Leadership week 2
jacsti
a_systematic_literature.pdf
A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts
Denise Linda Parris • Jon Welty Peachey
Received: 20 February 2012 / Accepted: 8 April 2012 / Published online: 22 April 2012
� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract A new research area linked to ethics, virtues,
and morality is servant leadership. Scholars are currently
seeking publication outlets as critics debate whether this
new leadership theory is significantly distinct, viable, and
valuable for organizational success. The aim of this study
was to identify empirical studies that explored servant
leadership theory by engaging a sample population in order
to assess and synthesize the mechanisms, outcomes, and
impacts of servant leadership. Thus, we sought to provide
an evidence-informed answer to how does servant leader-
ship work, and how can we apply it? We conducted a sys-
tematic literature review (SLR), a methodology adopted
from the medical sciences to synthesize research in a sys-
tematic, transparent, and reproducible manner. A disci-
plined screening process resulted in a final sample
population of 39 appropriate studies. The synthesis of these
empirical studies revealed: (a) there is no consensus on the
definition of servant leadership; (b) servant leadership
theory is being investigated across a variety of contexts,
cultures, and themes; (c) researchers are using multiple
measures to explore servant leadership; and (d) servant
leadership is a viable leadership theory that helps organi-
zations and improves the well-being of followers. This
study contributes to the development of servant leadership
theory and practice. In addition, this study contributes to the
methodology for conducting SLRs in the field of manage-
ment, highlighting an effective method for mapping out
thematically, and viewing holistically, new research topics.
We conclude by offering suggestions for future research.
Keywords Leadership � Leadership theory � Servant leadership � Systematic literature review
Introduction
Leadership is one of the most comprehensively researched
social influence processes in the behavioral sciences. This is
because the success of all economic, political, and organi-
zational systems depends on the effective and efficient
guidance of the leaders of these systems (Barrow 1977). A
critical factor to understanding the success of an organiza-
tion, then, is to study its leaders. Leadership is a skill used to
influence followers in an organization to work enthusiasti-
cally towards goals specifically identified for the common
good (Barrow 1977; Cyert 2006; Plsek and Wilson 2001).
Great leaders create a vision for an organization, articulate
the vision to the followers, build a shared vision, craft a path
to achieve the vision, and guide their organizations into new
directions (Banutu-Gomez and Banutu-Gomez 2007; Kotter
2001). According to Schneider (1987), the most important
part in building an organization with a legacy of success is
the people in it, which includes the followers (i.e., employees
and volunteers) as well as the leaders. Leadership theories
attempt to explain and organize the complexity of the nature
of leadership and its consequences (Bass and Bass 2008).
Over the years, some leadership scholars have called atten-
tion to the implicit connection between ethics and leadership.
A burgeoning new research area and leadership theory that
D. L. Parris (&) Barney Barnett School of Business & Free Enterprise, Florida
Southern College, 111 Lake Hollingsworth Drive,
Lakeland, FL 33801-5698, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
J. W. Peachey
Division of Sport Management, Department of Health and
Kinesiology, Texas A&M University, 4243 TAMU,
College Station, TX 77843, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Bus Ethics (2013) 113:377–393
DOI 10.1007/s10551-012-1322-6
has been linked to ethics, virtues, and morality is servant
leadership (Graham 1991; Lanctot and Irving 2010; Parolini
et al. 2009; Russell 2001; Whetstone 2002).
Servant leadership theory’s emphasis on service to others
and recognition that the role of organizations is to create
people who can build a better tomorrow resonates with
scholars and practitioners who are responding to the growing
perceptions that corporate leaders have become selfish and
who are seeking a viable leadership theory to help resolve the
challenges of the twenty-first century. Despite servant
leadership being coined by Robert K. Greenleaf over three
decades ago in 1970, it remains understudied yet still
prominently practiced in boardrooms and organizations
(Bass and Bass 2008; Spears 2005). It has received signifi-
cant attention in the popular press (e.g., Fortune magazine
and Dateline) (Spears Center 2011) and leading organiza-
tional management authors have discussed the positive
effects of servant leadership on organizational profits and
employee satisfaction; see Max DePree (Leadership is an
Art 1989), Stephen Covey (Principle Centered Leadership
1990), Peter Senge (The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Styles
of the Learning Organization 1990), Peter Block (Steward-
ship: Choosing Service over Self Interest 1993), and Mar-
garet Wheatley (Finding Our Way: Leadership in an
Uncertain Time 2005). However, Greenleaf’s (1970, 1977)
conceptualization of servant leadership as a way of life rather
than as a management technique perhaps has slowed the
acceptance of this leadership theory in academia as scholars
ask the question: If it is a way life—a philosophy, how can it
be empirically tested? Even Greenleaf admitted servant
leadership is unorthodox and would be difficult to opera-
tionalize and apply, as ‘‘it is meant to be neither a scholarly
treatise nor a how-to-do-it manual’’ (Greenleaf 1977, p. 49).
The majority of research to date on servant leadership con-
sists of developing theoretical frameworks and establishing
measurement tools with the intention that future scholars can
apply these tools to explore servant leadership in practice
and as a tenable theory. Only a limited amount of research
has empirically examined this construct.
As an aid in advancing servant leadership theory, we
sought to identify these empirical studies that investigated
servant leadership by engaging a sample population in order
to assess and synthesize its mechanisms, outcomes, and
impacts. Currently, there does not exist a comprehensive
summary of empirical studies exploring servant leadership
theory in organizational settings (e.g., a systematic litera-
ture review (SLR)), which is a gap in the extant literature.
Through exploring empirical studies investigating servant
leadership theory in organizational contexts, we provide
evidence that servant leadership is a tenable theory.
As a promising new field of research, servant leadership
faces the challenges once addressed by the early services
marketing and sport management scholars whose new ideas
and concepts were accepted slowly within the conservative
culture of academia (Shannon 1999). Similarly, servant
leadership scholars have sought a variety of publication
outlets for their work while they confront a debate on the
distinctiveness and significance of this leadership theory for
organizations as well as employees. In addition, the accel-
eration of knowledge production in the management field
has resulted in a body of knowledge that is increasingly
transdisciplinary, fragmented, and interdependent from
advancement in social sciences. In management research the
literature review is a key tool used to manage the diversity of
knowledge for an academic inquiry; however, a critique of
these reviews is that they are typically descriptive accounts
of contributions of selected writers often arbitrarily chosen
for inclusion by the researcher, and that these reviews may
lack a critical assessment of included studies (Tranfield et al.
2003). In contrast, a SLR is different from traditional nar-
rative reviews in that it adopts a replicable, scientific and
transparent process that aims to mitigate bias through
exhaustive literature searches and by providing an audit trail
of the conclusions. A current gap in management research is
a discussion of how to conduct a SLR, how to critically
assess studies, and how to integrate the conclusions. In this
SLR, we not only ascertain the current state of the field in
servant leadership research and synthesize divergent studies,
but also advance a rigorous methodology for conducting a
SRL in management research.
Thus, the purpose of this study was to systematically
examine and organize the current body of research litera-
ture that either quantitatively or qualitatively explored
servant leadership theory in a given organizational setting.
In this SRL we only included empirical studies that
investigated servant leadership in an organizational context
and excluded studies with a primary focus on model
development or testing measurement instruments. Earlier
reviews on the concept of servant leadership focused on:
identifying key characteristics (Russell and Stone 2002),
measurement development (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006),
and proposing a theoretical framework (Van Dierendonck
2011). Although these reviews help provide insight into
how researchers have attempted to operationalize servant
leadership, none of them was done in a systematic manner
(i.e., no methodology to select articles or limit bias), and
none of them specifically explored empirical research.
The following research questions guided this SLR:
(a) How was servant leadership defined? (b) In what contexts
was servant leadership theory empirically investigated?
(c) How was servant leadership examined (i.e., the meth-
odology)? and (d) What were the results of the examination?
We begin this paper by summarizing the origin of servant
leadership and follow with a short discussion of the devel-
opment of servant leadership as a theory and a new research
area. Next, a summary of the method used for selecting and
378 D. L. Parris, J. W. Peachey
123
reviewing the literature is explained, with details on search
strategy, analysis, and assessment of the quality of the
reviewed studies. Then, we present our findings of the SLR
on empirical studies that have explored servant leadership
theory. In addition, we discuss the methodological contri-
bution of conducting SLRs in the field of management as an
effective method for mapping out thematically, and viewing
holistically, new research topics. We conclude by offering
suggestions for future research and practice.
Origin of Servant Leadership by Robert K. Greenleaf
Servant leadership was introduced into an organizational
context through Greenleaf’s three foundational essays—
The Servant as Leader (1970), The Institution as Servant
(1972a), and Trustees as Servants (1972b)—all of which he
published after retiring from 40 years of management work
at AT&T. Greenleaf (1977) defined servant leadership as
not just a management technique but a way of life which
begins with ‘‘the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to
serve first’’ (p. 7). Greenleaf (1977) conceptualized the
servant as leader from his impressions of Journey to the
East by Hesse (1956) and used the character Leo to
describe a true servant: ‘‘Leadership was bestowed upon a
man who was by nature a servant… His servant nature was the real man, not bestowed, not assumed, and not to be
taken away’’ (p. 21). Servant leaders are distinguished by
both their primary motivation to serve (what they do) and
their self-construction (who they are), and from this con-
scious choice of ‘doing’ and ‘being’ they aspire to lead
(Sendjaya and Sarros 2002). Greenleaf (1977) believed
servant leadership was an inward lifelong journey.
Upon retirement in 1964, Greenleaf launched a second
career, which spanned 25 years, in which he articulated his
new leadership paradigm—servant leadership. He pro-
moted servant leadership in many publications and pre-
sentations, including lectures at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology’s (M.I.T.) Sloan School of Management,
Harvard Business School, Dartmouth College, and the
University of Virginia; and served as leadership consultant
to institutions such as Ford Foundation, Lilly Endowment,
M.I.T., R.K. Mellon Foundation, and the American Foun-
dation for Management. In 1964 he founded the Center for
Applied Ethics, renamed the Robert K. Greenleaf Center
for Servant Leadership in 1985, which helps people
understand the principles and practices of servant leader-
ship (Greenleaf Center 2011). Over 20 % of Fortune
magazine top 100 companies have sought guidance from
the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, such as
Starbucks, Vanguard Investment Group, Southwest Air-
lines, and ID Industries (Greenleaf Center).
Although the contemporary study of servant leadership
evolved largely from Greenleaf (1970, 1977), the practice of
servant leadership is not a new concept, with roots dating
back to ancient teachings of the world’s great religions, as
well as to statements of numerous great leaders and thinkers
(Sendjaya and Sarros 2002). The concept of servant leader-
ship echoes the messages of Mother Theresa, Moses, Harriet
Tubman, Lao-tzu, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King,
Jr., Confucius, and many other religious, historic, and current
leaders (Keith 2008). Many scholars model Jesus Christ’s
teachings to his disciples as the ultimate example of servant
leadership (Ebener and O’Connell 2010; Lanctot and Irving
2010; Winston 2004). Whereas other leadership theories are
traditionally defined only by what the leader does, servant
leaders are defined by their character and by demonstrating
their complete commitment to serve others. This creates
one of the core challenges for theorists; how to construct
models that encompass Greenleaf’s theoretical message of
‘‘servanthood-through-leadership-through-practice’’ (Pros-
ser 2010, p. 28) that operates not only on a surface-level but
deep within a person’s being. Although scholars have agreed
theories, frameworks, and models will increase our under-
standing of the meaning, implications, and applications of
servant leadership, it is important to remain aware of the
more abstract, underlying principles and concepts of a ser-
vant as a leader (Spears 1998; Keith 2008; Prosser 2010).
Servant Leadership as a Theory
Although servant leadership is a growing trend being prac-
ticed by private and non-profit organizations alike, there is
still a lack of research in this area (Farling et al. 1999). The
majority of research in servant leadership has streamed from
Greenleaf’s (1977) foundational texts and the Greenleaf
Center (see Akuchie 1993; Bordas 1995; Brody 1995;
Buchen 1998; Chamberlain 1995; Frick 1995; Gaston 1987;
Kelley 1995; Kiechel 1995; Kuhnert and Lewis 1987; Lee
and Zemke 1995; Lloyd 1996; Lopez 1995; McCollum 1995;
McGee-Cooper and Trammell 1995; Rasmussen 1995;
Rieser 1995; Senge 1995; Smith 1995; Snodgrass 1993;
Spears 1995, 1996; Tatum 1995; Vanourek 1995). Many of
these writers present narrative examples of how servant
leadership is being used in organizational settings; however,
this is also the primary limitation of much of the servant
leadership literature, which is anecdotal in nature instead of
empirical (Bowman 1997; Northouse 1997; Sendjaya and
Sarros 2002). Bass (2000) acknowledged that servant lead-
ership requires extensive research, emphasizing that ‘‘the
strength of the servant leadership movement and its many
links to encouraging follower learning, growth, and auton-
omy, suggests that the untested theory will play a role in the
future leadership of the learning organization’’ (p. 33). The
Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts 379
123
promise of servant leadership has since motivated scholars
and practitioners to explore the possibilities of the servant-
first paradigm.
Since Farling et al.’s (1999) call for empirical studies,
there have emerged three streams of research (Van Diere-
ndonck and Patterson 2011): (a) a conceptual stream (Spears
1998; Laub 1999; Patterson 2003); (b) a measurement stream
(Page and Wong 2000; Wong and Page 2003; Ehrhart 2004;
Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Dennis and Bocarnea 2005;
Liden et al. 2008; Sendjaya et al. 2008; Van Dierendonck and
Nuijte 2011); and (c) model development (Russell and Stone
2002; Van Dierendonck 2011). Notably absent from the
above streams are empirical studies that explore servant
leadership theory in a given organizational setting. In addi-
tion, in spite of the growing amount of research on servant
leadership, the theory is still under-defined, with various
authors grappling with definitions (Anderson 2009). This is
as Greenleaf (1977) predicted, when he warned that servant
leadership would be difficult to apply and operationalize. He
did not provide a management how-to-do-it-manual; instead,
he challenged readers to reflect, ponder, and grow (Frick
2004; Spears 1995).
To date, three reviews of servant leadership have been
conducted, which help provide insight into how researchers
have organized the complexity of Greenleaf’s concepts on
servant leadership into a theoretical framework. Russell
and Stone’s (2002) review revealed the following nine
functional attributes, or operative qualities and distinctive
characteristics of servant leaders; vision, honesty, integrity,
trust, service, modeling, pioneering, appreciation of others,
and empowerment. In addition, Russell and Stone deter-
mined 11 accompanying attributes, which are interrelated
and supportive of the nine core attributes listed above:
communication, credibility, competence, stewardship, vis-
ibility, influence, persuasion, listening, encouragement,
teaching, and delegation. From this assimilation of attri-
butes, Russell and Stone developed a model of servant
leadership to spark future application and research. While
their review provides a conceptual overview of servant
leadership, it lacks a methodology. Barbuto and Wheeler
(2006) developed an integrated model of servant leadership
after conducting a literature review, which synthesized the
attributes of servant leadership into five factors; altruistic
calling, emotional healing, persuasive mapping, wisdom,
and organizational stewardship. The third review by Van
Dierendonck (2011) also concludes with another concep-
tual model, which identifies six key characteristics of ser-
vant leadership: empowering and developing people,
humility, authenticity, interpersonal acceptance, providing
direction, and stewardship. All of these reviews exemplify
different interpretations of Greenleaf’s writings employing
different terminologies; however, all include the funda-
mental dimension of servanthood or the willingness to
serve others. These reviews highlight the plurality of ser-
vant leadership theory, leaving the researcher, student, or
practitioner to ponder exactly what servant leadership
theory is. As DiMaggio (1995) pointed out ‘‘there is more
than one kind of good theory’’ (p. 391).
Given that previous reviews have examined the devel-
opment of conceptual frameworks and measurement tools
for servant leadership, the present review focuses only on
empirical studies that have explored servant leadership
theory in an organizational context. As such, the current
study is the first review to provide a synthesis, based upon
evidence in published peer-reviewed journals, of empirical
studies conducted on servant leadership theory in organi-
zational settings.
Methodology
The SLR is often contrasted with traditional literature
reviews because systematic reviews are objective, repli-
cable, systematic, comprehensive, and the process is
reported in the same manner as for reporting empirical
research (Weed 2005). The origin of SLRs is in the med-
ical, health care, and policy fields, where they have been
used to assemble the best evidence to make clinical and
policy decisions (Cook et al. 1997; Tranfield et al. 2003).
SLRs in management are used to provide transparency,
clarity, accessibility, and impartial inclusive coverage on a
particular area (Thorpe et al. 2006). Klassen et al (1998)
define SLR as ‘‘a review in which there is a comprehensive
search for relevant studies on a specific topic, and those
identified are then appraised and synthesized according to a
pre-determined explicit method’’ (p. 700). This SRL spe-
cifically explored research studies that have examined
servant leadership theory in a given organizational setting.
Since our focus was gaining insight on the empirical
investigation of servant leadership theory, we excluded
studies with a primary focus on model development or
testing measurement instruments. The approach of this
review entailed extensive searches of relevant databases
with the intention of ensuring, as far as possible, that all
literature on servant leadership was identified while
maintaining the focus on literature of greatest pertinence to
the research questions (i.e., empirical studies that have
investigated servant leadership theory in organizational
settings). Next, we discuss our search methods, inclusion
and exclusion criteria, sample, and data analysis.
Search Methods
Published studies were identified through searches of
electronic databases accessible through the authors’ uni-
versity library system. Databases included in this review
380 D. L. Parris, J. W. Peachey
123
were: PsycInfo, Eric, Sociological Abstracts, PAIS Inter-
national, Social Services, Communication Abstracts,
International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS),
Physical Education Index, World Wide Political Abstracts
from the vendor CSA, Academic Search Complete, Busi-
ness Source Complete, Communication and Mass Media
Complete, Education and Administration Abstracts, Gen-
der Studies, CINAHL, Health Source: Nursing/Academic
Edition, Human Resources Abstracts, and Medline through
the vendor EBSCO. All results were limited to English-
only peer-reviewed journal articles. The searches for pub-
lished studies were conducted in a systematic manner,
following the order of the databases listed above.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The initial search required that articles included in the
review were studies that must: (a) be published in a peer-
reviewed journal; (b) be in the English language; and
(c) use the keyword ‘‘servant leadership.’’ No restriction
was placed on year of publication. The number of articles
containing the keyword ‘‘servant leadership’’ retrieved
from each database was recorded. Next, we examined if
there were any external duplicates from the current data-
base being searched and the previous databases that had
already been searched. We recorded the number of external
duplicates, and then deleted the duplicated journal articles
from the last database searched while keeping a running
total of new articles found.
Once all possible studies had been identified, we con-
ducted a second screening to assess eligibility against
inclusion criteria and then full text articles were retrieved
for those that met the inclusion criteria. The inclusion
criteria for the second screening required that the published
peer-reviewed article meet all of the following four spec-
ifications: (a) be in the English language; (b) be an
empirical study (i.e., not an essay, book review, letter,
literature review, editorial, opinion, journalistic or antidotal
article); (c) discuss servant leadership as the main topical
theme; and (d) examine servant leadership theory either
quantitatively or qualitatively. Articles were excluded if
any of these four components was not addressed in the
abstract, results, or discussion sections of the respective
study. Finally, additional articles meeting the inclusion
criteria were found by examining the bibliographies of
resources identified through the secondary screening.
Sample
Peer-reviewed publications were identified using the key
terms outlined in the inclusion and exclusion criteria sec-
tion above. In all, a total of 381 articles where retrieved;
however, after duplicates were deleted there remained 255
articles meeting the initial inclusion criteria. After the
secondary search process was conducted, a final sample of
44 appropriate studies was obtained. Upon retrieving full
text articles, an additional five articles were excluded after
further examination because they did not satisfy the
screening criteria. The final sample of articles constituted
39 empirical studies. Peer-reviewed articles meeting the
outlined criteria were published between 2004 and 2011.
The 39 published articles were drawn from a variety of
peer-reviewed journals (n = 27). Table 1 depicts the list of
journals included in the study, the number of articles
included from each journal, and the database they were
accessed through.
We grouped the journals by their area of focus, which
showed a concentration of research taking place in leader-
ship (n = 9), education (n = 7), business (n = 6), and
psychology (n = 6), with the fields of nursing (n = 3),
management (n = 2), personal selling and sales manage-
ment (n = 2), ethics (n = 1), parks and recreation admin-
istration (n = 1), services marketing (n = 1), and sports
(n = 1) representing a smaller number of empirical studies.
Data Analysis
The Matrix Method (Garrard 1999) was utilized as the
strategy for organizing and abstracting pertinent informa-
tion from these publications. For this study, the following
information was abstracted from each article: (a) How was
servant leadership defined? (b) In what contexts was ser-
vant leadership theory empirically investigated? (c) How
was servant leadership examined? and (d) What were the
results of the examination? Last, for each publication, the
methodology used to examine servant leadership was
evaluated. For qualitative studies, we used a critical
appraisal tool designed by Letts et al. (2007), and for
quantitative studies we used a critical appraisal tool
designed by the Institute for Public Health Sciences (2002).
In addition to these two appraisal assessments we used
Stoltz et al.’s (2004) critical appraisal tool, which assessed
both quantitative and qualitative studies. We adopted these
three critical appraisal tools to create a three-point scale to
reflect the quality of studies: high (I); medium (II)—used if
studies did not meet criteria for high (I) or low quality; and
low (III). Table 2 describes our classification for high to
low quality studies, which was based on the three critical
appraisal tools mentioned above.
The findings from these studies were summarized and
placed into matrixes (i.e., tables). Our SLR findings consist
of a synthesis of the results from all 39 empirical studies
along with the assessment of quality for each study. Fur-
ther, we assess the level of supporting evidence for the-
matic conclusions drawn from combining the results of
multiple studies.
Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts 381
123
Findings
Overall, this review highlights that servant leadership theory
is being researched and tested across a variety of contexts,
cultures, disciplines, and themes. Our sample included 11
qualitative studies, 27 quantitative studies, and one mixed
method study, all empirically assessing servant leadership
theory. Thus, this review illustrates that servant leadership is
Table 1 Database and journals included in systematic literature
review
Database Journal Count
Eric Alberta Journal of Educational Research 1
PsycInfo Business Ethics: A European Review 1
Eric Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry & Practice 1
Eric Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2
PsycInfo European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 1
Scopus Global Virtue Ethics Review 1
CINAHL Health Care Management Review 1
PsycInfo Home Health Care Management & Practice 1
Business Source Complete International Journal of Business Research 1
Eric International Journal of Leadership in Education 2
Scopus International Journal of Leadership Studies 2
PsycInfo International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 1
PsycInfo Journal of Applied Psychology 3
Business Source Complete Journal of Business & Economics Research 1
Academic Search Complete Journal of Interprofessional Care 1
PsycInfo Journal of Management Development 1
Academic Search Complete Journal of Park & Recreation Administration 1
PsycInfo Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 2
Business Source Complete Journal of the Academy of Business & Economics 1
Eric Journal of Women in Educational Leadership 1
PsycInfo Leadership 1
PsycInfo Leadership & Organization Development Journal 6
PsycInfo Nonprofit Management and Leadership 1
PsycInfo Personnel Psychology 1
Business Source Complete Review of Business Research 2
Business Source Complete Services Marketing Quarterly 1
PsycInfo The International Journal of Human Resource Management 1
Table 2 Classification and quality assessment of studies
I = High II = Medium III = Low
QNT Study using quantitative analysis of data. Clearly focused
study, sufficient background provided, well planned,
method appropriate, measures validated, applicable and
adequate number of participants, data analysis
sufficiently rigorous with adequate statistical methods,
findings clearly stated
– Not focused study, insufficient background provided,
poorly planned, inappropriate method, invalidated
measures, inapplicable and inadequate number of
participants, data analysis insufficiently rigorous, with
inadequate statistical methods, unclear findings
QAL Study using qualitative analysis of data. Purpose stated
clearly, relevant background literature reviewed, design
appropriate, identified researcher’s theoretical or
philosophical perspective, relevant and well described
selection of participants and context, procedural rigor in
data collection strategies and analysis, evidence of the
four components of trustworthiness (credibility,
transferability, dependability, and confirmability) results
are comprehensive and well described
– Vaguely formulated purpose, insufficient background, few
or unsatisfactory descriptions of participants and context,
trustworthiness inadequately addressed, lacks in
description of data collection, data analysis, and results
QNT quantitative study, QAL qualitative study, I high quality, II medium quality, III low quality
382 D. L. Parris, J. W. Peachey
123
being explored both quantitatively and qualitatively, and the
topic has an international appeal with studies being con-
ducted in 11 countries. In the quality assessment, 22 studies
were classified as high, 12 as medium, and five as low
quality. Conclusive statements were made based upon the
synthesis of findings from each article. The conclusions (see
Table 3) were classified as A (strong evidence) or B (mod-
erate evidence) based on scientific strength.
If two or more studies of high quality supported a
conclusion or one study of high quality in addition to two
or more studies of medium quality supported the conclu-
sion, we assigned it an (A) rating. On the other hand,
conclusions with one study of high quality and one study of
medium quality or two studies of medium quality were
assigned a (B) rating. If a conclusion(s) did not fall under
(A) strong evidence in favor of conclusion or (B) moderate
evidence in favor of conclusion, we classified it as insuf-
ficiently supported and labeled insufficient evidence. The
following discussion of our findings is organized around
the four central research questions.
How was Servant Leadership Defined?
Servant leadership theory was introduced to readers by
authors of empirical studies by citing one or all three of the
following: Greenleaf (1977), Spears (1995, 1998, 2004), and
Laub (1999). Generally, authors described servant leader-
ship by quoting one of these three authors in addition to citing
multiple other authors, including, but not limited to: Barbuto
and Wheeler (2006), Graham (1991), Ehrhart (2004), Liden
et al. (2008), Page and Wong (2000), and Patterson (2003).
Here, we discuss the three most cited authors on servant
leadership that have provided definitions.
Greenleaf (1970, 1972a, b, 1977), the grandfather of
servant leadership, was cited by 37 of the 39 empirical
studies. The majority of authors used part or all of
Greenleaf’s description from his original essay, The Ser-
vant as Leader (1970):
It begins with the natural feeling one wants to serve,
to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to
aspire to lead. That person is sharply different from
one who is leader first.
… The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other people’s
highest priority needs are being served. The best test,
and difficult to administer, is this: Do those served
grow as persons? Do they, while being served,
become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous,
more likely themselves to become servants? And,
what is the effect on the least privileged in society?
Will they benefit or at least not be further deprived?
(Greenleaf 1970 as cited in Greenleaf 1977, p. 27).
The majority of authors in our sample, like Greenleaf
himself, defined servant leadership theory in a descriptive
manner. These descriptions usually cited multiple scholarly
works in the conceptual and measurement research
streams, in addition to citing leading organizational
management authors.
The second most referenced author defining servant
leadership theory was Larry Spears. Like Greenleaf, Spears
gained his knowledge from practice with most of his works
being non-empirical. He served for 17 years as the head of
the Greenleaf Center, has authored more than 10 books on
servant leadership, and in 2008 established the Larry C.
Spears Center for Servant Leadership, Inc. (Spears Center
2011). Spears (1995, 1998, 2004) identified 10 character-
istics of servant leaders from Greenleaf’s writings: listen-
ing, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, philosophy,
conceptualization, foresight, stewardship, commitment to
the growth of people, and building community. These
attributes are described in Table 4.
Four of the qualitative studies in our sample used
Spear’s 10 characteristics to inform their analysis (Crippen
2004; Crippen and Wallin 2008a, b; Sturm 2009).
The third most cited author in defining servant leader-
ship theory is Laub (1999). His Organizational Leadership
Assessment (OLA) was an outcome of his dissertation. The
OLA assesses an organization’s health based upon the six
key areas of an effective servant-minded organization by
exploring the perceptions of top leaders, managers and
supervisors, and the workforce; however, it does not assess
the servant leadership of individual leaders (OLA Group
2011). Authors in our sample used Laub’s definition, which
terms the practice of servant leadership as placing ‘‘the
good of those led over the self-interest of the leader’’
(1999, p. 81). In addition, authors would list and describe
Laub’s six key variables of an effective servant-led orga-
nization: (a) values people—believing, serving, and non-
judgmentally listening to others; (b) develops people—
providing learning, growth, encouragement and affirma-
tion; (c) builds community—developing strong collabora-
tive and personal relationships; (d) displays authenticity—
being open, accountable, and willing to learn from others;
(e) provides leadership—foreseeing the future, taking ini-
tiative, and establishing goals; and (f) shares leadership—
facilitating and sharing power. The OLA has been widely
used in health organizations (OLA Group), and was used in
six quantitative studies in our sample (Herman 2010; Black
2010; Cerit 2010; Cerit 2009; Irving and Longbotham
2007; Joseph and Winston 2005).
In summary, our results confirm Anderson’s (2009) and
Van Dierendonck’s (2011) assessments that servant lead-
ership theory remains under-defined with no consensus on
its definition or theoretical framework. Scholars are still
seeking to articulate Greenleaf’s conceptualization of
Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts 383
123
T a
b le
3 O
v e rv
ie w
o f
c o
n c lu
si o
n s
R e su
lt th
e m
e s
C o
n c lu
si o
n E
v id
e n
c e
R e fe
re n
c e s
C ro
ss -c
u lt
u ra
l
a p
p li
c a b
il it
y
S L
is a c c e p
te d
a n
d p
ra c ti
c e d
in
v a ri
o u
s c u
lt u
re s;
h o
w e v
e r,
c o
m p
o n
e n
ts o
f S
L h
a v
e d
if fe
re n
t
w e ig
h ts
S tr
o n
g e v
id e n
c e
in fa
v o
r o
f st
a te
m e n
t (A
) C
e ri
t (2
0 0
9 ,
2 0
1 0
) (Q
N T
I, Q
N T
I) ;
H a m
il to
n a n
d B
e a n
(2 0
0 5 )
(Q A
L II
I) ;
H a le
a n
d F
ie ld
s (2
0 0
7 )
(Q N
T I)
; H
a n
e t
a l.
(2 0
1 0 )
(Q A
L II
); P
e k
e rt
i a n
d S
e n
d ja
y a
(2 0
1 0
) (Q
N T
I)
S L
a tt
ri b
u te
s S
p e a rs
’ (1
9 9
8 )
1 0
c h
a ra
c te
ri st
ic s
a re
re p
re se
n ta
ti v
e o
f a
se rv
a n
t
le a d
e r
a p
p li
e d
in d
if fe
re n
t
c o
n te
x t
S tr
o n
g e v
id e n
c e
in fa
v o
r o
f st
a te
m e n
t (A
) B
o ro
sk i
a n
d G
re if
(2 0
0 9
) (Q
A L
II I)
; C
ri p
p e n
(2 0
0 4 )
(Q A
L II
);
C ri
p p
e n
a n
d W
a ll
in (2
0 0
8 a )
(Q A
L II
); C
ri p
p e n
a n
d W
a ll
in
(2 0
0 8
b )
(Q A
L II
); S
tu rm
(2 0
0 9
) (Q
A L
I)
P a tt
e rs
o n
(2 0
0 3
) a n
d W
in st
o n
(2 0
0 3
) m
o d
e ls
o f
S L
a re
su p
p o
rt e d
S tr
o n
g e v
id e n
c e
in fa
v o
r o
f st
a te
m e n
t (A
) W
in st
o n
(2 0
0 4
) (Q
A L
I) ;
D in
g m
a n
a n
d S
to n
e (2
0 0
7 )
(Q A
L II
)
T e a m
le v
e l
e ff
e c ti
v e n
e ss
S L
le a d
s to
in c re
a se
d le
a d
e r
tr u
st
a n
d o
rg a n
iz a ti
o n
a l
tr u
st
S tr
o n
g e v
id e n
c e
in fa
v o
r o
f st
a te
m e n
t (A
) Jo
se p
h a n
d W
in st
o n
(2 0
0 5
) (Q
N T
I) ;
R e in
k e
(2 0
0 4
) (Q
N T
II );
S e n
ja y
a a n
d P
e k
e rt
i (2
0 1
0 )
(Q N
T I)
; W
a sh
in g
to n
e t
a l
(2 0
0 6 )
(Q N
T I)
S L
fo st
e rs
o rg
a n
iz a ti
o n
a l
c it
iz e n
sh ip
b e h
a v
io r
S tr
o n
g e v
id e n
c e
in fa
v o
r o
f st
a te
m e n
t (A
) E
b e n
e r
a n
d O
’C o
n n
e ll
(2 0
1 0
) (Q
A L
I) ;
H u
a n
d L
id e n
(2 0
1 1 )
(Q N
T I)
; E
h rh
a rt
(2 0
0 4
) (Q
N T
I) ;
W a lu
m b
w a
e t
a l
(2 0
1 0
)
(Q N
T I)
P ro
c e d
u ra
l ju
st ic
e is
p o
si ti
v e ly
a ss
o c ia
te d
w it
h S
L
S tr
o n
g e v
id e n
c e
in fa
v o
r o
f st
a te
m e n
t (A
) E
h rh
a rt
(2 0
0 4
) (Q
N T
I) ;
W a lu
m b
w a
e t
a l
(2 0
1 0
) (Q
N T
I) ;
C h
u n
g e t
a l.
(2 0
1 0
) (Q
N T
II )
S L
in c re
a se
s te
a m
e ff
e c ti
v e n
e ss
S tr
o n
g e v
id e n
c e
in fa
v o
r o
f st
a te
m e n
t (A
) Ir
v in
g a n
d L
o n
g b
o th
a m
(2 0
0 7
) (Q
N T
I) ;
S c h
a u
b ro
e c k
e t
a l
(2 0
1 1
) (Q
N T
I) ;
H u
a n
d L
id e n
(2 0
1 1
) (Q
N T
I)
S L
is a ss
o c ia
te d
w it
h g
re a te
r
le a d
e rs
h ip
e ff
e c ti
v e n
e ss
S tr
o n
g e v
id e n
c e
in fa
v o
r o
f st
a te
m e n
t (A
) T
a y
lo r
e t
a l.
(2 0
0 7
) (Q
N T
II );
M a y
e r
e t
a l.
(2 0
0 8
) (Q
N T
I) ;
M c C
u d
d y
a n
d C
a v
in (2
0 0
8 )
(Q N
T II
I)
S L
e n
h a n
c e s
c o
ll a b
o ra
ti o
n M
o d
e ra
te e v
id e n
c e
in fa
v o
r o
f st
a te
m e n
t (B
) G
a rb
e r
e t
a l.
(2 0
0 9
) (Q
N T
II );
S tu
rm (2
0 0
9 )
(Q A
L I)
; Ir
v in
g
a n
d L
o n
g b
o th
a m
(2 0
0 7 )
(Q N
T I)
F o
ll o
w e rs
’
w e ll
-b e in
g
S L
in c re
a se
s e m
p lo
y e e
jo b
sa ti
sf a c ti
o n
S tr
o n
g e v
id e n
c e
in fa
v o
r o
f st
a te
m e n
t (A
) C
e ri
t (2
0 0
9 )
(Q N
T I)
; Je
n k
in s
a n
d S
te w
a rt
(2 0
1 0
) (Q
N T
I) ;
M a y
e r
e t
a l.
(2 0
0 8
) (Q
N T
I) ;
C h
u n
g e t
a l.
(2 0
1 0
) (Q
N T
II )
S L
c re
a te
s a
p o
si ti
v e
w o
rk c li
m a te
S tr
o n
g e v
id e n
c e
in fa
v o
r o
f st
a te
m e n
t (A
) N
e u
b e rt
e t
a l.
(2 0
0 8
) (Q
N T
I) ;
B la
c k
(2 0
1 0
) (M
ix e d
M e th
o d
:
Q N
T II
a n
d Q
A L
II I)
; Ja
ra m
il lo
e t
a l.
(2 0
0 9
a )
(Q N
T I)
S L
su p
p o
rt s
e m
p lo
y e e
c re
a ti
v it
y
a n
d h
e lp
in g
b e h
a v
io rs
S tr
o n
g e v
id e n
c e
in fa
v o
r o
f st
a te
m e n
t (A
) Ja
ra m
il lo
e t
a l.
(2 0
0 9
b )
(Q N
T I)
; N
e u
b e rt
e t
a l.
(2 0
0 8 )
(Q N
T I)
S L
im p
ro v
e s
fo ll
o w
e rs
w e ll
-b e in
g S
tr o
n g
e v
id e n
c e
in fa
v o
r o
f st
a te
m e n
t (A
) Ja
ra m
il lo
e t
a l.
(2 0
0 9
b )
(Q N
T I)
; R
ie k
e e t
a l.
(2 0
0 8
) (Q
N T
I)
S L
lo w
e rs
e m
p lo
y e e
tu rn
o v
e r
S tr
o n
g e v
id e n
c e
in fa
v o
r o
f st
a te
m e n
t (A
) Ja
ra m
il lo
e t
a l.
(2 0
0 9
a )
(Q N
T I)
; B
a b
a k
u s
e t
a l.
(2 0
1 1
) (Q
N T
I)
S L
in c re
a se
s c o
m m
it m
e n
t S
tr o
n g
e v
id e n
c e
in fa
v o
r o
f st
a te
m e n
t (A
) C
e ri
t (2
0 1
0 )
(Q N
T I)
; H
a m
il to
n a n
d B
e a n
(2 0
0 5
) (Q
A L
II I)
;
H a le
a n
d F
ie ld
s (2
0 0
7 )
(Q N
T I)
; H
a n
e t
a l.
(2 0
1 0
) (Q
A L
II );
P e k
e rt
i a n
d S
e n
d ja
y a
(2 0
1 0 )
(Q N
T I)
Ja ra
m il
lo e t
a l.
(2 0
0 9
a )
(Q N
T I)
; Ja
ra m
il lo
e t
a l.
(2 0
0 9
b )
(Q N
T I)
S p
ir it
u a li
ty S
L is
a ss
o c ia
te d
w it
h w
o rk
p la
c e
sp ir
it u
a li
ty
In su
ffi c ie
n t
e v
id e n
c e
H e rm
a n
(2 0
1 0
) (Q
N T
II )
384 D. L. Parris, J. W. Peachey
123
servant leadership by using a variety of definitions sourced
from multiple works.
In What Contexts was Servant Leadership Theory
Empirically Investigated?
Our sample illustrates servant leadership theory is being
studied across cultures, contexts, and across a diversity of
research foci. Overall, the sample consisted of studies in 11
countries, which included four cross-cultures studies.
These findings demonstrate that servant leadership is being
practiced in various cultures, specifically: U.S. (n = 23),
Canada (n = 4), China (n = 2), Turkey (n = 2), Indonesia
(n = 1), New Zealand (n = 1), Kenya (n = 1), and the
Republic of Trinidad (n = 1), with five cross-culture
studies comparing U.S. and Ghana, U.S. and UK, U.S. and
China (n = 2), and Indonesia and Australia.
A contextual analysis of the sample revealed that servant
leadership theory is being applied in the following orga-
nizational settings: education (n = 17), which consisted of
religious schools (n = 6) and secular schools (n = 11);
secular for profit organizations (n = 17), which notably
included financial services (n = 4) and nursing (n = 3);
public organizations (n = 2); religious organizations
(n = 1); non-profit organizations (n = 1); and in a histor-
ical context (n = 1). It is important to note that servant
leadership was examined in a religious context in seven of
the 39 studies, and that the education field represents 44 %
of the contextual environment for the entire sample.
This synthesis also revealed seven key research themes,
with some studies containing more than one area of focus.
The themes and their associated studies are presented in
Table 3. An overall count and description of each theme is
as follows: (a) cross-cultural applicability—acceptance,
practices, and different weights of servant leadership in a
variety of cultures (n = 7); (b) servant leadership attri-
butes—conceptual models characteristics were studied
(n = 7); (c) team level effectiveness—effects of servant
leadership explored at the unit level (n = 20); (d) follow-
ers’ well-being—effects on employees in a servant-
led environment (n = 20); (e) spirituality—connection
between spiritual workplace and servant-led workplace was
investigated (n = 1); (f) demographics (n = 3); and
(g) implementation of servant leadership (n = 3). We
discuss a synthesis of these themes below in the last section
of our findings, where we provide an overview of the
results of studies included in the sample.
How was Servant Leadership Examined
(i.e., the Methodology)?
All of the 27 quantitative studies used surveys as the data
collection method. The two most popular measures ofT a
b le
3 c o
n ti
n u
e d
R e su
lt th
e m
e s
C o
n c lu
si o
n E
v id
e n
c e
R e fe
re n
c e s
D e m
o g
ra p
h ic
s P
ro p
e n
si ty
to w
a rd
e n
g a g
in g
in S
L
is a ss
o c ia
te d
w it
h d
e m
o g
ra p
h ic
v a ri
a b
le s
In su
ffi c ie
n t
e v
id e n
c e
F ri
d e ll
e t
a l.
(2 0
0 9
) (Q
N T
II );
M c C
u d
d y
a n
d C
a v
in (2
0 0
9 )
(Q N
T II
I) ;
T a y
lo r
e t
a l.
(2 0
0 7
) (Q
N T
II )
Im p
le m
e n
ta ti
o n
o f
S L
K n
o w
le d
g e
a n
d fr
a m
in g
o f
S L
c a n
a ff
e c t
a d
o p
ti o
n
In su
ffi c ie
n t
e v
id e n
c e
H a m
il to
n a n
d B
e a n
(2 0
0 5
) (Q
A L
II I)
; S
a v
a g
e -A
u st
in a n
d
H o
n e y
c u
tt (2
0 1
1 )
(Q A
L II
I)
P o
si ti
v e
re la
ti o
n sh
ip b
e tw
e e n
su c c e ss
io n
p la
n n
in g
a n
d S
L
In su
ffi c ie
n t
e v
id e n
c e
D in
g m
a n
a n
d S
to n
e (2
0 0
7 )
(Q A
L II
)
S L
se rv
a n
t le
a d
e rs
h ip
, Q
N T
q u
a n
ti ta
ti v
e st
u d
y ,
Q A
L q
u a li
ta ti
v e
st u
d y
, I
h ig
h q
u a li
ty ,
II m
e d
iu m
q u
a li
ty ,
II I
lo w
q u
a li
ty
Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts 385
123
servant leadership theory used by these empirical studies
were Laub’s (1999) OLA instrument—used by six studies
(Herman 2010; Black 2010; Cerit 2009, 2010; Irving and
Longbotham 2007; Joseph and Winston 2005) and the
Servant Leadership Scale developed by Ehrhart (2004)—
used by six studies (Ehrhart 2004; Jaramillo et al. 2009a, b;
Mayer et al. 2008; Neubert et al. 2008; Walumbwa et al.
2010). Instruments that were utilized by two studies
included: Barbuto and Wheeler’s (2006) instrument (Jen-
kins and Stewart 2010; Garber et al. 2009); Liden et al.’s
(2008) instrument (Hu and Liden 2011; Schaubroeck et al.
2011); and Sendjaya et al.’s (2008) survey (Pekerti and
Sendjaya 2010; Sendjaya and Pekerti 2010). Taylor et al.
(2007) used Page and Wong’s (1998) self-assessment
measure. Washington et al. (2006) used Dennis and Win-
ston’s (2003) instrument, which was an adopted version of
Page and Wong’s (2000) instrument. Rieke et al. (2008)
used Hammermeister et al.’s (2008) instrument, which was
also an adopted version of Page and Wong’s instrument.
Babakus et al. (2011) and Hale and Fields (2007) used
lesser known scales, those of Lytle et al. (1998) and Dennis
(2004), respectively. One study tapped a survey designed
by the U.S. Office of Personal Management (OPM). Four
studies used surveys developed specifically for the
research: Fridell et al. (2009), Reinke (2004), and
McCuddy and Cavin (2008, 2009). In summary, out of 27
survey studies, there were 14 different measures used. It is
important to note that the majority of authors combined
multiple measurement scales to construct their surveys. In
addition, the majority of these measures explored servant
leadership theory at the unit level of analysis (i.e., group or
team performance) while only a few examined it at the
individual level of analysis (i.e., individual performance).
Similarly, the 11 qualitative studies used a variety of
servant leadership frameworks to inform their analyses,
while three studies did not provide any information on
frameworks. Four of the qualitative studies used Spears
(1998) 10 characteristics to inform their analyses (Crippen
2004; Crippen and Wallin 2008a, b; Sturm 2009). Two
studies used Patterson (2003) and Winsten’s (2003) mod-
els—Dingman and Stone (2007) and Winston (2004). Han
et al. (2010) used multiple dimensions and definitions of
servant leadership in Western literature including but not
limited to: Barbuto and Wheeler (2006); Liden et al.
(2008); Ehrhart (2004); and Sendjaya et al. (2008). The
multiple quantitative and qualitative measures used by the
studies in our sample reinforce our findings for research
question one, where it was found that authors have defined
servant leadership in various ways. Similarly, as this
review demonstrates, there is still not an agreed upon
measurement strategy for servant leadership theory.
What were the Results of the Examination?
Our sample of empirical studies illustrates that servant
leadership is a tenable theory. It is viable and valuable on
an individual and an organization level, which can lead to
increased overall effectiveness of individuals and teams. In
Table 3, a synthesis of the conclusions from our sample of
articles is divided by theme, with a rating of the evidence to
support each individual conclusion. We discuss the results
of these empirical studies by theme below.
Table 4 Spears’ (1998) 10 characteristics of a servant leader
Characteristic Description
Listening Automatically responding to any problem by receptively listening to what is said, which allows them to identify
the will of the group and help clarify that will
Empathy Striving to accept and understand others, never rejecting them, but sometimes refusing to recognize their
performance as good enough
Healing Recognizing as human beings they have the opportunity to make themselves and others ‘whole’
Awareness Strengthened by general awareness and above all self-awareness, which enables them to view situations
holistically
Persuasion Relying primarily on convincement rather than coercion
Conceptualization Seeking to arouse and nurture theirs’ and others’ abilities to ‘dream great dreams’
Foresight Intuitively understanding the lessons from the past, the present realities, and the likely outcome of a decision for
the future
Stewardship Committing first and foremost to serving others needs
Commitment to the growth
of people
Nurtures the personal, professional, and spiritual growth of each individual
Building community Identifies means of building communities among individuals working within their institutions, which can give
the healing love essential for health
386 D. L. Parris, J. W. Peachey
123
Cross-Cultural Applicability
The cross-cultural studies (Hamilton and Bean 2005—U.S.
and UK; Hale and Fields 2007—U.S. and Ghana; Han et al.
2010—U.S. and China; Pekerti and Sendjaya 2010—
Indonesia and Australia; Schaubroeck et al. (2011)—U.S.
and China) all indicate servant leadership’s acceptability
across a variety of cultures. However, these studies also
show that the different attributes perceived to make up
servant leadership are not weighted equally across cultures.
For example: Hale and Fields (2007) found that vision had
a significantly stronger relationship with leader effective-
ness for Ghanaians in comparison to North Americans; Han
et al. (2009) found ‘‘being dutiful’’ to be an extended form
of servant leadership in China; Hamilton and Bean (2005)
discovered that introducing servant leadership within a
Christian context was perceived as obtrusive in the United
Kingdom; and Pekerti and Sendjaya (2010) found that
Australian leaders exhibited more behaviors with authentic
self (leadership flows out of who we are as opposed to what
we do), while Indonesian leaders exhibited more behaviors
with responsible morality (reflective moral reasoning
employed to assess whether or not the process and out-
comes of one’s leadership are ethical) and transforming
influence (articulation and implementation of a shared
vision which provides inspiration, meaning to one’s work,
and creates a positive work environment). In contrast to
these findings, Schaubroeck et al. (2011) found no signif-
icant differences in perceptions of servant leadership
between Hong Kong and the U.S. These cross-cultural
studies, along with studies conducted in different countries,
imply that servant leadership might be practiced across a
variety of cultures, but culture-specific perceptions of ser-
vant leadership exist based on socialization and national
context.
Servant Leader Attributes
Seven studies explored the conceptual definitions of ser-
vant leadership, and found Spears (1998), Patterson’s
(2003), and Winston’s (2003) attributes to be representa-
tive of servant leadership in different contexts. Five studies
(Boroski and Greif 2009; Crippen 2004; Crippen and
Wallin 2008a, b; Sturm 2009) within three different con-
texts (schools, community, and nursing) supported Spears
10 characteristics (see Table 3). Two studies (Winston
2004; Dingman and Stone 2007) provided support for
Patterson’s (2003) leader-to-follower and Winston’s (2003)
follower-to-leader models of servant leadership. Patter-
son’s model of leader–follower interaction starts with the
leaders’ agapaó (love for others) which she conceptualizes
as a collection of the following seven values: being
teachable; showing concern for others; demonstrating
discipline; seeking the greatest good for the organization;
showing mercy in actions and beliefs with all people;
meeting the needs of followers and the organization; and
creating a place where peace grows within the organiza-
tion. These seven values are based upon the biblical con-
cept of the seven beatitudes from Matthew 5 (Patterson
2003; Winston 2003, 2004). Instead of focusing on leader-
follower interaction as Patterson’s model does, Winston’s
model focuses on the follower-to-leader interactions.
Winston’s follower-to-leader model starts with the fol-
lowers’ agapaó and then shows how the followers are
servant leaders themselves by utilizing the same variables
as Patterson’s model. As stated above, studies confirm the
applicability of the variables in both of these models: trust,
empowerment, vision, altruism, intrinsic motivation, com-
mitment, and service (Winston 2004; Dingman and Stone
2007). Thus, the attributes identified by Spears, Patterson,
and Winston were represented within the measurement
instruments discussed above.
Team Level Effectiveness
Sixteen empirical studies explored servant leadership
theory at a unit level. Overall, these studies found that a
servant-led organization enhances leader trust and organi-
zational trust, organizational citizenship behavior, proce-
dural justice, team and leader effectiveness, and the
collaboration between team members. Several studies
found that a servant-led environment provided affirmation
of justice and fair treatment, which is positively associated
with procedural justice, or the perception of how a work
group as a whole is treated (Ehrhart 2004; Walumbwa et al.
2010; Chung et al. 2010). Procedural justice fosters trust in
the servant leader and in the servant-led organization
(Joseph and Winston 2005; Reinke 2004; Sendjaya and
Pekerti 2010; Washington et al. 2006). This creates an open
and trusting environment, which can enhance collaboration
among team members (Garber et al. 2009; Sturm 2009;
Irving and Longbotham 2007). Collaboration in a servant-
led organization creates a helping culture (i.e., a spirit of
willingness), which increases team members’ organiza-
tional citizenship behavior, defined as pro-social and
altruistic behaviors that have been shown to improve
organizational performance (Ebener and O’Connell 2010;
Hu and Liden 2011; Ehrhart 2004; Walumbwa et al. 2010).
Servant leadership also improves overall team effective-
ness (Taylor et al. 2007; Mayer et al. 2008; McCuddy
and Cavin 2008) and can enhance leaders’ effectiveness
(Irving and Longbotham 2007; Schaubroeck et al. 2011;
Hu and Liden 2011). In summary, servant leadership
creates a trusting, fair, collaborative, and helping culture
that can result in greater individual and organizational
effectiveness.
Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts 387
123
Followers’ Well-Being
Findings from 15 empirical studies illustrate that servant
leadership enhances followers’ well-being. These studies
showed conceptually and empirically how servant leader-
ship influences followers’ well-being by creating a positive
work climate (Neubert et al. 2008; Black 2010; Jaramillo
et al. 2009a), which is related to greater organizational
commitment (Cerit 2010; Hamilton and Bean 2005; Hale
and Fields 2007; Han et al. 2010; Pekerti and Sendjaya
2010). Greater commitment to the organization increases
employee job satisfaction (Cerit 2009; Jenkins and Stewart
2010; Mayer et al. 2008; Chung et al. 2010) and conse-
quently decreases employee turnover (Jaramillo et al.
2009b; Babakus et al. 2011). Servant leaders create these
positive outcomes by developing trust while nurturing
followers, which encourages the creativity, helping
behaviors, and well-being of followers (Jaramillo et al.
2009a; Babakus et al. 2011; Rieke et al. 2008). Overall,
these studies support the notion that servant leadership can
improve followers’ well-being.
Spirituality
One study (Herman 2010) found a positive connection
between workplace spirituality and servant leadership, while
six studies explored servant leadership within religious
intuitions. In addition, many scholars described servant
leadership using the teachings of Jesus Christ as a reference
(Ebener and O’Connell 2010; Hamilton and Bean 2005;
Winston 2004). Although there appears to be a relationship
between spirituality and servant leadership, there was
insufficient evidence to draw conclusions for this review.
Demographics
Three studies (Fridell et al. 2009; McCuddy and Cavin
2009; Taylor et al. 2007) attempted to identify demo-
graphic characteristics conducive to practicing servant
leadership. However, these studies lacked methodological
quality sufficient to support any conclusions. In addition,
many of the findings of these studies contradicted each
other as well as other studies within our sample. For
example, one study found significant differences between
men and women’s servant leadership style usage—female
leaders were more likely to practice daily reflection and
consensus building, foster self worth, and engage in healing
relationships (Fridell et al. 2009), while another study
found no difference (McCuddy and Cavin 2009). Also, one
study found that socio-economic factors were positively
related to servant behaviors (McCuddy and Cavin 2009),
while another study found that no demographic variables
were significantly related to servant leadership (Taylor
et al. 2007) Therefore, it remains to be discovered if there
are in fact demographic characteristics that are related to
servant leadership.
Implementation of Servant Leadership
Three studies examined servant leadership in various
organizational processes (Hamilton and Bean 2005—
leadership development; Savage-Austin and Honeycutt
2011—organizational change; Dingman and Stone 2007—
succession planning). Nevertheless, these studies were not
supported by other empirical studies nor were their meth-
odological quality sufficient to provide any conclusions.
Limitations
Although this SLR was conducted in a disciplined manner,
potential limitations must be acknowledged. We limited
the search process to indexed journals available through the
authors’ university library system that were peer-reviewed
published articles written in the English language. Thus,
this review did not include non-indexed journals or dis-
sertations because they are not peer-reviewed, or peer-
reviewed servant leadership articles published in a lan-
guage other than English. Given the apparent universal
interest in servant leadership, as identified in our review,
perhaps there are more empirical studies being published in
other languages that would complement or contradict some
of the conclusions drawn from this review. The method-
ology and findings of the studies included in the review
were assessed by two independent reviewers aided by a
critical assessment tool, which was utilized to make the
evaluation phase more accurate. However, our attempt to
integrate results conducted with qualitative as well as
quantitative data analysis may have limited the ability to
sufficiently explore all methodological considerations
when fusing the findings of both types of empirical studies
into a coherent text. In order to guide future scholars in
conducting SLRs, more work is needed on how to assess
the quality of qualitative and quantitative research in the
field of management. Given SLRs origins are in the med-
ical field, which conduct controlled trial studies, there are
few critical appraisal tools that are applicable to the
research methods used in other disciplines, such as quali-
tative inquiry and cross-sectional studies.
Conclusion
This SLR demonstrates servant leadership theory is appli-
cable in a variety of cultures, contexts, and organizational
settings. Even though Greenleaf first coined the philosophy
388 D. L. Parris, J. W. Peachey
123
in the 1970s, it has taken until 2004 for servant leadership
to be explored in an empirical manner. This SLR did not
place any limitation on the publication year of peer-
reviewed journal articles; however, no empirical studies
were found across all the databases searched before 2004.
To date, the majority of research in servant leadership is
either attempting to conceptually define and model the
theory or develop measurement tools to empirical test it.
Thus, the greater part of research on servant leadership is
addressing one of the major criticisms of the theoretical
construct, which is the difficulty of operationalizing its
concepts and principles (Brumback 1999; Wong and Davey
2007). Quay is not alone in his sentiments on Greenleaf’s
works: ‘‘For all his good advice and many practical ideas,
he is a Don Quixote trying to convince managers to pursue
good and eschew evil’’ (1997, p. 83). By Greenleaf’s own
admission, his ideas are unorthodox, yet the value of this
review illustrates that servant leadership works and is a
tenable theory.
The first question of this review sought to discover how
servant leadership is being defined. Although our findings
indicated the majority of authors use Greenleaf (1970,
1972a, b, 1997), Spears (1998), and Laub (1999) to help
define servant leadership, there still does not exist an
accepted consensus over its definition. This lack of con-
sensus creates confusion (Van Dierendonck 2011) amongst
researchers, as they create their own variations of defini-
tions and theoretical models. Perhaps one day there will be
a generally accepted theory of servant leadership, but the
empirical cross-cultural studies in this review highlight that
while servant leadership has been researched in a variety of
cultures, it has different meanings based on socialization
and national context. In addition, Greenleaf (1977) argued
that servant leadership is an inward life-long journey,
implying that the meaning of servant leadership could
change throughout one’s life time. Therefore, this review
does not conclude with a model or another definition of
servant leadership; however, it does provide an overview of
multiple definitions of servant leadership currently being
used in empirical studies in order to further our conceptual
understanding.
Second, this review explored the contexts in which
servant leadership is being empirically investigated. Our
review illustrates the diversity of cultures, organizational
settings, and research foci in which servant leadership is
being explored. There seems to be pronounced interest in
investigating servant leadership in the U.S. and throughout
the Asia Pacific region; however, there is a paucity of
studies being conducted in other parts of the world. Cur-
rently, the majority of studies are exploring servant lead-
ership in an educational setting (44 % of our sample).
Organizational settings that have received less attention
from researchers include medical institutions, public
organizations, non-profit organizations, and community-
level organizations. Research on servant leadership is
concentrated in the fields of leadership, education, business
and psychology; whereas, there is only a small number of
studies in the fields of nursing, management, personal
selling and sales, ethics, parks and recreation administra-
tion, services marketing, and sports. The research themes
being explored the least are: spirituality, demographics,
and implementation of servant leadership. Thus, this
review helps researchers identify areas and contexts which
are relatively unexplored in relation to servant leadership
and thus ripe for further investigation.
Third, this review examined the tools that can be used to
measure the existence and outcomes of servant leadership.
The multiple quantitative and qualitative measures used by
the studies point to the fact that there is currently not an
agreed upon measurement instrument of the theoretical
construct. This review can point researchers towards the
current measurement tools available, how they are being
used, and in what contexts they are being applied. Last, this
review synthesized the findings of these empirical studies
(see Table 3). Seven research themes emerged: cross-cul-
tural applicability, servant leadership attributes, team-level
effectiveness, followers’ well-being, spirituality, demo-
graphics, and implementation of servant leadership. This
synthesis can help researchers identify the current findings
in the extant literature and to discover research foci that
remain relatively underexplored.
Several intriguing directions for future research emerged
from our SLR. First, this SLR only identified 39 empirical
studies that explored servant leadership theory in organi-
zational settings, highlighting the need for researchers to
empirically investigate the construct of servant leadership
in a variety of organizational contexts. In the burgeoning
field of entrepreneurship, researchers could explore how to
build a servant-led organization, or in the field of organi-
zational change, studies could explore how to implement
servant leadership in an established organization or during
a merger or acquisition. Second, there is a need to inves-
tigate the antecedents of servant leadership development,
such as personal attributes of the leader, background of the
leader, and organizational history and trajectory. Third,
researchers can examine other outcomes of servant lead-
ership, such as voluntarily organizational turnover, suc-
cession planning, affective organizational commitment,
and employee well-being through generative growth. Last,
there is a need to develop critical appraisal tools for
quantitative and quantitative research used in the field of
management to conduct SLRs. Perhaps our integration of
several appraisal tools can serve as a template, as we
assessed the level of supporting evidence for thematic
conclusions drawn from combining the results of multiple
studies.
Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts 389
123
This SLR is the first synthesis of empirical studies
exploring servant leadership theory in organizational con-
texts that utilizes a rigorous methodology to mitigate bias
through exhaustive literature searches and by providing an
audit trail of the conclusions. This review enhances our
understanding of the definition(s) of servant leadership,
illustrates the diversity of cultures, organizational settings,
and research foci in which it is being examined, identifies
tools that can be used to measure its existence and out-
comes, and shows that servant leadership is a viable
leadership theory that helps organizations and the well-
being of followers. Our findings synthesize empirical
research on servant leadership theory across the multidis-
ciplinary fields of business, medicine, psychology, religion,
leisure, education, and economics and law. Scholars
exploring servant leadership are using theories from other
disciplines to build upon existing theory and to develop
theory that is uniquely applicable to their field (e.g.,
organizational behavior, sport, gender). Thus, this SLR
validated servant leadership as a viable and valuable the-
ory, and therefore, illustrates how servant leadership theory
can be used to inform future empirical studies. In addition,
and importantly, this SLR contributes to advancing the
methodology of conducting a SLR in the management
context. Here, we showcase how a SRL can provide an
effective method for mapping out thematically the current
body of research literature that empirically explores servant
leadership theory in organizational contexts. However, this
type of systematic review with rigorous methodology can
be applied to other research streams within management as
an aid in holistically synthesizing the state of the field in
various topical areas.
As a viable leadership theory, servant leadership can
perhaps provide the ethical grounding and leadership
framework needed to help address the challenges of the
twenty-first century: technological advancements, eco-
nomic globalization, increased communications, the Inter-
net, rising terrorism, environmental degradation, war and
violence, disease and starvation, threat of global warming,
intensifying gap between the poor and rich worldwide, as
well as many other unsolved issues. Servant leadership
contrasts, traditional leader-first paradigms, which applaud
a Darwinism, individualistic, and capitalist approach to
life, implicating that only the strong will survive. Sadly,
this belief system is operating at the heart of most orga-
nizations and is the consequence of most of our modern
tragedies: Arthur Andersen and Enron, Dennis Kozlowski
and Tyco, and Bernard Ebbers and WorldCom (Forbes
2010). Servant leaders believe ‘‘the world does not have to
be like this’’ (Keith 2008, p. ix) and actively work at
changing society for the better. In short, this review shows
servant leadership can help address these ethical dilemmas.
References
Akuchie, N. D. (1993). The servants and the superstars: An
examination of servant leadership in light of Matthew 20:
20–29. Christian Education Journal, 16(1), 39–43. Anderson, J. A. (2009). When a servant-leader comes knocking ….
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(1), 4–15. Babakus, E., Yavas, U., & Ashill, N. J. (2011). Service worker
burnout and turnover intentions: Roles of person-job fit, servant
leadership, and customer orientation. Services Marketing Quar- terly, 32(1), 17–31.
Banutu-Gomez, M. B., & Banutu-Gomez, S. M. T. (2007). Leadership
and organizational change in a competitive environment. Busi- ness Renaissance Quarterly, 2(2), 69–91.
Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and
construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organi- zation Management, 31, 300–326.
Barrow, J. C. (1977). The variables of leadership: A review and
conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 2, 233–251.
Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in the learning
organization. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(3), 18–38. Bass, B., & Bass, R. (2008). The bass handbook of leadership:
Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Black, G. L. (2010). Correlational analysis of servant leadership and
school climate. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry & Practice, 13(4), 437–466.
Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Bordas, J. (1995). Power and passion: Finding personal purpose. In L.
Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Green- leaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 179–193). New York: Wiley.
Boroski, E., & Greif, T. B. (2009). Servant-leaders in community
colleges: Their values, beliefs, and implications. Review of Business Research, 9(4), 113–120.
Bowman, M. A. (1997). Popular approaches to leadership. In
P. G. Northhouse (Ed.), Leadership: Theory and practice (pp. 239–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brody, D. (1995). First among equals: A corporate executive’s vision
and the reemerging philosophy of trustees as servant-leaders. In
L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 129–132). New York: Wiley.
Buchen, I. H. (1998). Servant leadership: A model for future faculty
and future institutions. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 125–134.
Cerit, Y. (2009). The effects of servant leadership behaviors of school
principals on teachers’ job satisfaction. Educational Manage- ment Administration & Leadership, 37(5), 600–623.
Cerit, Y. (2010). The effects of servant leadership on teachers’
organizational commitment in primary schools in Turkey. Inter- national Journal of Leadership in Education, 13(3), 301–317.
Chamberlain, P. (1995). Team-building and servant-leadership. In L.
Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Green- leaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 169–178). New York: Wiley.
Chung, J. Y., Jung, C. S., Kyle, G. T., & Petrick, J. F. (2010). Servant
leadership and procedural justice in the U.S. national park
service: The antecedents of job satisfaction. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 28(3), 1–15.
Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Systematic
reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126(5), 376–380.
390 D. L. Parris, J. W. Peachey
123
Covey, S. (1990). Principle centered leadership. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Crippen, C. L. (2004). Pioneer women in Manitoba: Evidence of
servant-leadership. Journal of Women in Educational Leader- ship, 2(4), 257–271.
Crippen, C., & Wallin, D. (2008a). First conversations with Manitoba
superintendents: Talking their walk. Alberta Journal of Educa- tional Research, 54(2), 147–160.
Crippen, C., & Wallin, D. (2008b). Manitoba superintendents:
Mentoring and leadership. Educational Management Adminis- tration & Leadership, 36(4), 546–565.
Cyert, R. (2006). Defining leadership and explicating the process.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 1(1), 29–38. De Pree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Doubleday
Business.
Dennis, R. (2004). Servant leadership theory: Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA.
Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. C. (2005). Development of the servant
leadership assessment instrument. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 600–615.
Dennis, R. S., & Winston, B. (2003). A factor analysis of Page and
Wong’s servant leadership assessment instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(8), 455–459.
DiMaggio, P. (1995). Comments on ‘‘What Theory is Not’’.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 391–397. Dingman, W. W., & Stone, A. G. (2007). Servant leadership’s role in
the succession planning process: A case study. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 98–113.
Ebener, D. R., & O’Connell, D. J. (2010). How might servant
leadership work? Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(3), 315–335.
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as
antecedents of unit level organizational citizenship behavior.
Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61–94. Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. E. (1999). Servant
leadership: Setting the stage for empirical research. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 49–62.
Forbes.: 2010, The corporate scandal sheet. Retrieved November 25th
from http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/25/accountingtracker.html.
Frick, D. M. (1995). Pyramids, circles, and gardens: Stories of
implementing servant leadership. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant- leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 241–256). New York: Wiley.
Frick, D. M. (2004). Robert K. Greenleaf: A life of servant leadership. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Fridell, M., Belcher, R. N., & Messner, P. E. (2009). Discriminate
analysis gender public school principal servant leadership
differences. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 30(8), 722–736.
Garber, J. S., Madigan, E. A., Click, E. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. J. (2009).
Attitudes towards collaboration and servant leadership among
nurses, physicians and residents. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23(4), 331–340.
Garrard, J. (1999). Health sciences literature review made easy: The matrix method. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Barlett Publishers.
Gaston, H. G. (1987). A model for leadership: Servant stewardship
ministry. Southwestern Journal of Theology, 37(2), 35–43. Graham, J. (1991). Servant-leadership in organizations: Inspirational
and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 105–119. Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis: The
Robert K. Greenleaf Center.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1972a). The institution as servant. Indianapolis: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1972b). Trustees as servants. Indianapolis: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf Center, Inc. (2011). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from
http://www.greenleaf.org/.
Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership
across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana and the USA.
Leadership, 3(4), 397–417. Hamilton, F., & Bean, C. J. (2005). The importance of context, beliefs
and values in leadership development. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(4), 336–347.
Hammermeister, J., Burton, D., Pickering, M. A., Westro, K.,
Baldwin, N., & Chase, M. (2008). Servant leadership in sport:
A Philosophy whose time has arrived. International Journal of Servant Leadership, 4, 185–215.
Han, Y., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kakabadse, A. (2010). Servant leadership
in the People’s Republic of China: A case study of the public sector.
Journal of Management Development, 29(3), 265–281. Herman, R. (2010). The promise of servant leadership for workplace
spirituality. International Journal of Business Research, 10(6), 83–102.
Hesse, H. (1956). The journey of the east. New York: Noonday Press. Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team
effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and
servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 1–12. doi: 10.1037/a0022465.
Institute for Public Health Sciences. (2002). 11 questions to help you make sense of descriptive/cross-sectional studies. New York: Yeshiva University.
Irving, J. A., & Longbotham, G. J. (2007). Team effectiveness and six
essential servant leadership themes: A regression model based on
items in the organizational leadership assessment. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 98–113.
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009a).
Examining the impact of servant leadership on sales force
performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(3), 257–275.
Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A.
(2009b). Examining the impact of servant leadership on
salesperson’s turnover intention. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(4), 351–365.
Jenkins, M., & Stewart, A. C. (2010). The importance of a servant leader
orientation. Health Care Management Review, 35(1), 46–54. Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant
leadership, leader trust, and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 6–22.
Keith, K. (2008). The case for servant leadership. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.
Kelley, M. (1995). The new leadership. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant- leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 194–197). New York: Wiley.
Kiechel, W. III (1995). The leader as servant. In L. Spears (Ed.),
Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 121–125). New York: Wiley.
Klassen, T. P., Jahad, A. R., & Moher, D. (1998). Guides for reading
and interpreting systematic reviews. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 157(7), 700–704.
Kotter, J. P. (2001). What leaders really do? Harvard Business Review, December, 3–12.
Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transforma-
tional leadership: A constructive/developmental analysis. Acad- emy of Management Review, 12(4), 648–657.
Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts 391
123
Lanctot, J. D., & Irving, J. A. (2010). Character and leadership:
Situating servant leadership in a proposed virtues framework.
International Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1), 28–50. Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of
the Servant Organizational Leadership (SOLA) instrument.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(2), 308 (UMI No. 9921922).
Lee, C., & Zemke, R. (1995). The search for spirit in the workplace.
In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 99–112). New York: Wiley.
Letts, L., Wilkins, S., Law, M., Stewart, D., Bosch, J., & Westmor-
land, M. (2007). Critical review form: Qualitative studies
(version 2.0). Retrieved from http://www.sph.nhs.uk/sphfiles/
caspappraisaltools/Qualitative%20Appraisal%20Tool.pdf.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant
leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and
multi-level assessment. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177. Lloyd, B. (1996). A new approach to leadership. Leadership and
Organizational Development Journal, 17(7), 29–32. Lopez, I. O. (1995). Becoming a servant-leader: The personal
development path. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 179–193). New York: Wiley.
Lytle, R. S., Hom, P. W., & Mokwa, M. P. (1998). SERV_OR: A
managerial measure of organizational service-orientation. Jour- nal of Retailing, 74, 455–489.
Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant-
leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice
perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(2), 180–197.
McCollum, J. (1995). Chaos, complexity, and servant-leadership. In
L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 241–256). New York: Wiley.
McCuddy, M. K., & Cavin, M. C. (2008). Fundamental moral
orientations, servant leadership, and leadership effectiveness: An
empirical test. Review of Business Research, 8(4), 107–117. McCuddy, M. K., & Cavin, M. C. (2009). The demographic context
of servant leadership. Journal of the Academy of Business & Economics, 9(2), 129–139.
McGee-Cooper, A., & Trammell, D. (1995). Servant leadership: Is
there really time for it? In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 113–120). New York: Wiley.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., &
Roberts, J. A. (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.
Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
OLA Group (Organizational Leadership Assessment Group). (2011).
Retrieved September 4, 2011, from http://www.olagroup.com/.
Page, D., & Wong, T. P. (1998). A philosophy conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership. Unpublished manuscript (Langley, Canada: Trinity Western University).
Page, D., & Wong, T. P. (2000). A philosophy conceptual framework
for measuring servant leadership. In S. Adjibolosoo (Ed.), The Human factor in shaping the course of history and development. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Parolini, J., Patterson, K., & Winston, B. (2009). Distinguishing
between transformational and servant leadership. Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 30(3), 274–291.
Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(2), 570 (UMI No. 3082719).
Pekerti, A. A., & Sendjaya, S. (2010). Exploring servant leadership
across cultures: Comparative study in Australia and Indonesia.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(5), 754–780.
Plsek, P., & Wilson, T. (2001). Complexity, leadership, and
management in healthcare organizations. British Medical Jour- nal (BMJ), 323, 746–749.
Prosser, S. (2010). Servant leadership: More philosophy, less theory. Westfield, IN: The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.
Rasmussen, T. (1995). Creating a culture of servant leadership: A real
life story. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 282–307). New York: Wiley.
Reinke, S. J. (2004). Service before self: Towards a theory of servant-
leadership. Global Virtue Ethics Review, 5, 30–57. Rieke, M., Hammermeister, J., & Chase, M. (2008). Servant
leadership in sport: A new paradigm for effective coach
behavior. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 3(2), 227–239.
Rieser, C. (1995). Claiming servant-leadership as your heritage. In L.
Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Green- leaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 49–60). New York: Wiley.
Russell, R. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(2), 76–83. Russell, R., & Stone, A. G. (2002). A review of servant leadership
attributes: Developing a practical model. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 23(3), 145–157.
Savage-Austin, A., & Honeycutt, A. (2011). Servant leadership: A
phenomenological study of practices, experiences, organiza-
tional effectiveness, and barriers. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 9(1), 49–54.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-
based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior
influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 863–871.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.
Sendjaya, S., & Pekerti, A. (2010). Servant leadership as antecedent
of trust in organizations. Leadership & Organization Develop- ment Journal, 31(7), 643–663.
Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin,
development, and application in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(2), 57–64.
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J., & Santora, J. (2008). Defining and measuring
servant leadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Man- agement Studies, 45(2), 402–424.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth discipline: The art and styles of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Business.
Senge, P. M. (1995). Robert’s Greenleaf’s legacy: A new foundation
for twenty-first century institutions. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflec- tions of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 217–240). New York: Wiley.
Shannon, R. (1999). Sport marketing: An examination of academic
marketing publication. Journal of Services Marketing, 13(6), 517–534.
Smith, W. (1995). Servant-leadership: A pathway to the emerging
territory. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 198–213). New York: Wiley.
392 D. L. Parris, J. W. Peachey
123
Snodgrass, K. R. (1993). Your slaves—on account of Jesus’ servant
leadership in the New Testament. In J. R. Hawkinson & R.
K. Johnston (Eds.), Servant leadership (pp. 7–19). Chicago: Covenant Publications.
Spears Center. (2011). Retrieved September 5, 2011 from
http://www.spearscenter.org/.
Spears, L. (1995). Introduction: Servant-leadership and the Greenleaf
legacy. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 1–16). New York: Wiley.
Spears, L. (1996). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-
leadership. Leadership & Organization Development, 17(7), 33–35.
Spears, L. (1998). Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant leadership. New York: Wiley.
Spears, L. C. (2004). Practicing servant-leadership. Leader to Leader, 34, 7–11.
Spears, L. C. (2005). On character and servant-leadership: Ten
characteristics of effective, caring leaders. Greenleaf Center for
Servant-Leadership. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from http://www.
greenleaf.org/leadership/read-about-it/articles/On-Character-
and-Servant-Leadership-Ten-Characteristics.htm.
Stoltz, P., Udén, G., & Willman, A. (2004). Support for family careers
who care for an elderly person at home—A systematic literature
review. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 18, 111–118. Sturm, B. A. (2009). Principles of servant-leadership in community
health nursing: Management issues and behaviors discovered in
ethnographic research’. Home Health Care Management & Practice, 21(2), 82–89.
Tatum, J. G. (1995). Meditations on servant-leadership. In L. Spears
(Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 308–312). New York: Wiley.
Taylor, T., Martin, B. N., Hutchinson, S., & Jinks, M. (2007).
Examination of leadership practices of principals identified as
servant leaders. International Journal of Leadership in Educa- tion, 10(4), 401–419.
Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Pittaway, L., & Macpherson, A. (2006).
Knowledge within small and medium sized firms: A systematic
review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 257–281.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a method-
ology for developing evidence-informed management knowl-
edge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222.
Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and
syntheses. Journal of Management, 27(4), 1228–1261. Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijte, K. (2011). The Servant-Leadership
Survey (SLS): Development and validation of a multidimen-
sional measure. Journal of Business in Psychology. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9194-1.
Van Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. (2011). Servant leadership, recent development in theory and research. Dallas, TX: Presented at Greenleaf Center’s annual international conference.
Vanourek, R. A. (1995). Servant-leadership and the future. In L.
Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Green- leaf’s theory of servant leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 298–307). New York: Wiley.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant
leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee
attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level
investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517–529. Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Feild, H. S. (2006). Individual
differences in servant leadership: The roles of values and
personality. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27(8), 700–716.
Weed, M. (2005). ‘‘Meta interpretation’’: A method for interpretive
synthesis of qualitative research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research (FQS), 6(1), 1–21.
Wheatley, M. (2005). Finding our way: Leadership in an uncertain times. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Whetstone, J. (2002). Personalism and moral leadership: the servant
leader with a transforming vision. Leadership and Organiza- tional Development Journal, 25(3/4), 349–359.
Winston, B. E. (2003). Extending Patterson’s servant leadership model: Explaining how leaders and followers interact in a circular model. Virginia Beach, VA: Servant Leadership Research Roundtable.
Winston, B. E. (2004). Servant leadership at Heritage Bible College:
A single-case study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(7), 600–617.
Wong, P. T., & Davey, D. (2007). Best practices of servant leadership Servant Leadership Research Roundtable. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University.
Wong, P. T., & Page, D. (2003). Servant leadership: An opponent- process model and the revised servant leadership profile. Virginia Beach, VA: Servant Leadership Research Roundtable.
Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts 393
123
Copyright of Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
