues that both one dimensional (Dahl, 1961) and two-dimensional po
(Bachrach & Baratz, 1962) frameworks are too committed to the study of over
behavioral conflicts, and tend to ignore how power can be used to prevent con
from arising in the first place. However, power can also be a process whereby
is possible to shape the cognitions, preferences and perceptions of individuals
promote the interests of one group over the other (Lukes, 1974; Tilly, 1991). L
(1974, 2005), Nye (1990); Gaventa (2006) and Gramsci (1971), Foucault (1977
conceptualized and discussed such forms of latent and invisible power mechan
These power philosophies question “how can willing compliance to dominat
secured?” (Lukes, 2005, p. 10). If domination and influence hurt, why do indivi
comply? Why don’t they rebel or resist it? Lukes (2005) argues that power is m
than saying “A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary
B’s interests. Power is a capacity not the exercise of that capacity (it may neve
be, and never need to be, exercised), and you can be powerful by satisfying an
advancing others’ interests” (Lukes, 2005, p. 12). This is just one type of powe
the domination form. In this exercise of power, the domination force, the follow
beliefs and values are shaped, so as to believe that this is the way of doing thi
no other way exists. Followers therefore consent to this domination and influen
even when coercion is lacking. For instance, John Stuart Mill’s (1869) account o
the subjection of Victorian women and Pierre Bourdieu study where all followe
see their subjugated condition as natural and fail to recognize their true desire
beliefs. The followers have forgotten their autonomous state of mind, and willi
accept their leader’s vision as destined and natural. Again, the example of cas
system in Hinduism, where a genuine consensus was reached on different valu
With a complete acceptance of the societal hierarchical levels by the lower cas
(Srinivas, 1962).
This would constitute the third dimension of power in working which mislead
people’s judgement and works against their free judgements. Power here conc
real interests of individuals and in a subtle fashion guides them on the path of
leader’s judgement and beliefs. “Men make their own history, but they do not

81
Social Entrepreneurs as Servant Leaders
it just as they please, they do not make it under circumstances chosen by them
but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the
(Marx, 1976, p. 15). People here don’t have any problems or grievances yet th
are interests that have been harmed. Power here “is an exercise [which] preve
people, to whatever degree, from having grievances by shaping their percepti
cognitions and preferences in such a way that they accept their role in the exis
order of things, either because they can see or imagine no alternative to it, or
they see it as natural and unchangeable or because they value it as divinely o
and beneficial” (Lukes, 2005, p. 28; Gaventa, 1980; 2006).
This is similar to Nye’s (1990) ideology of soft power, an alternative to hard
power, the power of attraction—“the ability to shape what others want” (Bilgin
Elis, 2008, p. 11), “…can rest on the…ability to manipulate the agenda of polit
choices in a manner that makes others fail to express some preferences becau
they seem to be too unrealistic” (Nye, 1990, p. 7). Similarly, Gramsci (1
defined hegemony as a process where “the intellectual, moral and philosophic
leadership provided by the class or alliance of class and class fractions which i
ruling, successfully achieves its objectives of providing the fundamental outloo
for the whole society” (Bocock, 1986, p. 63).
Hegemony was effective in enforcing the beliefs and values of the dominati
group but with the active consent of the entire organization (Clegg, 1989). Exa
of hegemonic control can be seen in schools, unions, mass media and the chur
In these situations, leaders just don’t respond to their subjects but also shape
preferences as well. For instance, in schools “where the entire adult population
been subjected to some degree of indoctrination” (Dahl, 1961, p. 317). Similar
examples of power exercises can be seen in teaching, mentoring, parenting, th
and apprenticeship relationships.
Power thus as domination could restrain people and their choices, secure th
compliance, dictate over their own nature and judgement. Power could constra
the choices of other individuals and secure their compliance. To control, domin
subjugate and conform them, seek their acquiescence and compliance.
METHODOLOGY AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
Qualitative methodology encompassing the case study design was used to inv
power dimensions within servant leadership style of social entrepreneurs. Case
method is appropriate when trying to understand the issues pertaining to “why
and “how” (Merriman, 1998; Stake, 1998; Yin, 2003). It allows the researchers
gain perceptions about servant leadership from the social entrepreneurs them
And provides insights on the opinions and explanations of the social entrepren

82
Social Entrepreneurs as Servant Leaders
regarding their roles, functions and responsibilities and whether their style of l
imposes power and control over the employees. Further within the case study
it is possible to use multiple sources of evidences like interviews, physical artif
and archival records (Yin, 1989). Six in-depth, semi-structured interviews were
conducted. The two enterprises were contacted for in-person interviews with t
owners and other senior executives by the secondary author. The two cases st
used in this paper were identified from a group of four cases through a snowba
technique. The two case studies could be considered as a pilot sample
could pave the way for further analysis and investigation on other leaders of so
enterprises in Palestine and in other countries. Both the enterprises are situate
the West Bank villages of Taybeh and Birzeit in the district of Ramallah. Both t
social enterprises have been operating in Palestine for a period of more than s
years and are primarily concerned with resolving social issues within the regio
These organizations will be referred to as SE1 and SE2. SE1 was an organizatio
concerned with revitalizing an entire town, rebuilding its infrastructure, develo
the commercial, cultural and economic structure of the region and increasing t
within that area. While SE2, the other social enterprise was interested in increa
non-violence and disseminating peace in that geographical area and creating j
opportunities for the youth.
All interviews were undertaken by the secondary author, were tape-recorde
lasted for sixty to ninety minutes. The interviews were in Arabic language and
translated into English during the time of transcription. The secondary author a
reviewed newsletters and other forms of documentation published by and on t
two social enterprises to get an overview of their leaders. She emailed all tran
and her observations to the first author who analyzed the entire empirical data
transcripts were thematically analyzed.
The data analysis started by reviewing the interview transcripts. The intervi
transcripts were read and then reread, and several codes were extracted. Exa
of codes which emerged throughout the empirical analysis included: ‘visioning
‘building community’, ‘developing people’, ‘initiative’, ‘teamwork’, ‘partnership
‘social gaps/problems’, ‘strategize’, ‘resources’, ‘entrepreneurship’, ‘leader’. N
commonalities and differences were identified, the themes were revised and t
categorized under three broad emerging themes. Servant leadership encompa
leadership qualities of possessing a shared vision, being consistent and
practicing open and clear communication with a personal conviction in one’s b
and ideas, qualities which overlap with other leadership styles such as authent
and ethical leadership styles. However, servant leaders in addition need to pos
traits which enable service to one’s followers, such as listening skills, empathy
awareness, persuasion ability, foresight, commitment to the community and to
growth of others and stewardship (Greenleaf, 1977). The entire concept of ser

83
Social Entrepreneurs as Servant Leaders
leadership can be understood using three themes which encompass a servant
responsibilities, the service aspect unique to this style of leadership and strate
used to influence and control one’s followers i.e., three themes of Leade
Servanthood and Third Dimension Power which provide insights on the basic is
being investigated within this chapter. These three themes will be discussed n
Leadership
The leadership process for social entrepreneurs started with an objective to re
social gaps left unresolved by the government within the economy. As stated d
the interview:
Solving social problems, it is a crucial priority under this poor and unstable pol
economic and social context. Our organization tries to solve bits and pieces of
social gaps that are underemphasized by the formal parties such as the govern
and the other NGOs. (SE1)
All business endeavors of SE1 and SE2 revolved around serving people and
society and in building strong communities.
We feel that we are socially responsible for helping our community prosper an
Because people in this country live in extremely stressful and unsafe condition
to the occupation and the poor economic downturns. We are here as positive s
agents this is the core value where our work stands for and is created from. (S
The social entrepreneurs had visions for the society, towards its uplift
helping its citizens and generating methods to transform the economy. For ins
the owner of SE2, was a priest who resided in Taybeh, a small Christian village
middle of Palestine. He truly believed in the philosophy of non-violence and pe
and this became his sole inspiration in starting social enterprises.
I served for over 13 years in Taybeh village a small Christian village in the mid
Palestine and that has religious history. I created the enterprise because I beli
that I have a philosophy of life that should be communicated to my chapel and
youth citizens, this philosophy is the philosophy of non-violence and dissemina
peace…. (SE2)
This dream and vision motivated him to start new projects, at least one eac
So that he could provide employment to Palestinian youth and eliminate immig

84
Social Entrepreneurs as Servant Leaders
and brain drain from that region. He was referred to as “businessman of hope”
he liked this name because he wanted to serve humanity.
I dream that every year I should start at least one project so that I can employ
people, generate profits…. My aim is that the projects should succeed to elimi
unemployment and immigration… People call me “the business man of hope”
liked this nick name and accepted my role as a human to serve others through
projects… I spread hope through this small social enterprise... (SE2)
The social entrepreneurs in the identified case studies achieved their
mission and agendas through shared leadership and decision making, collabor
and cooperation, participation and consensus with an emphasis on service to o
The social entrepreneur sought the support of his/her employees by inculcatin
strong beliefs and values of openness, empathy and a willingness to share one
experiences. The leader here encouraged equal participation, took up the role
coach and mentor who shared his/her knowledge and provided constructive fe
to his/her followers (Senge, 1990; Spears, 1995; 1998). The leader respected h
her followers and they in return trusted him/her.
People at SE1 have shared strong beliefs and values of sharing, giving, empath
openness…We encourage participation and knowledge sharing, we are cooper
not competitive, we help weak people and respect individuals as human being
Servant leadership tapped into the spiritual side of the social entrepreneurs
emphasized philanthropy and service allowing them to earn the trust and resp
of their followers. The social entrepreneurs emerged as genuine and authentic
wanting to serve and help others. As the owner of SE2 told the authors:
… they think I don’t find time to sleep. … I tell them I sleep endlessly because
having fun in what I am doing. The secret of success is to love what you do….
The leaders took the initiative, invested funds, tapped into their social netw
and worked hard to transform the society. The owner of SE2, the priest publish
articles about the current situation in Palestine. He arranged for visitors to visi
Taybeh to increase tourism within the region. His words were:
I also published articles in a national newspaper about the people, history, poli
and economic and social situation in the country.... I therefore, created outrea
through the publications via the website and the other channels. Using my net