Rethinking Leadership: Service, Power, and the Corporate Reality

“When power floats without accountability.”

Ever since my graduation days, one subject has followed me like a shadow I could never outrun: leadership. I have read obsessively—books, case studies, theories, frameworks—trying to decode that one persistent question: Is leadership something you are born with, or something painfully built through training and self-improvement?

For a long time, I accepted the textbook answers. Then I stopped believing them.

Because the deeper I went, the more uncomfortable the realization became. Leadership, historically, doesn’t emerge in a vacuum. It often rises from oppression, imbalance, or social injustice. When systems fail people, leaders appear—sometimes as protectors, sometimes as products of the very inequality they claim to solve.

Yet in the contemporary corporate world, the leaders we admire, quote, and glorify seem to follow a very different trajectory. They didn’t necessarily rise because a system was broken; they rose because they were handed the right opportunities at the right time. And that’s where my discomfort begins.

Were those opportunities fairly distributed?
Or are we simply watching social inequality rebranded as merit?

There are polarized opinions on this, of course. But one framework stands tall, almost unquestioned, as the gold standard of “good leadership”: Servant Leadership.

The Servant Leadership Conversation We Love—But Rarely Live

Let me ask you something—and I’ll answer it myself.

Have you noticed how often “servant leadership” is celebrated in global corporate settings?
All the time.

Have you actually seen it practiced consistently?
Almost never.

Servant leadership sounds poetic. The leader serves the people. The leader places themselves second. The leader exists to elevate others. But step into most corporate environments and what do you see instead?

Control.
Hierarchy.
Compliance disguised as empowerment.

Let’s not sugar-coat this. Much of modern corporate leadership feels autocratic—just wrapped in softer language. In my opinion, this is a form of intellectual imperialism: a system imposed on human thinking to normalize control while convincing people they are free.

You might disagree. Many will. And that’s fine.
But I don’t want to live in a fantasy world where comforting words replace uncomfortable truths. Truth is rarely sweet. Fiction usually is.

A Case Study We All Admire: Sundar Pichai

Now let’s talk about someone almost universally respected: Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google and its parent company, Alphabet.

His story is powerful. A middle-class upbringing in Tamil Nadu. A strong academic journey. Stanford. Wharton. A career breakthrough that culminated in leading one of the most influential organizations on the planet.

On paper, Sundar Pichai is a textbook example of behavioral leadership theory in action—particularly the people-oriented and transformational approach. He is often described as a leader who empowers teams, aligns individual goals with organizational objectives, and fosters inclusion, collaboration, and ethical decision-making.

And to be clear: I have nothing against him. In fact, I have immense respect for what he has achieved.

But respect should never cancel critical thinking.

So let me ask the uncomfortable question:

If servant leadership truly places the leader after the team, why do we constantly spotlight the individual at the top?

Why We Obsess Over Leaders at the Top

Let’s be honest—really honest.

We read about global business leaders because, consciously or not, we want what they have. Wealth. Influence. Security. Legacy.

The lives of Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Henry Ford, or Mark Zuckerberg inspire millions—not just because of leadership philosophies, but because of outcomes.

Money. Power. Reach.

So here’s the question we rarely ask loudly:

Are we admiring leadership principles—or the rewards of the system?

And if servant leadership is genuinely practiced, why do those rewards remain concentrated among the same tiny group?

The 1% Problem Servant Leadership Never Explains

This is where theory and reality violently collide.

Servant leadership claims to promote equal opportunity, shared growth, and collective development—not just professionally, but financially. Yet what do we observe?

A widening gap.

Out of billions of people, only a fraction—mostly the top management of massive conglomerates—accumulate extraordinary wealth, influence, and security. Meanwhile, the people who supposedly benefit from empowerment remain replaceable, expendable, and structurally distant from the rewards.

Here’s the part that troubles me most:

There is no clear framework explaining how this disparity aligns with servant leadership.

On what basis are opportunities “equal”?
Who defines growth?
Who decides which voices truly matter?

When empowerment does not translate into comparable economic mobility, can we still call it service—or is it simply efficient workforce management dressed in moral language?

Theory vs. Practice: The Bitter Gap

Leadership literature praises people-oriented behavior. Participation. Inclusion. Ethical decision-making. Support for personal goals.

And yet, in practice, the system itself remains unchanged.

Hierarchy survives.
Power concentrates.
Control adapts.

The leader may listen—but the system still decides.

That’s why I question whether these leadership narratives are genuinely practiced or strategically circulated to maintain order. Not out of malice—but out of design.

A Closing Thought That Should Make Us Uncomfortable

If leadership does not produce comparable growth for the person at the bottom and the person at the top, what exactly are we celebrating?

If service ends where profit begins, is it service at all?

Maybe servant leadership can exist—but not comfortably inside a system obsessed with infinite profit and exponential growth. Maybe that’s the real tension we avoid discussing.

So here’s the question I’ll leave you with—no sugar-coating, no safe conclusions:

Can a true servant leader survive in a system that rewards control more than care?
Or is servant leadership destined to remain a beautiful story we tell ourselves while the pyramid stays exactly where it is?

Think about it.
Disagree with me.
But don’t stop questioning.