When I created the Humanistic Leadership Model (HLM), I didn’t set out to add “one more theory” to the already crowded field of leadership studies. I built it out of lived experience — the losses, struggles, and breakthroughs that shaped how I see what sustains both people and organizations over time.
Over the years, I’ve been asked often: How does Humanistic Leadership compare to other well-known models? In particular, people want to know how it relates to Servant Leadership, Transformational Leadership, and Authentic Leadership.
Here’s how I see it.
Servant Leadership
Robert Greenleaf first articulated Servant Leadership in the 1970s. At its core, it asks leaders to put people first — to serve rather than rule. This emphasis on humility, empathy, and empowerment has inspired generations of managers and executives.
I admire the servant leadership tradition. The idea of leading through service resonates deeply with me. Where I diverge is in the language of “servanthood.” In practice, leaders need more than humility; they need self-awareness and systems thinking to navigate complexity.
In my own career, I’ve seen leaders who were generous servants but blind to how decisions in one area caused ripple effects elsewhere in the system. Humanistic Leadership insists on both: care for people and conscious awareness of the wider system in which they live and work. It’s not just about serving others — it’s about understanding the whole context.
Transformational Leadership
James MacGregor Burns and later Bernard Bass introduced Transformational Leadership in the late 20th century. The idea is simple: great leaders inspire people with vision and charisma, mobilizing them toward higher levels of performance and commitment.
I’ve coached many leaders who embodied transformational qualities. They could captivate a room, rally teams, and ignite change. But charisma alone is fragile. I once worked with a leader who inspired her staff with bold vision, yet when challenges emerged, the team struggled because the foundation wasn’t sustainable.
Humanistic Leadership shifts the focus. Instead of centering on a heroic figure at the top, it asks: How do we create sustainability for both people and organizations? Charisma can light the fire, but systems thinking and humanistic practices keep it burning without consuming people in the process.
Authentic Leadership
In the 2000s, scholars like Bruce Avolio and William Gardner advanced Authentic Leadership. It emphasizes self-awareness, values alignment, and leading in a way that is consistent and genuine.
This idea of “being true to yourself” is important. But authenticity alone can go wrong. I’ve met plenty of leaders who were “authentically themselves” in ways that created harm. A bully who is “true” to his personality is still a bully.
That’s why Humanistic Leadership goes further. Authenticity must be anchored in humanistic principles — respect, empathy, and a commitment to human dignity. Otherwise, it risks being morally neutral. Humanistic Leadership sets a higher bar: not just “be yourself,” but “be your best human self, in service of others and the system.”
What’s Unique About Humanistic Leadership
For me, Humanistic Leadership stands apart because it integrates soul and system.
- The soulful side asks leaders to reflect deeply on who they are, what they value, and how their lived experiences shape their leadership. It emphasizes self-awareness as the foundation.
- The system side demands that leaders understand how decisions ripple across an organization — how processes, policies, and structures affect people over time. It insists on sustainability: not just short-term profit or performance, but the long-term flourishing of both people and the organization.
This is what I mean when I say Humanistic Leadership is about more than results or relationships. It’s about building sustainable leadership that honors the human spirit while guiding complex systems responsibly.
A Personal Note
My relationships with my parents were often complicated and strained. By contrast, my grandparents (Gamp and Gam) were a steady source of warmth and wisdom. Living in that tension—love that felt difficult in one place and deeply safe in another—shaped my view of leadership. It taught me to center human dignity, practice empathy without naïveté, and build systems that don’t depend on charisma but on care and consistency.
I’ll be honest: the Humanistic Leadership Model doesn’t yet have the decades of empirical research behind it that transformational or authentic leadership enjoy. It’s newer, more practice-driven, and more personal. But that’s also its strength. It wasn’t designed in a lab. It was forged in classrooms, workshops, coaching sessions — and in the messy, soulful journey of my own life.
Why This Matters Now
We are living in an age of burnout, disconnection, and ethical lapses. The dominant models of leadership that emphasize only metrics, efficiency, or hierarchy are not enough. Humanistic Leadership does not reject results — but it insists that results achieved without sustaining people are ultimately unsustainable.
In this sense, the Humanistic Leadership Model is not just another leadership style. It’s a moral practice. It reframes leadership as the work of sustaining both people and systems for the long haul.
Closing Reflection
Leadership is not a technique. It’s a practice of honoring the human spirit while guiding complex systems toward sustainability.
That’s what I mean by Humanistic Leadership.