Servant leadership

Last updated

Servant leadership is a leadership philosophy in which the goal of the leader is to serve. This is different from traditional leadership where the leader's main focus is the thriving of their company or organization. A servant leader shares power, puts the needs of the employees first and helps people develop and perform as highly as possible. [1] Instead of the people working to serve the leader, the leader exists to serve the people. [2] As stated by its founder, Robert K. Greenleaf, a servant leader should be focused on "Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?" [3]

Contents

When leaders shift their mindset and serve first, they benefit as well as their employees in that their employees acquire personal growth, while the organization grows as well due to the employees' growing commitment and engagement. Since this leadership style came about, a number of different organizations including Starbucks and Marriott International have adopted this style as their way of leadership. [4]

According to a 2002 study by Sen Sendjaya and James C. Sarros, servant leadership is being practiced in some of the top-ranking companies, and these companies are highly ranked because of their leadership style and following. [1] Further research also confirms that servant leaders lead others to go beyond the call of duty. [5]

History

Before the modern popularity of the concept of "leadership", [6] the autocratic enlightened absolutist King Frederick II ("the Great") of Prussia (r. 1740–1786) famously portrayed himself as "the first servant of the state". [7]

The roots of the concept can be seen in much earlier texts. For instance, the Bible contains the following teaching of Jesus Christ:

And Jesus called them to him and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

— Mark 10:42–45 ESV [8]

Robert K. Greenleaf first popularized the phrase servant leadership in "The Servant as Leader", an essay published in 1970. In this essay, Greenleaf explains how and why he came up with the idea of servant leadership, as well as defining a servant leader. Greenleaf gave this idea an extensive amount of thought before bringing it to life.[ citation needed ] Larry Spears, CEO of the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, stated in an interview:

"Greenleaf credited his reading of Hesse's 1932 book, Journey to the East , as the personal source of inspiration in his coining the term, 'servant-leader' in his 1970 essay, The Servant as Leader." [9]

In Journey to the East, the main character, named Leo, is a servant just like all the others. All the servants work well together, until one day when Leo disappears. When the servants realize that things are not the same without Leo, they came to the realization that Leo was far more than a servant – he was actually their leader. [10] [11]

Greenleaf came to the realization that a newfound leader should be someone that servants or workers can relate to. [2] Leo was seen as a servant, but when the other servants realized that things fell apart without him, he became far more than just a servant to them. This is Greenleaf's idea of what a servant leader should be. [1] Greenleaf first put his idea of servant leadership to use in an organizational sense while he was working as an executive at AT&T. [1]

Servant leadership entered the arena of research in 1998 [12] with the publication of the first peer-reviewed servant leadership scale, and since then, over 270 peer-reviewed articles have been published across 122 academic journals. The year 2008 was a significant year in servant leadership research with the publication of two seminal papers by Sen Sendjaya, James C. Sarros, and Joseph C. Santora [13] as well as Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson, [13] and the first publications using Ehrhart's (2004) measure. [14] [15]

Greenleaf's original formulation

The most important characteristic in being a servant leader, according to Greenleaf, is making one's main priority to serve rather than to lead. According to Ginny Boyum, Greenleaf proposed that servant leaders should serve first, make the needs of others their main priority, and find success and "power" in the growth of others; summarily, "A servant can only become a leader if a leader remains a servant". [3] In simpler terms, servant leaders should seek to be servants first, to care for the needs of all others around them, to ensure growth of future leaders. These traits indicate one is a servant leader because, overall, they are causing the ones they serve to become healthier and wiser, guiding others toward self-improvement. Eventually, the served are driven to possess the traits of a servant leader as well, continuing the spread of the leadership style. [3]

Greenleaf believed the betterment of others to be the true intention of a servant leader: "I serve" in opposition of the traditional "I lead" mentality. The "I serve" mentality is evident in politicians who define their role through public service. From the "I serve" mentality come two premises:

The first premise signifies the act of altruism. Altruism is defined as the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others. Greenleaf declares that servant leadership begins with the natural feeling of wanting to serve first. The act of leadership is in the context of serving others and to serve others. Only through the act of serving does the leader lead other people to be what they are capable of. The second premise of servant leadership ("I am the leader because I serve") begins with a rooted ambition to be a leader or personal ambitions of a leader. [16]

Greenleaf's definition left much room for speculation because it lacks specifics. Servant leadership is handled throughout the literature by many different dimensions. [12] Servant leadership represents a model of leadership that is both inspirational and contains moral safeguards, and in their paper, Mulyadi Robin and Sen Sendjaya proposes that servant leadership serves as a holistic paradigm for leadership as not only is it transformative and ethical, but also engages followers in workplace spirituality. [17]

Despite several conceptual papers on the topic of servant leadership, there is no consensus on empirical research for the servant-leadership construct until a state-of-the-art review published in 2020 by Nathan Eva, Mulyadi Robin, Sen Sendjaya, Dirk van Dierendonck, and Robert C Liden [12] in the Leadership Quarterly.

Formulations after Greenleaf

Scales and servant leadership extensions

Numerous different researchers and leadership experts have created scales and dimensions to differentiate between the levels of Servant Leadership practices as well as evaluate Servant Leadership behaviors.

Thoughts on servant leadership and further definitions

In addition to some early definitions and distinct characteristics of servant leaders, researchers and leadership experts have used research to add on to these. James Sipe and Don Frick, in their book The Seven Pillars of Servant Leadership, state that servant-leaders are individuals of character, those who put people first, are skilled communicators, are compassionate collaborators, use foresight, are systems thinkers, and exercise moral authority. Similarly, researcher Akuchie explored the religious and spiritual articulations of the servant leadership construct. Akuchie examined a single Bible passage related to servant leadership and suggested that the application of this lesson is for daily life. However, Akuchie did not, in any way, clarify servant leadership as distinct from other forms of leadership or articulate a framework for understanding servant leadership. [16]

In their review of the servant leadership literature, Eva, Robin, Sendjaya, van Dierendonk and Liden argued that for research, servant leadership should be defined as "an (1) other-oriented approach to leadership (2) manifested through one-on-one prioritizing of follower individual needs and interests, (3) and outward reorienting of their concern for self towards concern for others within the organization and the larger community." [12]

The authors proposed three key elements that captures the essence of servant leadership and set it apart from other leadership styles – namely the motive (the underlying personal motivation for taking up a leadership responsibility, requiring a strong sense of self, character, and psychological maturity), the mode (that they lead by prioritizing subordinates' needs above the organization's bottom line), and the mindset (that servant leaders are stewards who reorient their followers' focus towards others). In essence, servant leadership comprises the following: (1) someone or something other than the leader, (2) one-on-one interactions between leaders and followers, and (3) an overarching concern towards the wellbeing of the wider organizational stakeholders and the larger community. [12]

The appeal or, or preference to engage in, servant leadership may be influenced by leaders' personalities. The altruistic-nurturing personality type, as measured by the Strength Deployment Inventory show a strong positive correlation with servant leadership at 0.708. While leaders with different types showed correlations with other leadership styles. The assertive-directing type correlated with transformational leadership, analytic-autonomizing leaders correlated with transactional leadership, and those with a flexible-cohering type correlated with situational leadership. [20]

Critiques of servant leadership

Critiques of Greenleaf

Various critiques of servant leadership have been made. [21] In one such critique, Sendjaya and Sarros used the same Bible account as Akuchie, and made the claim that Jesus Christ, not Greenleaf, introduced the notion of servant leadership to everyday human endeavor. They argued that this leadership principle was so important to Christianity that it was captured by all four Gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). The researchers argued that servant leaders have a particular view of themselves as stewards who are entrusted to develop and empower followers to reach their fullest potential. However, Sendjaya and Sarros research work did not propose a testable framework nor did this work distinguish between this and other leadership styles. [16]

Feminist scholars have noted that servant leadership is based on patriarchal approaches to leadership, noting that leadership discourse in general is attributed with masculinity. [22] [23] Similarly, Black scholars have pointed out how notions of servants as being subjugated and mistreated is largely absent from servant leadership discourse. [24] Black scholars also note that although Greenleaf attributes his ideas to Hermann Hesse, Martin Luther King Jr. preached similar approaches and was a contemporary of Greenleaf in the United States, but King is never mentioned in any of Greenleaf's original works. [24]

Critiques of the approach

Researchers Farling, Stone, and Winston noted the lack of empirical evidence for servant leadership. The researchers presented servant leadership as a hierarchical model in a cyclical process. This consisted of behavioral (vision, service) and relational (influence, credibility, trust) components. However, this conceptualization made by these researchers did not differ from leadership theories such as transformational leadership. Researcher Polleys distinguished servant leadership from three predominant leadership paradigms: The Trait, Behavioral, and Contingency approaches to leadership. Polleys's views aligned with transforming leadership but, once again, made no distinctions among charismatic, transformational, and servant leadership. [16]

Risks and limitations of servant leadership with regard to ethical questions

In the leadership literature, servant leadership is often presented as a particularly ethical leadership style. [25] [26] A 2021 paper published in the Journal of Management History explained why servant leadership poses a number of risks and limitations, particularly with regard to ethical issues and dilemmas. [26] The researchers identified four main risks:

  1. The risk that the servant leader may have too narrow an understanding of "service".
  2. Servant leadership's ambiguity about morality/the moral content.
  3. The fact that servant leadership "relies on the moral framework" of the followers.
  4. The risk that servant leadership without the leader's motivation to serve will remain "up in the air", i.e., "detached from a clearly defined moral compass".

Experimental research and theory

Theoretical foundations

Servant leadership predominately draws on two social theories to explain how it influences follower behavior: social learning and social exchange theory. In servant leadership literature, the use of social learning theory argues that servant leaders are influencing their followers, as their followers observe and emulate the leader's positive behaviors. In contrast, social exchange theory is used to argue that a servant leader's followers are exhibiting positive behaviors due to the reciprocal relationship they develop with their leader. [27]

Employee organization commitment

While organizations thrive based on the work produced by the employees, the commitment of the employees to the organization is a major contributor to how well an organization functions. Research shows that management style is a main factor in sales person turnover. [1] When put into practice, servant leadership has a positive effect on a salesperson's turnover intentions because turnover is mainly associated with "the quality of the salesperson–supervisor relationship." [1] Due to servant leaders making their employees their main priority and placing their well-being above everything else, including the organization, the employees feel a sense of trust and a need to return the commitment and obligation that their employer has for them to the organization. [1] Likewise, servant leadership has a direct effect on employer brand perception, which in turn reduces employee job turnover. [2] According to Kashyap and Rangnekar, servant leadership molds organizations and builds a positive image for the organization. [2] This leads to turnover intention reduction in that the employees "... take pride in what they do and enjoy the company of people they work with". [2] Servant leaders are also seen as good role models in the eyes of their employees. [2] Because of this, employees begin to act as servant leaders themselves, and portray great commitment to the organizations where they see these behaviors and how they affect others around them. [2] The employees also stay at the organization so that they can see and learn more from their employer.

Employee life

Servant leadership practices appear to have an effect on the life of the employee, outside of the organizations that they are affiliated with. It has been concluded that employee perceptions of servant leadership practices and the support of employers and co-workers has a positive effect on an employee's family life. [3] Having their employer cater to their needs, in conjunction with supportive co-workers and staff, aids in lowering stress levels, which produces the desire to go home and cater to their family's needs. [3] In addition, servant leadership being the foundation of organizations is said to lead to employees having positive experiences and satisfaction in the work place, which in turn leads to "a transfer of positive experiences from the work role to the family role". [1] Servant leadership being practiced is said to decrease emotional exhaustion, which is the leading cause of employee burnout. [28] Servant leadership lessens the feeling of being "drained of inner resources", so employees experience an increase in work-to-family positive spillover (WFPS). [28] This decreased emotional exhaustion also leads to stronger marital relationships. [29] Moreover, employees feeling that their needs are made a priority in the workplace, as well as the feeling of being satisfied with their interactions at work on a daily basis, has an impact on their family's experience with them as they shift from the work role to the family role. [29] [3] [1] [28]

Job performance

Servant leadership also contributes to employees' goal achievement and success. As defined before, a servant leader's goal is to build upon the skills of their employees and make them better people. [30] With this trait, studies have shown that servant leaders have the ability to influence their employees to achieve their own goals as well as their work goals due to their leaders empowerment, and this plays a major role in their continued success and growth. [30] This outcome is expected because the servant leader's main concern is the well-being of their employees. [29] Likewise, servant leaders managing the work environment and things such as "rewards, deadlines, work allocation and performance evaluations" [29] has a positive effect on the well-being and satisfaction of employees because the practices of a servant leader deals with these aspects in a way that benefits the employees in every way possible. [29] Studies have also shown that leadership as a whole has an effect on employees' psychological health. [31] Studies have shown this in that the less strain on the employee and the more they assimilate at the organization, the better their psychological health. [31] Research has shown that though many organizations believe that the "top-down" way, or the leader prioritizing themselves and the organization and then the employees, is the best way to engage employees in their work, [32] servant leadership's "bottom-up" style, or prioritizing the needs of the employees first, causes employees to be more engaged in their work in that they feel that they have social support from their leader as well as their colleagues. [32] Overall, employees feeling a sense of support, as well as having a leader who does everything in their power to do things that are beneficial for the employees, contributes to heightened employee job performance. [30] [29] [32] [31]

Community citizenship behavior

Similar to servant leadership having an effect on employees' stress levels, it also affects them emotionally as well. According to previous research, servant leadership seems to have an effect on the emotional health of the employees because the servant leaders' reliance on "one-on-one communication to understand the abilities, needs, desires, goals, and potential of those individuals" [33] aids in the employees' ability to express themselves in the workplace. In turn, this nurturing leads to them returning the same nurturing towards their co-workers and making the workplace a suitable environment for employee growth, as well as the production of good quality work to grow the organization. [33] Organizations that do not practice servant leadership may discourage employees expressing their feelings in the workplace; however, servant leaders encourage this expression in order to prevent conflict. [33] Servant leaders also make a safe emotional work environment for employees by making acceptance a major goal. [34] Acceptance refers to having different personalities, personal views, and values as employees, and understanding that employees are not perfect. [34] They also create a psychologically ethical climate. [5] By doing this, servant leaders create a safe space where employees are able to be themselves and express their feelings, knowing that they can trust their leader to be non-judgmental. [34] Lastly, servant leaders are able to manage employees' behaviors by being forgiving. [34] Some employees may have personalities and/or characteristics that may lead to them doing or saying things to their leader that are unacceptable. However, servant leaders' being forgiving, and more importantly understanding, leads to employees being able to learn from their mistakes, hence their personal growth and changed behavior within the organization. [34]

Implications

Some argue that servant leadership is still going through the process of being accepted as a leadership theory because of Greenleaf's belief that servant leadership is a way of life rather than a systematized technique with a specific outline. [35] Although servant leadership was proposed many years ago, it is still considered a "newer" theory among many other theories because of the switch in focus from the traditional leadership theories. [36]

However, as demonstrated by Eva, Robin, Sendjaya, van Dierendonck, and Liden's review, research has established servant leadership as a valid construct that is worthwhile researching and implementing. [12] The authors state:

The review has demonstrated that the servant leadership field has made progress in the last 20 years, however, the field of servant leadership still has its critics. Namely, as there are still lingering questions the conceptual and empirical overlap between servant leadership and transformational, ethical and authentic leadership and there are criticisms about how much the existing research in this field can tell us as it is restricted by its own limitations in research design. Our view is that it would be premature to hit the restart button on the field. Many of the problems have arisen from poor construct clarity, poor measurement, and poor design. We hope by heeding the advice offered in this review to resolve these problems, the servant leadership research can move forward and continue to offer significant insights to the leadership field over the next 20 years.

See also

Related Research Articles

Industrial and organizational psychology "focuses the lens of psychological science on a key aspect of human life, namely, their work lives. In general, the goals of I-O psychology are to better understand and optimize the effectiveness, health, and well-being of both individuals and organizations." It is an applied discipline within psychology and is an international profession. I-O psychology is also known as occupational psychology in the United Kingdom, organisational psychology in Australia and New Zealand, and work and organizational (WO) psychology throughout Europe and Brazil. Industrial, work, and organizational (IWO) psychology is the broader, more global term for the science and profession.

Emotional intelligence (EI), also known as emotional quotient (EQ), is the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions. High emotional intelligence includes emotional recognition of emotions of the self and others, using emotional information to guide thinking and behavior, discerning between and labeling of different feelings, and adjusting emotions to adapt to environments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leadership</span> Quality of one individual or group influencing or guiding others based on authority

Leadership, is defined as the ability of an individual, group, or organization to "lead", influence, or guide other individuals, teams, or organizations.

In organizational behavior and industrial and organizational psychology, organizational commitment is an individual's psychological attachment to the organization. Organizational scientists have also developed many nuanced definitions of organizational commitment, and numerous scales to measure them. Exemplary of this work is Meyer and Allen's model of commitment, which was developed to integrate numerous definitions of commitment that had been proliferated in the literature. Meyer and Allen's model has also been critiqued because the model is not consistent with empirical findings. It may also not be fully applicable in domains such as customer behavior. There has also been debate surrounding what Meyers and Allen's model was trying to achieve.

The Pygmalion effect is a psychological phenomenon in which high expectations lead to improved performance in a given area and low expectations lead to worse performance. It is named after the Greek myth of Pygmalion, the sculptor who fell so much in love with the perfectly beautiful statue he created that the statue came to life. The psychologists Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson present a view, that has been called into question as a result of later research findings, in their book Pygmalion in the Classroom; borrowing something of the myth by advancing the idea that teachers' expectations of their students affect the students' performance. Rosenthal and Jacobson held that high expectations lead to better performance and low expectations lead to worse, both effects leading to self-fulfilling prophecy.

Power distance is the unequal distribution of power between parties, and the level of acceptance of that inequality; whether it is in the family, workplace, or other organizations.

Transformational leadership is a theory of leadership when a leader's behaviors influence their followers and inspire them to perform beyond their perceived capabilities. Transformational leadership inspires people to achieve unexpected or remarkable results. Transformational leaders work with teams or followers beyond their immediate self-interests to identify necessary change. They create a vision to guide the change through influence and inspiration. These changes are executed in tandem with committed group members and involve self-interests. This elevates the follower's ideals, maturity levels, and concerns for achievement. Transformational leadership is an integral part of the Full Range Leadership Model and gives workers autonomy over specific jobs, as well as the authority to make decisions once they have been trained. This induces a positive change in the followers' attitudes and the organization. Transformational leaders typically perform four distinct behaviors, known as The 4 I's. These behaviors are inspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

Workplace bullying is a persistent pattern of mistreatment from others in the workplace that causes either physical or emotional harm. It includes verbal, nonverbal, psychological, and physical abuse, as well as humiliation. This type of workplace aggression is particularly difficult because, unlike typical school bullies, workplace bullies often operate within the established rules and policies of both their organization and society. In most cases, workplace bullying is reported as being carried out by someone who is in a position of authority over the victim. However, bullies can also be peers or subordinates. When subordinates participate in bullying, this is referred to as ‘upwards bullying.’ The least visible form of workplace bullying involves upwards bullying where bullying tactics are manipulated and applied against a superior, often for strategically motivated outcomes.

A toxic leader is a person who abuses the leader–follower relationship by leaving the group or organization in a worse condition than it was in originally. Toxic leaders therefore create an environment that may be detrimental to employees, thus lowering overall morale in the organization.

Robert Kiefner Greenleaf (1904–1990) was the founder of the modern servant leadership movement and the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.

The leader–member exchange (LMX) theory is a relationship-based approach to leadership that focuses on the two-way (dyadic) relationship between leaders and followers.

Despite a large body of positive psychological research into the relationship between happiness and productivity, happiness at work has traditionally been seen as a potential by-product of positive outcomes at work, rather than a pathway to business success. Happiness in the workplace is usually dependent on the work environment. During the past two decades, maintaining a level of happiness at work has become more significant and relevant due to the intensification of work caused by economic uncertainty and increase in competition. Nowadays, happiness is viewed by a growing number of scholars and senior executives as one of the major sources of positive outcomes in the workplace. In fact, companies with higher than average employee happiness exhibit better financial performance and customer satisfaction. It is thus beneficial for companies to create and maintain positive work environments and leadership that will contribute to the happiness of their employees.

Workplace incivility has been defined as low-intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target. Uncivil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others. The authors hypothesize there is an "incivility spiral" in the workplace made worse by "asymmetric global interaction". Incivility is distinct from aggression. The reduction of workplace incivility is an area for industrial and organizational psychology research.

Workplace relationships are unique interpersonal relationships with important implications for the individuals in those relationships, and the organizations in which the relationships exist and develop.

An authoritarian leadership style is described as being as "leaders' behavior that asserts absolute authority and control over subordinates and [that] demands unquestionable obedience from subordinates." Such a leader has full control of the team, leaving low autonomy within the group. The group is expected to complete the tasks under very close supervision, while unlimited authority is self-bestowed by the leader. Subordinates' responses to the orders given are either punished or rewarded. A way that those that have authoritarian leadership behaviors tend to lean more on "...unilateral decision-making through the leader and strive to maintain the distance between the leader and his or her followers."

A leadership style is a leader's method of providing direction, implementing plans, and motivating people. Various authors have proposed identifying many different leadership styles as exhibited by leaders in the political, business or other fields. Studies on leadership style are conducted in the military field, expressing an approach that stresses a holistic view of leadership, including how a leader's physical presence determines how others perceive that leader. The factors of physical presence in this context include military bearing, physical fitness, confidence, and resilience. A leader's conceptual abilities include agility, judgment, innovation, interpersonal tact, and domain knowledge. Leaders are characterized as individuals who have differential influence over the setting of goals, logistics for coordination, monitoring of effort, and rewards and punishment of group members. Domain knowledge encompasses tactical and technical knowledge as well as cultural and geopolitical awareness.

Psychological safety is the belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes. In teams, it refers to team members believing that they can take risks without being shamed by other team members. In psychologically safe teams, team members feel accepted and respected contributing to a better "experience in the workplace". It is also the most studied enabling condition in group dynamics and team learning research.

Abusive supervision is most commonly studied in the context of the workplace, although it can arise in other areas such as in the household and at school. Abusive supervision has been investigated as major cause of negative outcomes in managing employees. Studies have been conducted to investigate the link between abusive supervision and different workplace events.

Narcissism in the workplace involves the impact of narcissistic employees and managers in workplace settings.

Machiavellianism in the workplace is a concept studied by many organizational psychologists. Conceptualized originally by Richard Christie and Florence Geis, Machiavellianism in psychology refers to a personality trait construct based on a cold, callous and exploitative orientation. It has been adapted and applied to the context of the workplace and organizations by psychology academics. Oliver James wrote on the effects of Machiavellianism and other dark triad personality traits in the workplace, the others being narcissism and psychopathy.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sendjaya, Sen; Sarros, James C. (September 2002). "Servant Leadership: Its Origin, Development, and Application in Organizations". Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 9 (2): 57–64. doi:10.1177/107179190200900205. S2CID   145320548.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kashyap, Vaneet; Rangnekar, Santosh (July 2016). "Servant leadership, employer brand perception, trust in leaders and turnover intentions: a sequential mediation model". Review of Managerial Science. 10 (3): 437–461. doi:10.1007/s11846-014-0152-6. S2CID   154621016.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Greenleaf, Robert (2007). "The Servant as Leader". Corporate Ethics and Corporate Governance. pp. 79–85. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70818-6_6. ISBN   978-3-540-70817-9.
  4. ↑ Li, Fengyu; Liu, Bing; Lin, Weipeng; Wei, Xin; Xu, Zikun (October 2021). "How and when servant leadership promotes service innovation: A moderated mediation model". Tourism Management. 86: 104358. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104358.
  5. 1 2 Sendjaya, Sen; Eva, Nathan; Robin, Mulyadi; Sugianto, Lyfie; ButarButar, Ivan; Hartel, Charmine (November 8, 2019). "Leading others to go beyond the call of duty: A dyadic study of servant leadership and psychological ethical climate". Personnel Review. 49 (2): 620–635. doi:10.1108/PR-08-2018-0285. S2CID   210538519.
  6. ↑ Ngram viewer
  7. ↑ Jacoby, Henry (1969). The Bureaucratization of the World . Translated by Kanes, Eveline L. Berkeley: University of California Press (published 1973). p.  31. ISBN   9780520020832 . Retrieved September 28, 2019. When Frederick II called himself the 'first servant of the state' in 1752, he recognized himself to be in an executive position over his 'royal servants.'
  8. ↑ "Bible Gateway passage: Mark 10:42-45 - English Standard Version". Bible Gateway. Retrieved May 5, 2023.
  9. ↑ Dittmar, James K. (September 2006). "An Interview with Larry Spears: President & CEO for the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership". Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 13 (1): 108–118. doi:10.1177/10717919070130010101. S2CID   143751887.
  10. ↑ The Servant Leader Within (PDF). Retrieved February 12, 2019.[ full citation needed ]
  11. ↑ Frost, Natasha (February 11, 2019). "The roots of "servant leadership" management culture date back to Hermann Hesse and a young Hillary Clinton". Quartz (publication) . Retrieved February 12, 2019.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Eva, Nathan; Robin, Mulyadi; Sendjaya, Sen; van Dierendonck, Dirk; Liden, Robert C. (February 2019). "Servant Leadership: A systematic review and call for future research". The Leadership Quarterly. 30 (1): 111–132. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004 .
  13. 1 2 Sendjaya, Sen; Sarros, James C.; Santora, Joseph C. (March 11, 2008). "Defining and Measuring Servant Leadership Behaviour in Organizations: Servant Leadership Behaviour in Organizations". Journal of Management Studies. 45 (2): 402–424. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00761.x. S2CID   142682870.
  14. ↑ Mayer, David M.; Bardes, Mary; Piccolo, Ronald F. (June 2008). "Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perspective". European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 17 (2): 180–197. doi:10.1080/13594320701743558. S2CID   37987560.
  15. ↑ Neubert, Mitchell J.; Kacmar, K. Michele; Carlson, Dawn S.; Chonko, Lawrence B.; Roberts, James A. (November 2008). "Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior". Journal of Applied Psychology. 93 (6): 1220–1233. doi:10.1037/a0012695. PMID   19025244.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ekinci, Abdurrahman (May 20, 2015). "Development of the School Principals' Servant Leadership Behaviors Scale and Evaluation of Servant Leadership Behaviors According to Teachers' Views". Ted Eği̇ti̇m ve Bi̇li̇m. 40 (179). doi: 10.15390/EB.2015.2152 .
  17. ↑ Robin, Mulyadi; Sendjaya, Sen (2019). "Looking Back to Look Forward: Lessons for Leadership Development". Leading for High Performance in Asia. pp. 159–184. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-6074-9_8. ISBN   978-981-13-6073-2. S2CID   159096544.
  18. ↑ Joseph J. Iarocci, Servant Leadership in the Workplace: A Brief Introduction (Atlanta: Cairnway, 2017), chs. 5, 6, 7.
  19. ↑ Sendjaya, Sen; Eva, Nathan; Butar Butar, Ivan; Robin, Mulyadi; Castles, Samantha (2019). "SLBS-6: Validation of a Short Form of the Servant Leadership Behavior Scale". Journal of Business Ethics. 156 (4): 941–956. doi:10.1007/s10551-017-3594-3. S2CID   149215766.
  20. ↑ Wilson, Lawrence; Cook, Jeramy; Teater, David (2018). "Motivations: Army Civilian Leadership Approach Antecedents". Social Science Research Network.
  21. ↑ Bradley, Yvonne (June 1999). "Servant Leadersip: A Critique of Robert Greenleaf's Concept of Leadersip". Journal of Christian Education. os-42 (2): 43–54. doi:10.1177/002196579904200207. S2CID   148091128.
  22. ↑ Reynolds, Kae (2014). "Servant-leadership: A feminist perspective". The International Journal of Servant-Leadership. 10 (1). Spokane: 35–63. doi:10.33972/ijsl.110. S2CID   143234909. ProQuest   2220696830.
  23. ↑ Eaton, Sarah Elaine (2020). "Challenging and Critiquing Notions of Servant Leadership: Lessons from My Mother". Women Negotiating Life in the Academy. pp. 15–23. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-3114-9_2. ISBN   978-981-15-3113-2. S2CID   216363779.
  24. 1 2 Marina, Brenda L. H.; Fonteneau, Debora Y. (April 1, 2012). "Servant leaders who picked up the broken glass" (PDF). Journal of Pan African Studies. 5 (2): 67–84. Gale   A306596714.
  25. ↑ Keith, Kent M. The Ethical Advantage of Servant Leadership: Guiding Principles for Organizational Success. Singapore: The Greenlead Centre for Servant-Leadership (Asia).
  26. 1 2 Langhof, J. G., & Gueldenberg, S. (2021). "Whom to serve? Exploring the moral dimension of servant leadership: Answers from operation Valkyrie". Journal of Management History. 27 (4): 537–573. doi:10.1108/jmh-09-2020-0056. S2CID   238689370.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  27. ↑ Madison, Karryna; Eva, Nathan (2019). "Social Exchange or Social Learning: A Theoretical Fork in Road for Servant Leadership Researchers". Leading for High Performance in Asia. pp. 133–158. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-6074-9_7. ISBN   978-981-13-6073-2. S2CID   151305496.
  28. 1 2 3 Tang, Guiyao; Kwan, Ho Kwong; Zhang, Deyuan; Zhu, Zhou (August 2016). "Work–Family Effects of Servant Leadership: The Roles of Emotional Exhaustion and Personal Learning". Journal of Business Ethics. 137 (2): 285–297. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2559-7. S2CID   143784904.
  29. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Chughtai, Aamir Ali (December 2018). "Examining the Effects of Servant Leadership on Life Satisfaction". Applied Research in Quality of Life. 13 (4): 873–889. doi:10.1007/s11482-017-9564-1. S2CID   148945689.
  30. 1 2 3 Rodríguez-Carvajal, Raquel; Herrero, Marta; van Dierendonck, Dirk; de Rivas, Sara; Moreno-Jiménez, Bernardo (February 2019). "Servant Leadership and Goal Attainment Through Meaningful Life and Vitality: A Diary Study". Journal of Happiness Studies. 20 (2): 499–521. doi:10.1007/s10902-017-9954-y. S2CID   148668507.
  31. 1 2 3 Rivkin, W.; Diestel, S.; Schmidt, K.-H. (February 1, 2014). "The Positive Relationship between Servant Leadership and Employees' Psychological Health: A Multi-Method Approach" (PDF). German Journal of Human Resource Management: Zeitschrift für Personalforschung. 28 (1–2): 52–72. doi:10.1177/239700221402800104. S2CID   59123769.
  32. 1 2 3 Yang, Rui; Ming, Ying; Ma, Jianhong; Huo, Rongmian (December 2, 2017). "How do servant leaders promote engagement? A bottom-up perspective of job crafting". Social Behavior and Personality. 45 (11): 1815–1827. doi:10.2224/sbp.6704.
  33. 1 2 3 Liden, Robert C.; Wayne, Sandy J.; Zhao, Hao; Henderson, David (April 2008). "Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment". The Leadership Quarterly. 19 (2): 161–177. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006.
  34. 1 2 3 4 5 Lu, Junting; Zhang, Zhe; Jia, Ming (October 2019). "Does Servant Leadership Affect Employees' Emotional Labor? A Social Information-Processing Perspective". Journal of Business Ethics. 159 (2): 507–518. doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3816-3. S2CID   149057334.
  35. ↑ Parris, Denise Linda; Peachey, Jon Welty (March 2013). "A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts". Journal of Business Ethics. 113 (3): 377–393. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6. hdl: 11244/326627 . S2CID   53967168.
  36. ↑ Spector, Paul (July 2014). "Introduction: The problems and promise of contemporary leadership theories". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 35 (5): 597. doi:10.1002/job.1930.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.