Transformational versus servant leadership

Leadership & Organization Development JournalTransformational versus servant leadership: a difference in leader focusA. Gregory Stone, Robert F. Russell, Kathleen Patterson,

Article information:To cite this document:A. Gregory Stone, Robert F. Russell, Kathleen Patterson, (2004) "Transformational versus servantleadership: a difference in leader focus", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 Issue: 4,pp.349-361, doi: 10.1108/01437730410538671Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730410538671

Downloaded on: 30 April 2017, At: 23:31 (PT)References: this document contains references to 55 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 54155 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:(2004),"Transformational leadership and shared values: the building blocks of trust", Journal of ManagerialPsychology, Vol. 19 Iss 6 pp. 588-607 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940410551507(2004),"Linking emotional intelligence abilities and transformational leadership styles",Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 Iss 7 pp. 554-564 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730410561440

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:512076 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

Transformational versus servantleadership: a difference in leader

focusA. Gregory Stone

Graduate School of Business, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA

Robert F. RussellDepartment of Business Administration, Emory and Henry College, Emory,

Virginia, USA, and

Kathleen PattersonSchool of Leadership Studies, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA

Keywords Leadership, Transformational leadership, Influence

Abstract This article examines transformational leadership and servant leadership to determinewhat similarities and differences exist between the two leadership concepts. The authors posit thatthe primary difference between transformational leadership and servant leadership is the focus ofthe leader. The transformational leader’s focus is directed toward the organization, and his or herbehavior builds follower commitment toward organizational objectives, while the servant leader’sfocus is on the followers, and the achievement of organizational objectives is a subordinateoutcome. The extent to which the leader is able to shift the primary focus of leadership from theorganization to the follower is the distinguishing factor in classifying leaders as eithertransformational or servant leaders. This article also looks at the next stage of developmentalissues in servant leadership, such as the challenges facing empirical investigation andmeasurement, and the changes that are occurring in current thinking about the servant leadershipapproach. Ultimately, the case is made that although different, both transformational leadershipand servant leadership offer the conceptual framework for dynamic leadership.

Transformational versus servant leadership – a difference in leader focusTransformational leadership, initiated by James MacGregor Burns (1978) and BernardM. Bass (1985a), has become a very popular concept in recent years. Both researchersand practitioners have gravitated to the theory and have employed it in a variety oforganizational settings. Similarly, the concept of servant leadership, which RobertGreenleaf (1977) formulated in the modern era, has received substantial attention in thecontemporary leadership field. A cursory glimpse of transformational leadership andservant leadership leaves the perception that the concepts are rather similar. In fact,some individuals question whether there is any real difference between the concepts.

This article first examines the theoretical framework, characteristics, and focus ofboth transformational leadership and servant leadership to determine what similaritiesand differences exist between the two leadership concepts. Thereafter, the articledifferentiates the concepts along the dimension of leader focus. The primary premise ofthe article is that transformational leaders tend to focus more on organizationalobjectives while servant leaders focus more on the people who are their followers. Thistendency of the servant leader to focus on followers appears to be the primary factorthat distinguishes servant leadership from transformational leadership. Otherwise,

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Transformationalversus servant

leadership

349

Received March 2003Revised June 2003

Accepted November 2003

The Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment JournalVol. 25 No. 4, 2004

pp. 349-361q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0143-7739DOI 10.1108/01437730410538671

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

there are many similarities between the two leadership concepts. A clearunderstanding of both frameworks helps to reveal the many similarities and theaforementioned distinction.

Transformational leadershipBass and Avolio (Bass, 1985a; Bass and Avolio, 1990) developed Burns’ (1978) ideas andposited the formal concept of transformational leadership. Their work built not onlyupon the contribution of Burns but also those made by Bennis and Nanus (1985), Tichyand Devanna (1986), and others. Bass (1990b) specified that transformational leadership:“occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, when theygenerate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and whenthey stir their employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group”(p. 21). Bass (1990a) stipulates that this transcending beyond self-interest is for the“group, organization, or society” (p. 53). In essence, transformational leadership is aprocess of building commitment to organizational objectives and then empoweringfollowers to accomplish those objectives (Yukl, 1998). The result, at least in theory, isenhanced follower performance (Burns, 1998; Yukl, 1998).

Burns (1978) considered leaders to be either transformational or transactional, whileothers view leadership as a continuum with transactional leadership at one end andtransformational leadership at the other. Bass (1990a) said that transactionalleadership occurs when leaders “exchange promises of rewards and benefits tosubordinates for the subordinates’ fulfillment of agreements with the leader” (p. 53).The transactional leader, according to Daft (2002), recognizes followers’ needs and thendefines the exchange process for meeting those needs. Both the leader and the followerbenefit from the exchange transaction. Transactional leadership is based onbureaucratic authority, focuses on task completion, and relies on rewards andpunishments (Tracey and Hinkin, 1998).

Transformational leadership differs substantially from transactional leadership. Itis concerned more about progress and development. Furthermore, transformationalleadership enhances the effects of transactional leadership on followers (Bass, 1985b,1990a).

Transformational leaders transform the personal values of followers to support thevision and goals of the organization by fostering an environment where relationshipscan be formed and by establishing a climate of trust in which visions can be shared(Bass, 1985a). Avolio et al. (1991) established four primary behaviors that constitutetransformational leadership:

(1) Idealized influence (or charismatic influence).

(2) Inspirational motivation.

(3) Intellectual stimulation.

(4) Individualized consideration.

The following discussion summarizes these areas and identifies the characteristics thataccompany each of them.

Idealized influenceIdealized influence is the charismatic element of transformational leadership in whichleaders become role models who are admired, respected, and emulated by followers

LODJ25,4

350

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

(Avolio and Bass, 2002; Bass, 1998; Bass and Avolio, 1994). Consequently, followersdemonstrate a high degree of trust in such leaders (Bass, 1990b; Jung and Avolio, 2000).Idealized influence in leadership also involves integrity in the form of ethical and moralconduct (Tracey and Hinkin, 1998).

The development of a shared vision is an integral component of the idealized,transformational leader’s role (Jung and Avolio, 2000). It helps others to look at thefuturistic state, while inspiring acceptance through the alignment of personal valuesand interests to the collective interests of the group’s purposes (Avolio and Bass, 2002;Bass, 1990b, 1998; Jung and Avolio, 2000). Transformational leaders are also willing totake and share risks with followers (Avolio and Bass, 2002; Bass, 1998).

Inspirational motivationTransformational leaders inspire and motivate others by “providing meaning andchallenge to their followers’ work” (Avolio and Bass, 2002, p. 2). The spirit of the teamis “aroused” while “enthusiasm and optimism are displayed” (Bass, 1998, p. 5). Thetransformational leader builds relationships with followers through interactivecommunication, which forms a cultural bond between the two participants and leads toa shifting of values by both parties toward common ground. The leader inspiresfollowers to see the attractive future state, while communicating expectations anddemonstrating a commitment to goals and a shared vision. Idealized influence andinspirational motivation are usually combined to form charismatic-inspirationalleadership (Bass, 1998).

Intellectual stimulationTransformational leaders stimulate their followers’ efforts “to be innovative andcreative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching oldsituations in new ways” (Avolio and Bass, 2002, p. 2). Followers’ mistakes are notpublicly criticized and creativity is openly encouraged. Transformational leaderssolicit their followers’ ideas and creative solutions to problems, thereby includingfollowers in problem solving. The intellectually stimulating leader encouragesfollowers to try new approaches but emphasizes rationality (Bass, 1990b).

Individualized considerationThe transformational leader disburses personal attention to followers based on theindividual follower’s needs for achievement and growth (Avolio and Bass, 2002). To dothis, the leader acts as a mentor or coach, developing followers in a supportive climateto “higher levels of potential” (Bass, 1998, p. 6). The considerate leader recognizes anddemonstrates acceptance of the followers’ individual differences in terms of needs anddesires. By doing this, the transformational leader fosters two-way communicationthrough effective listening (Avolio and Bass, 2002; Bass, 1998). The leader developsfollowers by delegating tasks and then unobtrusively monitoring those tasks –checking to see if additional support or direction is needed. The net effect ofindividualized consideration and other transformational leadership behaviors isempowerment of followers (Behling and McFillen, 1996).

Ultimately, transformational leaders can develop a very powerful influence overfollowers. For example, several research studies have documented the power oftransformational leadership in establishing value congruency and trust (Jung and


leadership

351

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

Avolio, 2000; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Shamir, 1995).Followers respect and trust transformational leaders, so they conform their values tothose of the leaders and yield power to them.

In summary, the transformational leader articulates the vision in a clear andappealing manner, explains how to attain the vision, acts confidently andoptimistically, expresses confidence in the followers, emphasizes values withsymbolic actions, leads by example, and empowers followers to achieve the vision(Yukl, 2002). Table I summarizes the four primary or functional areas oftransformational leadership and identifies the attributes that, according to theliterature, accompany these primary characteristics.

Servant leadershipRobert K. Greenleaf (1904-1990) is credited with initiating the servant leadershipconcept among modern organizational theorists (Spears, 1995, 1996). In Greenleaf’s(1969, 1977) opinion, leadership must primarily meet the needs of others. The focus ofservant leadership is on others rather than upon self and on understanding of the roleof the leader as a servant (Greenleaf, 1977). Self-interest should not motivate servantleadership; rather, it should ascend to a higher plane of motivation (Greenleaf, 1977;Pollard, 1996). The servant leader’s primary objective is to serve and meet the needs ofothers, which optimally should be the prime motivation for leadership (Russell andStone, 2002). Servant leaders develop people, helping them to strive and flourish(McMinn, 2001). Servant leaders provide vision, gain credibility and trust fromfollowers, and influence others (Farling et al., 1999).

While servant leadership is an increasingly popular concept, throughout much of itshistory the concept has been systematically undefined and lacking in empirical support(Farling et al., 1999). In an attempt to give cohesion to the development of a theory,Russell and Stone (2002) established a practical model for servant leadership. Theyalso identified functional and accompanying attributes of servant leadership (seeTable II). The attributes identified by Russell and Stone provide a reasonable basis forcomparing servant leadership with transformational leadership.

Functional attributes Accompanying attributes

(1) Idealized influence/charisma VisionTrustRespectRisk-sharingIntegrityModeling

(2) Inspirational motivation Commitment to goalsCommunicationEnthusiasm

(3) Intellectual stimulation RationalityProblem solving

(4) Individualized consideration Personal attentionMentoringListeningEmpowerment

Table I.Transformationalleadership attributes

LODJ25,4

352

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

Comparative review of transformational and servant leadershipTo help the reader see the similarities and differences between transformationalleadership and servant leadership, all of the elements referenced thus far arecomparatively reviewed in Table III.

Similarities and differencesAt this point, one may ask what is the real difference, if any, between transformationalleadership and servant leadership? Is servant leadership just a subset oftransformational leadership or vice versa? Are transformational leadership andservant leadership the same theory, except for their use of different names?

Functional attributes Accompanying attributes

Vision CommunicationHonesty, integrity CredibilityTrust CompetenceService StewardshipModeling VisibilityPioneering Influence

PersuasionAppreciation of others Listening

EncouragementEmpowerment Teaching

Delegation

Table II.Servant leadership

attributes

Transformational leadership attributes Servant leadership attributes

Idealized (charismatic) influence InfluenceVision VisionTrust TrustRespect Credibility and competenceRisk-sharing DelegationIntegrity Honesty and integrityModeling Modeling and visibility

Service

Inspirational motivationCommitment to goals StewardshipCommunication CommunicationEnthusiasm

Intellectual stimulationRationality PersuasionProblem solving Pioneering

Individualized consideration Appreciation of othersPersonal attention EncouragementMentoring TeachingListening ListeningEmpowerment Empowerment

Note: Functional attributes in italic print – accompanying attributes in regular printTable III.

Comparison of attributes


leadership

353

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

The side-by-side comparison in Table III reveals that transformational leadership andservant leadership have relatively analogous characteristics. Perhaps this is becauseboth transformational and servant leadership are attempts to define and explainpeople-oriented leadership styles. According to both concepts, their leadershipframeworks incorporate:

. influence;

. vision;

. trust;

. respect or credibility;

. risk-sharing or delegation;

. integrity; and

. modeling.

Both transformational leadership and servant leadership emphasize the importance ofappreciating and valuing people, listening, mentoring or teaching, and empoweringfollowers. In fact, the theories are probably most similar in their emphasis uponindividualized consideration and appreciation of followers.

Nevertheless, transformational leadership and servant leadership do have points ofvariation. There is a much greater emphasis upon service to followers in the servantleadership paradigm. Furthermore, while both transformational leaders and servantleaders are influential, servant leaders gain influence in a nontraditional manner thatderives from servanthood itself (Russell and Stone, 2002). In so doing, they allowextraordinary freedom for followers to exercise their own abilities. They also place amuch higher degree of trust in their followers than would be the case in any leadershipstyle that required the leader to be somewhat directive.

The differenceIn response to the questions about whether there are any real differences betweentransformational leadership and servant leadership, our position is that the conceptshold many similarities, and they are complementary theories in many respects.Nonetheless, they ultimately form a distinctly separate theoretical framework ofleadership because of one primary difference. The principal difference betweentransformational leadership and servant leadership is the focus of the leader. Whiletransformational leaders and servant leaders both show concern for their followers, theoverriding focus of the servant leader is upon service to their followers. Thetransformational leader has a greater concern for getting followers to engage in andsupport organizational objectives. The extent to which the leader is able to shift theprimary focus of his or her leadership from the organization to the follower is thedistinguishing factor in determining whether the leader may be a transformational orservant leader. Furthermore, we proffer that this primary distinction influences othercharacteristics and outcomes, giving rise to secondary differences between theconcepts.

Leader focusWith transformational leadership, the leader’s focus is directed toward theorganization, and his or her behavior builds follower commitment toward the

LODJ25,4

354

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

organizational objectives through empowering followers to accomplish thoseobjectives (Yukl, 1998). While transactional leaders focus on exchange relations withfollowers, transformational leaders inspire followers to higher levels of performancefor the sake of the organization (Burns, 1998; Yukl, 1998). The very definition oftransformational leadership states the building of commitment to the organizationalobjectives (Yukl, 1998). The primary focus is on the organization, with followerdevelopment and empowerment secondary to accomplishing the organizationalobjectives. The result, nonetheless, is enhanced follower performance (Burns, 1998;Yukl, 1998).

In contrast, the servant leader is one who focuses on his or her followers. Servantleaders do not have particular affinity for the abstract corporation or organization;rather, they value the people who constitute the organization. This is not an emotionalendeavor but rather an unconditional concern for the well-being of those who form theentity. This relational context is where the servant leader actually leads. Harvey (2001)states that:

. . . chasing profits is peripheral; the real point of business is to serve as one of the institutionsthrough which society develops and exercises the capacity for constructive action (pp. 38-39).

The servant leader does not serve with a primary focus on results; rather the servantleader focuses on service itself. Lubin (2001) proffers that the servant leader’s firstresponsibilities are relationships and people, and those relationships take precedenceover the task and product. Servant leaders trust their followers to undertake actionsthat are in the best interest of the organization, even though the leaders do notprimarily focus on organizational objectives.

According to Bass (2000), servant leadership is “close to the transformationalcomponents of inspiration and individualized consideration” (p. 33). However, thestress of servant leadership is upon the leader’s aim to serve. This desire to servepeople supersedes organizational objectives. Servant leadership is a belief thatorganizational goals will be achieved on a long-term basis only by first facilitating thegrowth, development, and general well-being of the individuals who comprise theorganization. Conversely, Bass states that transformational leaders strive to align theirown and others’ interests with the good of the group, organization, or society. Theprimary aim is organizational conformance and performance more than it is service toand facilitation of followers. Harvey (2001) contends that the servant leader’s primaryobjective is the workers and their growth, then the customer base, and finally theorganizational bottom line.

Historical contextThe differences identified heretofore between transformational leadership and servantleadership are logical extensions of some of the primary themes in the leadershipliterature. Various research studies dating back to the middle part of the twentiethcentury have identified a task or production dimension and a people or relationshipdimension to leadership. The Ohio State University leadership studies (Stogdill andCoons, 1957) identified two primary elements of leadership:

(1) Initiating structure, which deals with task behavior.

(2) Consideration for workers, which concerns relationships.


leadership

355

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

Studies at the University of Michigan (Likert, 1961, 1967) focused on similar concepts.These studies examined the production orientation and employee orientation ofleaders. They determined that the most effective leaders incorporate both dimensionsbut pay the most attention to employees.

Blake and Mouton (1964) developed their well-known Leadership Gridw based oncontrasting the two dimensions of:

(1) Concern for people.

(2) Concern for production – again highlighting the dichotomy between task andrelationship responsibilities in leadership.

Although leadership research in the late 1970s began to concentrate less on asituational perspective and more on organizational performance (Behling andMcFillen, 1996; Contee-Borders, 2002; Hunt, 1991), the task (production) andrelationship (people) dimensions of leadership have continued in some of thecontemporary leadership literature (Bass, 1990a).

Transformational leadership and servant leadership are both high-orderevolutions in leadership paradigms. Both theoretical frameworks emphasize a highconcern for people and for production. However, transformational leadershipincorporates a greater emphasis upon production because the leader has a strongerfocus on organizational objectives. On the other hand, servant leadership involves ahigher concern for people because the primary focus of the leader is upon his or herfollowers.

Transformational leadership and servant leadership are not antithetical, nor iseither paradigm inherently superior to the other. Rather, transformational leadershipand servant leadership are similar, complementary but distinctly different concepts.The observable differences between transformational leadership and servantleadership are certainly logical in light of some of the primary themes that havepervaded the leadership field. The differences between the theories in practice may be afunction of both the organizational context in which the leaders operate and thepersonal values of the leaders.

The emergence of influence and motivationAnother area of emerging distinction between transformational leaders and servantleaders is that of follower influence and motivation resulting from the focus of theleader. Anecdotal evidence suggests that transformational leaders rely more on theircharismatic attributes to influence followers, whereas servant leaders significantlyinfluence followers through service itself.

The motive of the servant leader’s influence is not to direct others but rather tomotivate and facilitate service and stewardship by the followers themselves. It is ahumble means for affecting follower behavior. Servant leaders rely upon service toestablish the purposes for meaningful work and to provide needed resources. It is acharacteristically unique method for stimulating and influencing the behavior ofothers.

Transformational leaders rely upon their charismatic abilities. Bass (1960) andEtzioni (1961) identified charisma as a form of personal power. Instead of focusing onservice as a means to motivation, transformational leaders rely more on theircharismatic, enthusiastic nature to garner influence and motivate followers. They seek

LODJ25,4

356

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

to get followers to commit to various organizational goals and facilitate organizationalobjectives. Bass (1990b) said:

Attaining charisma in the eyes of one’s employees is central to succeeding as atransformational leader. Charismatic leaders have great power and influence . . . [they] inspireand excite employees with the idea that they may be able to accomplish great things (p. 21).

In essence, transformational leaders develop a type of influence derived from theirexpertise, strength of relationships, and charismatic abilities.

Servant leaders, however, derive influence from service itself. They developrelationships where followers are encouraged to follow their lead of service. McKenna(1989) notes that servant-power is a category of influence outside the traditional kindsof power. Real servanthood is a leadership style that relies upon the influence ofself-giving without self-glory.

Risks of manipulation and corruptionBecause leaders garner power, all forms of leadership carry with them the possibilityfor manipulation and corruption. This negative side of leadership is potentiallyproblematic for persons aspiring to either transformational or servant leadership. Thesources of influence and motivation inherent in the two leadership concepts carry withthem certain distinct possibilities for manipulation.

In transformational leadership, personal power in the form of charisma can be veryinfluential upon followers. In fact, the strength of the leader’s charisma may determinehis or her overall effectiveness. Strongly charismatic leaders can develop loyal,enthusiastic followers who may tend to overlook negative traits in their leaders.Consequently, if the leaders’ motives or ethical standards are poor, they can manipulatetheir loyal constituency.

Conger (1990) argued that there can be a dark side to leadership. For example,leaders who are driven to accomplish their visions may ignore problems andmisrepresent the realism of their visions. Clements and Washbush (1999) specificallyassailed transformational leadership models for having overlooked potentiallynegative issues in leader-follower dynamics. Similarly, Kets de Vries (1993) citedpersonality problems that can lead to poor leader-follower relationships. For example,some leaders have narcissistic tendencies – they thrive on power and enjoymanipulation. Some followers have dependent dispositions and form strongconnections to leaders who satisfy their dependency needs (Kets de Vries, 1989).Such imperfect human tendencies can lead to problems among charismatic leaders andtheir followers. History is replete with examples of political, religious, business, andother charismatic leaders who have manipulated their followers. Charisma may haveallowed them to ascend to leadership positions, but they ultimately used their charismain oppressive ways. Of course, such leaders whose standards are poor really functionoutside the genre of the ideal transformational leadership paradigm.

Since servant leaders do not rely on charisma, the risk of manipulation in this formof leadership comes from a different source. Servant leaders rely upon service, and inso doing, they endear the followers to the leaders in reciprocal relationships. Cialdini(2001) identified reciprocation as a primary means by which to influence people.According to the principle of reciprocation, when you do something for another personthey are psychologically obliged to return the favor. Optimally, servant leaders have


leadership

357

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

motives that have the best interest of others in mind. Therefore, they should develop apositive form of reciprocation whereby they encourage followers to respond not byserving the leader but by serving others.

Of course, this law of reciprocity can potentially be used negatively. Persons whoseek to be servant leaders, but have poor motives, can take advantage of others byinducing them to return acts of service. Such self-centered service can rapidlydegenerate into a form of manipulation that can be more subtly coercive than overtexploitive behavior. However, those who use service for manipulative purposesabdicate the real responsibility of genuine servant leadership.

Clearly, both transformational leadership and servant leadership, like otherleadership models, have potentially negative aspects. Yet the benefits of the twoconcepts far outweigh their negative sides. Additional investigation and field studiesinto the role influence and motivation play in transformational and servant leadershipwill further distinguish the characteristics of the concepts.

Research on servant leadershipThere is a long line of research focusing on transformational leadership. However,academic research on servant leadership is still in its infancy. Thus far, the research onservant leadership has focused mostly on the comparison of the servant leadershipconcept to other leadership methods and the identification of specific characteristics ofservant leadership (see Farling et al., 1999; Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998; Laub, 1999;Russell, 2000; Tice, 1996).

Farling et al. (1999) presented a concept of leadership based on the variables ofvision, influence, credibility, trust, and service – characteristics of servant leadershipfrequently noted in the popular press. They concluded that servant leaders find thesource of their values in a spiritual base. Furthermore, they argued that empoweringfollowers allows the servant leader to act on his or her embedded values.

James Laub (1999) studied servant leadership in an attempt to define specificcharacteristics of the servant leadership concept through a written, measurableinstrument. His research validates the idea of values as the basis for servantleadership. However, he qualified his conclusions by stating that additional empiricalresearch is necessary to fully understand the relationship between values and servantleadership. Similarly, Horsman (2001) studied the idea of servant leadership as anemerging model of leadership and identified a relationship between servant leadershipand the personal aspects of spirit.

Russell (2000, 2001) focused on understanding the values and attributes of servantleaders. He hypothesized that servant leaders possess different personal values thannon-servant leaders, and these personal values are tied to the attributes of leadership.His research provided evidence of a relationship between values and leadership;however, the results indicated the need for additional empirical studies to furtherexamine and validate the link.

Academic work in the field of servant leadership is growing. Since the conceptcontinues to gain attention in practice, we can expect to see additional research in thearea. Further academic studies will help us understand what leaders are willing to doto establish sustainable success and long-term productivity using servant leadership.The ability to clearly distinguish servant leadership from transformational leadershipopens the door for clear definitions, constructs, and instrumentation.

LODJ25,4

358

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

ConclusionThe overviews of transformational leadership and servant leadership contained hereinreveal many basic similarities between the two leadership theories. Bothtransformational leaders and servant leaders are visionaries, generate high levels oftrust, serve as role models, show consideration for others, delegate responsibilities,empower followers, teach, communicate, listen, and influence followers. Certainly,transformational leadership and servant leadership are not antithetical theories.Rather, they are complementary ideologies because they both describe excellent formsof leadership. Nonetheless, there are significant points of variation in the concepts.Most importantly, transformational leaders tend to focus more on organizationalobjectives while servant leaders focus more on the people who are their followers.

The world has become more complicated, and dynamic times require dynamic,driven leaders (Williams, 1998). Both transformational leadership and servantleadership offer the conceptual framework for dynamic leadership. Whiletransformational leadership has been well researched, and has become popular inpractice, servant leadership theory needs further support. Nonetheless, servantleadership offers great opportunities for leaders.

Like transformational leadership, servant leadership can bring about real change inorganizations, albeit through different means. When followers recognize that theirleaders truly follow the ideals of servant leadership, then the followers are apparentlymore likely to become servants themselves, which decreases customer churn andincreases long-term profitability and success (Braham, 1999). Overall, both servantleadership and transformational leadership offer valid, yet distinct paradigms forcontemporary leadership in all types of organizations.

References

Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (2002), Developing Potential across a Full Range of Leadership Caseson Transactional and Transformational Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Mahwah, NJ.

Avolio, B., Waldman, D. and Yammarino, F. (1991), “Leading in the 1990s: the four Is oftransformational leadership”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 15 No. 4,pp. 9-16.

Bass, B.M. (1960), Leadership, Psychology, and Organizational Behavior, Harper, New York, NY.

Bass, B.M. (1985a), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York,NY.

Bass, B.M. (1985b), “Leadership: good, better, best”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 13 No. 3,pp. 26-40.

Bass, B.M. (1990a), Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, andManagerial Applications, 3rd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.

Bass, B.M. (1990b), “From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share thevision”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 19-31.

Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.

Bass, B.M. (2000), “The future of leadership in learning organizations”, Journal of LeadershipStudies, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 18-40.


leadership

359

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, ConsultingPsychologist Press, Palo Alto, CA.

Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), “Introduction”, in Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (Eds), ImprovingOrganizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership, Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Behling, O. and McFillen, J.M. (1996), “A syncretical model of charismatic/transformationalleadership”, Group and Organizational Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 163-91.

Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge, HarperCollins, New York,NY.

Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964), The Managerial Grid, Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX.

Braham, J. (1999), “The spiritual side”, Industry Week, Vol. 248 No. 3, pp. 48-56.

Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, NY.

Burns, J.M. (1998), “Transactional and transforming leadership”, in Hickman, G.R. (Ed.), LeadingOrganizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 133-4.

Cialdini, R.B. (2001), Influence: Science and Practice, Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.

Clements, C. and Washbush, J.B. (1999), “The two faces of leadership: considering the dark sideof leader-follower dynamics”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 146-8.

Conger, J.A. (1990), “The dark side of leadership”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 19 No. 2,pp. 44-55.

Contee-Borders, A.K. (2002), “A case study defining servant leadership in the workplace”, DigitalDissertations, 3069348.

Daft, R.L. (2002), The Leadership Experience, South-Western, Mason, OH.

Etzioni, A. (1961), A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, Free Press, New York, NY.

Farling, M.L., Stone, A.G. and Winston, B.E. (1999), “Servant leadership: setting the stage forempirical research”, The Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 6 No. 1/2, pp. 49-72.

Giampetro-Meyer, A., Brown, T., Browne, S.J. and Kubasek, N. (1998), “Do we really want moreleaders in business?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 15, pp. 1727-36.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1969), “Leadership and the individual: the Dartmouth lectures”, in Frick, D.M.and Spears, L.C. (Eds), On Becoming a Servant Leader, Jossey-Bass Publishers,San Francisco, CA, pp. 284-338.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power andGreatness, Paulist Press, New York, NY.

Harvey, M. (2001), “The hidden force: a critique of normative approaches to business leadership”,SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 36-48.

Horsman, J.H. (2001), “Perspectives of servant leadership and spirit in organizations”,Dissertation Abstracts Online, 8936785.

Hunt, J.G. (1991), Leadership: A New Synthesis, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Jung, D.I. and Avolio, B.J. (2000), “Opening the black box: an experimental investigation of themediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactionalleadership”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 949-64.

Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1989), Prisoners of Leadership, Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1993), Leaders, Fools and Imposters: Essays on the Psychology ofLeadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

LODJ25,4

360

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

Kirkpatrick, S. and Locke, E. (1996), “Direct and indirect effects of three core charismaticleadership components on performance and attitudes”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 36-51.

Laub, J.A. (1999), “Assessing the servant organization: development of the servant organizationalleadership assessment (SOLA) instrument”, Dissertations Abstracts Online, 9921922.

Likert, R. (1961), New Patterns of Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Likert, R. (1967), The Human Organization: Its Management and Value, McGraw-Hill, New York,NY.

Lubin, K.A. (2001), “Visionary leader behaviors and their congruency with servant leadershipcharacteristics”, Dissertation Abstracts Online, 3022943.

McKenna, D.L. (1989), Power to Follow, Grace to Lead: Strategy for the Future of ChristianLeadership, Word Publishing, Dallas, TX.

McMinn, T.F. (2001), “The conceptualization and perception of biblical servant leadership in thesouthern Baptist convention”, Digital Dissertations, 3007038.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S. and Bommer, W.H. (1996), “Transformational leader behaviorsand substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment,trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2,pp. 259-98.

Pollard, C.W. (1996), The Soul of the Firm, HarperBusiness and Zondervan Publishing House,Grand Rapids, MI.

Russell, R.F. (2000), “Exploring the values and attributes of servant leaders”, Doctoraldissertation, 5359435.

Russell, R.F. (2001), “The role of values in servant leadership”, The Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 76-83.

Russell, R.F. and Stone, A.G. (2002), “A review of servant leadership attributes: developing apractical model”, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3,pp. 145-57.

Shamir, B. (1995), “Social distance and charisma: theoretical notes and an exploratory study”,Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-47.

Spears, L. (1995), “Servant-leadership and the Greenleaf legacy”, in Spears, L. (Ed.), Reflections onLeadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant-leadership Influenced Today’sTop Management Thinkers, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, pp. 1-14.

Spears, L. (1996), “Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-leadership”, The Leadership &Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 33-5.

Stogdill, R.M. and Coons, A.E. (Eds.) (1957), Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement,The Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research, Columbus, OH.

Tice, L. (1996), “Traits of limitless leaders”, Association Management, Vol. 48, p. 16.

Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A. (1986), The Transformational Leader: The Key to GlobalCompetitiveness, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.

Tracey, J.B. and Hinkin, T.R. (1998), “Transformational leadership or effective managerialpractices?”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 23, pp. 220-36.

Williams, L.E. (1998), Servants of the People: The 1960s Legacy of African-American Leadership,St Martin’s Press, New York, NY.

Yukl, G. (1998), Leadership in Organizations, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Yukl, G. (2002), Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.


leadership

361

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Reynaldo G. Rivera, David Santos, Manuel Martín-Fernández. 2017. Spanish validation of the ServantLeadership Short Scale for young adults and adolescents / Validación de la Escala de Liderazgo de ServicioVersión Abreviada en español para jóvenes adultos y adolescentes. Revista de Psicología Social 32:2, 395-423.[CrossRef]

2. L. Booth, S. Henwood, P.K. Miller. 2017. Leadership and the everyday practice of ConsultantRadiographers in the UK: Transformational ideals and the generation of self-efficacy. Radiography 23:2,125-129. [CrossRef]

3. PearseNoel James Noel James Pearse [email protected] Rhodes Business School, Rhodes University,Grahamstown, South Africa . 2017. Service of followers as a leadership competency: a social exchangeperspective. Journal of Management Development 36:3, 361-375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

4. SousaMilton Milton Sousa [email protected] van DierendonckDirk Dirk van [email protected] Finance Center, Nova School of Business and Economics, Lisbon, PortugalRotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands . 2017. Servantleaders as underestimators: theoretical and practical implications. Leadership & Organization DevelopmentJournal 38:2, 270-283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

5. WilliamsWallace Alexander Jr Wallace Alexander Williams Jr Wallace Alexander Williams Jr is anAssistant Professor in the College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Texas A&M University– Commerce, where he teaches Organizational Behavior and Human Resources. His primarilyresearch interests include leadership and management history. He earned his PhD in Managementfrom The University of Mississippi (Oxford) and his Bachelor of Arts from Morehouse College(Atlanta, GA). Additionally, he has extensive experience as both a social entrepreneur and a businessprofessional. BrandonRandolph-Seng Randolph-Seng Brandon [email protected] Randolph-Seng is an Assistant Professor of Management in the College of Business andEntrepreneurship at Texas A&M University – Commerce. He received his PhD from Texas TechUniversity. His research interests include the social and cognitive factors involved in leadership, groupsand entrepreneurship. HayekMario Mario Hayek [email protected] Mario Hayek is an AssistantProfessor in the College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Texas A&M University – Commerce.He obtained a PhD in Management from the University of Mississippi. His research interests includemanagement history, entrepreneurial cognition, social responsibility and ethics. He has been teachingentrepreneurship and strategic management at the undergraduate and graduate levels for over 13 years. Inaddition, he has acquired over 15 years of experience as an international entrepreneur. HadenStephaniePane Stephanie Pane Haden [email protected] Stephanie Pane Haden is an Associate Professorof Management in the College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Texas A&M University – Commerce.She obtained a PhD in Management from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Her research interests includemanagement history, leadership and motivation, green management, and corporate social responsibility.She teaches courses in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management. Her work hasappeared in various outlets such as Management Decision, Sloan Management Review, the Journal ofLeadership & Organizational Studies, and the Journal of Management History. AtincGuclu Guclu [email protected] Guclu Atinc is an Assistant Professor of Management at Texas A&M University– Commerce. He received his DBA from Louisiana Tech University. His current research interests arein the area of upper echelons and boards of directors in young entrepreneurial firms and on the impactof environment in strategic decision making along with research methods in strategic management. Hisresearch appeared in journals like Organizational Research Methods, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Journal of Business Research, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies and Journal of Managerial

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

Issues among others. Department of Marketing and Management, Texas A&M University – Commerce,Commerce, Texas, USA . 2017. Servant leadership and followership creativity. Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal 38:2, 178-193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

6. Sut I. Wong. 2017. Influencing upward: subordinates’ responses to leaders’ (un)awareness of theirempowerment expectations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3, 1-31.[CrossRef]

7. Salas-VallinaAndrés Andrés Salas-Vallina [email protected] López-CabralesÁlvaro Álvaro López-Cabrales [email protected] AlegreJoaquin Joaquin Alegre [email protected] FernándezRafael RafaelFernández [email protected] Department of Business Management, Facultat d’Economia, Universitatde Valencia, Valencia, Spain and Department of Business Management, Universidad Catolica de ValenciaSan Vicente Martir, Valencia, Spain Department of Business Management, University Pablo de Olavide,Seville, Spain Department of Management, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain Department of BusinessManagement, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain . 2017. On the road to happiness at work (HAW).Personnel Review 46:2, 314-338. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Michiel Coetzer, Mark Bussin, Madelyn Geldenhuys. 2017. The Functions of a Servant Leader.Administrative Sciences 7:1, 5. [CrossRef]

9. DuttaSumedha Sumedha Dutta [email protected] Sumedha Dutta is Assistant Professor atthe Department of Management, Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies, Delhi, India.She is presently working as an Assistant Professor with Maharaja Agrasen Institute of ManagementStudies, Delhi. She is a Research Scholar at University School of Management Studies, Guru GobindSingh Indraprastha University, Delhi. She is pursuing her doctoral work in the area of servantleadership and positive psychology. Her keen research areas include organization behaviour and humanresource management. She has 10 papers published in national and international journals and conferenceproceedings to her credit. KhatriPuja Puja Khatri [email protected] Puja Khatri is Professorat the University School of Management, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi, India.She is currently working as a Professor at University School of Management Studies, Guru GobindSingh Indraprastha University, Delhi. She has her PhD degree in Organizational Behaviour and HigherEducation. Also, she is a trained and a Certified Behaviour Analyst with specialization in PsychometricProfiling. In her rich 17 years of experience in teaching, research and consultancy, she has publishedmore than 90 research papers and articles in journals and conferences of national and internationalrepute. Department of Management, Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies, Delhi, IndiaUniversity School of Management, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi, India . 2017.Servant leadership and positive organizational behaviour: the road ahead to reduce employees’ turnoverintentions. On the Horizon 25:1, 60-82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

10. Qian Ling, Fang Liu, Xiaoyi Wu. 2017. Servant Versus Authentic Leadership. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly58:1, 53-68. [CrossRef]

11. Jon Welty Peachey, Laura Burton. 2017. Servant Leadership in Sport for Development and Peace: A WayForward. Quest 69:1, 125-139. [CrossRef]

12. Ingmar van Meerkerk, Jurian Edelenbos. 2017. Facilitating conditions for boundary-spanning behaviourin governance networks. Public Management Review 1. [CrossRef]

13. Marc H. Anderson, Peter Y. T. Sun. 2017. Reviewing Leadership Styles: Overlaps and the Need for aNew ‘Full-Range’ Theory. International Journal of Management Reviews 19:1, 76-96. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

14. Andrew Li, Kelly Davis McCauley, Jonathan A. Shaffer. 2017. The influence of leadership behavior onemployee work-family outcomes: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review .[CrossRef]

15. Julia E. Hoch, William H. Bommer, James H. Dulebohn, Dongyuan Wu. 2016. Do Ethical, Authentic,and Servant Leadership Explain Variance Above and Beyond Transformational Leadership? A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Management 014920631666546. [CrossRef]

16. Mitchell J. Neubert, Emily M. Hunter, Remy C. Tolentino. 2016. A servant leader and their stakeholders:When does organizational structure enhance a leader's influence?. The Leadership Quarterly 27:6, 896-910.[CrossRef]

17. Marcel F. van Assen. 2016. Exploring the impact of higher management’s leadership styles on Leanmanagement. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1-30. [CrossRef]

18. Zeljka Vidic, Damon Burton, Gregory South, Anthony M. Pickering, Amanda Start. 2016. Emotional andMotivational Correlates of Leadership Styles: A Comprehensive Framework for Understanding EffectiveLeaders. Journal of Leadership Studies 10:3, 22-40. [CrossRef]

19. Lynelle Coxen, Leoni van der Vaart, Marius W. Stander. 2016. Authentic leadership and organisationalcitizenship behaviour in the public health care sector: The role of workplace trust. SA Journal of IndustrialPsychology 42:1. . [CrossRef]

20. Winifrida Malingumu, Jeroen Stouten, Martin Euwema, Emmanuel Babyegeya. 2016. ServantLeadership, Organisational Citizenship Behavior and Creativity: The Mediating Role of Team-MemberExchange. Psychologica Belgica 56:4, 1-15. [CrossRef]

21. Mojtaba Vaismoradi, Pauline Griffiths, Hannele Turunen, Sue Jordan. 2016. Transformational leadershipin nursing and medication safety education: a discussion paper. Journal of Nursing Management 24:7,970-980. [CrossRef]

22. Otero-NeiraCarmen Carmen Otero-Neira Carmen Otero-Neira is an Associate Professor of Marketing inthe Economics and Business School at the University of Vigo. She holds a PhD in Business Administrationfrom this University. Dr Otero-Neira’s current research interest includes services marketing and salesmanagement. She has published in journals such us Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Journal ofStrategic Marketing, International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing or InternationalJournal of Contemporary Hospitality Management (forthcoming) among others. Varela-NeiraConcepciónConcepción Varela-Neira Concepción Varela-Neira is an Associate Professor in Marketing at theUniversity of Santiago de Compostela (Spain). Her current research interests include distributionchannels, sales management, and service failures and perceptions of justice in the services markets. She haspresented papers at various academic meetings and conferences. Her recent articles have been publishedin the Journal of Service Management, The Service Industries Journal, International Journal of BankMarketing, and Journal of Financial Services Marketing, among other journals. BandeBelén Belén BandeBelén Bande is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the University of Santiago de Compostela, in Spain.She holds a Bachelor of Law and a Bachelor of Business Administration from the ICADE University(Madrid, Spain). She received her PhD in Business Administration from the University of Santiagode Compostela. Her research interests include sales management, consumer behavior, and new productdevelopment. She has published on these topics in a variety of journals, such as Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, Food Quality and Preference, Industrial Marketing Management, Psychology and Marketing,Technovation, European Journal of Marketing, International Journal of Emerging Markets, Creativity andInnovation Management and Global Business and Economics Review. Facultad de Ciencias Económicasy Empresariales, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales,University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

Empresariales, University of Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain . 2016. Supervisory servant leadershipand employee’s work role performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 37:7, 860-881.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

23. Guiyao Tang, Ho Kwong Kwan, Deyuan Zhang, Zhou Zhu. 2016. Work–Family Effects of ServantLeadership: The Roles of Emotional Exhaustion and Personal Learning. Journal of Business Ethics 137:2,285-297. [CrossRef]

24. Kayla N. Walters, Dalia L. Diab. 2016. Humble Leadership: Implications for Psychological Safety andFollower Engagement. Journal of Leadership Studies 10:2, 7-18. [CrossRef]

25. John E. Barbuto, Ryan K. Gottfredson. 2016. Human Capital, the Millennial's Reign, and the Need ForServant Leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies 10:2, 59-63. [CrossRef]

26. Brenda Griffin, Philip A. Bushby, Emily McCobb, Sara C. White, Y. Karla Rigdon-Brestle, Leslie D.Appel, Kathleen V. Makolinski, Christine L. Wilford, Mark W. Bohling, Susan M. Eddlestone, Kelly A.Farrell, Nancy Ferguson, Kelly Harrison, Lisa M. Howe, Natalie M. Isaza, Julie K. Levy, Andrea Looney,Michael R. Moyer, Sheilah Ann Robertson, Kathy Tyson. 2016. The Association of Shelter Veterinarians’2016 Veterinary Medical Care Guidelines for Spay-Neuter Programs. Journal of the American VeterinaryMedical Association 249:2, 165-188. [CrossRef]

27. Hugo Asencio. 2016. Leadership, trust, and job satisfaction in the public sector: A study of US federalemployees. International Review of Public Administration 21:3, 250-267. [CrossRef]

28. Vaneet Kashyap, Santosh Rangnekar. 2016. Servant leadership, employer brand perception, trust in leadersand turnover intentions: a sequential mediation model. Review of Managerial Science 10:3, 437-461.[CrossRef]

29. GARY SCHWARZ, ALEXANDER NEWMAN, BRIAN COOPER, NATHAN EVA. 2016.SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWER JOB PERFORMANCE: THE MEDIATINGEFFECT OF PUBLIC SERVICE MOTIVATION. Public Administration . [CrossRef]

30. Rebecca VanMeter, Lawrence B. Chonko, Douglas B. Grisaffe, Emily A. Goad. 2016. In search of clarityon servant leadership: domain specification and reconceptualization. AMS Review 6:1-2, 59-78. [CrossRef]

31. Kyoung Yong Kim, Robert Eisenberger, Kibok Baik. 2016. Perceived organizational support and affectiveorganizational commitment: Moderating influence of perceived organizational competence. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior 37:4, 558-583. [CrossRef]

32. Sang-Kyu Hwang. 2016. The Effects of Servant Leadership on Organizational Identification andInnovative Behavior. Journal of the Korea Safety Management and Science 18:1, 191-201. [CrossRef]

33. Rusliza Yahaya Sultan Idris University of Education, Perak, Malaysia Fawzy Ebrahim Applied ResearchCenter, Nova Southeastern University, Orlando, Florida, USA . 2016. Leadership styles and organizationalcommitment: literature review. Journal of Management Development 35:2, 190-216. [Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

34. Dirk van Dierendonck Milton Sousa Finding Meaning in Highly Uncertain Situations: ServantLeadership during Change 403-424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]

35. Dave Bouckenooghe, Bulent Menguç. 2016. Understanding the dynamics between supervisor-followersocial capital, work engagement, and employees' creative work involvement. Canadian Journal ofAdministrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration . [CrossRef]

36. Sandra Gutierrez-Wirsching Division of International Business & Technology Studies, Texas A&MInternational University, Laredo, Texas, USA Jacqueline Mayfield Division of International Business &Technology Studies, Texas A&M International University, Laredo, Texas, USA Milton Mayfield Division

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

of International Business & Technology Studies, Texas A&M International University, Laredo, Texas,USA Wei Wang Division of International Business & Technology Studies, Texas A&M InternationalUniversity, Laredo, Texas, USA . 2015. Motivating language as a mediator between servant leadershipand employee outcomes. Management Research Review 38:12, 1234-1250. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

37. Martha A. van der Wal, Fedde Scheele, Johanna Schönrock-Adema, A. Debbie C. Jaarsma, Janke Cohen-Schotanus. 2015. Leadership in the clinical workplace: what residents report to observe and supervisorsreport to display: an exploratory questionnaire study. BMC Medical Education 15:1. . [CrossRef]

38. W. Kohle Paul, Colleen Fitzpatrick. 2015. Advising as Servant Leadership: Investigating StudentSatisfaction. NACADA Journal 35:2, 28-35. [CrossRef]

39. Nancy Gard McGehee, Whitney Knollenberg, Amy Komorowski. 2015. The central role of leadershipin rural tourism development: a theoretical framework and case studies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism23:8-9, 1277-1297. [CrossRef]

40. Munevver Olcum Cetin, F. Sehkar Fayda Kinik. 2015. An Analysis of Academic Leadership Behavior fromthe Perspective of Transformational Leadership. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 207, 519-527.[CrossRef]

41. A. Newman, G. Schwarz, B. Cooper, S. Sendjaya. 2015. How Servant Leadership InfluencesOrganizational Citizenship Behavior: The Roles of LMX, Empowerment, and Proactive Personality.Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef]

42. Jon Aarum Andersen Örebro University Business School, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden . 2015.Barking up the wrong tree. On the fallacies of the transformational leadership theory. Leadership &Organization Development Journal 36:6, 765-777. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

43. Bruce Winston School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University, Virginia Beach,VA, USA Dail Fields School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University, VirginiaBeach, VA, USA . 2015. Seeking and measuring the essential behaviors of servant leadership. Leadership& Organization Development Journal 36:4, 413-434. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

44. Khakhlong Chettha, Julsuwan Suwat, Somprach Kanokorn, Khangpheng Samrit. 2015. Developmentof program for enhancing the ideal desirable characteristic of basic school administrators. EducationalResearch and Reviews 10:10, 1458-1467. [CrossRef]

45. Fernando Jaramillo, Belén Bande, Jose Varela. 2015. Servant leadership and ethics: a dyadic examinationof supervisor behaviors and salesperson perceptions. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 35:2,108-124. [CrossRef]

46. Dirk van Dierendonck, Kathleen Patterson. 2015. Compassionate Love as a Cornerstone of ServantLeadership: An Integration of Previous Theorizing and Research. Journal of Business Ethics 128:1, 119-131.[CrossRef]

47. Alfred Wong, Ying Liu, Dean Tjosvold. 2015. Service leadership for adaptive selling and effectivecustomer service teams. Industrial Marketing Management 46, 122-131. [CrossRef]

48. Meltem Akbulut, Fatma Nevra Seggie, Bengü Börkan. 2015. Faculty member perceptions of departmenthead leadership effectiveness at a state university in Turkey. International Journal of Leadership in Education1-24. [CrossRef]

49. Li Ma, Anne S. Tsui. 2015. Traditional Chinese philosophies and contemporary leadership. TheLeadership Quarterly 26:1, 13-24. [CrossRef]

50. Carole Orchard, Margot RykhoffCollaborative Leadership within Interprofessional Practice 71-94.[CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

51. Satinder DhimanGandhi: A Values-Based Leader Par Excellence 93-116. [CrossRef]52. Robert Emmerling, Basak Canboy, Ricard Serlavos, Joan Manuel Batista-FoguetLeadership Education:

Theory and Practice 655-663. [CrossRef]53. Bradley Johnson, Myriam Abi Hayla, Peter J Jewesson, Carolyn Byrne, Mohamed El-Tawil, Mohamud A.

Verjee. 2015. Core Interprofessional Education (IPE) health competencies: The process of adaptation andimplementation for a local environment. Journal of Local and Global Health Science 2015:1, 3. [CrossRef]

54. Daniel T.L. Shek, Xiang Li. 2015. Nurturing students to be caring service leaders. International Journalon Disability and Human Development 14:4. . [CrossRef]

55. Nam Yong Jo, Kun Chang Lee, Dae Sung Lee, Minhee Hahn. 2015. Empirical analysis of roles ofperceived leadership styles and trust on team members’ creativity: Evidence from Korean ICT companies.Computers in Human Behavior 42, 149-156. [CrossRef]

56. Daniel T.L. Shek, Li Lin. 2015. Core beliefs in the service leadership model proposed by the HongKong Institute of Service Leadership and Management. International Journal on Disability and HumanDevelopment 14:3. . [CrossRef]

57. Hiroko MAEDA, Yasuo YAMAGUCHI, Shunichi TAKESHITA. 2015. Leadership Behaviors Expectedby Volunteer Student Coaches in Sports Clubs: A Case Study Using SL Theory Model. Journal of JapanSociety of Sports Industry 25:2, 2_217-2_229. [CrossRef]

58. Daniel T.L. Shek, Li Lin. 2015. Leadership and mentorship: service leaders as mentors of the followers.International Journal on Disability and Human Development 14:4. . [CrossRef]

59. Dirk De Clercq, Dave Bouckenooghe, Usman Raja, Ganna Matsyborska. 2014. Unpacking the GoalCongruence–Organizational Deviance Relationship: The Roles of Work Engagement and EmotionalIntelligence. Journal of Business Ethics 124:4, 695-711. [CrossRef]

60. Naeimeh Elkhani Department of Information System, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Skudai,Malaysia Sheida Soltani Department of Information System, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM),Skudai, Malaysia Mohammad Nazir Ahmad Department of Information System, Universiti TeknologiMalaysia (UTM), Skudai, Malaysia . 2014. The effects of transformational leadership and ERP systemself-efficacy on ERP system usage. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 27:6, 759-785.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

61. Mustafa Koyuncu Faculty of Tourism, Canakkale Onsekizmart University, Canakkale, Turkey Ronald J.Burke Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, Canada Marina Astakhova Department ofManagement and Marketing, University of Texas, Tyler, Texas, USA Duygu Eren Faculty of Tourism,Nevsehir University, Nevsehir, Turkey Hayrullah Cetin Faculty of Tourism, Nevsehir University,Nevsehir, Turkey . 2014. Servant leadership and perceptions of service quality provided by front-lineservice workers in hotels in Turkey. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 26:7,1083-1099. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

62. William I. Norton Jr Department of Management, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia,USA Monique L. Ueltschy Murfield Department of Marketing and Logistics, Georgia SouthernUniversity, Statesboro, Georgia, USA Melissa S. Baucus Department of Management, University ofLouisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA . 2014. Leader emergence: the development of a theoreticalframework. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 35:6, 513-529. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

63. Colette Hoption. 2014. Learning and Developing Followership. Journal of Leadership Education 13:3,129-137. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

64. Barbara Van Winkle, Stuart Allen, Douglas DeVore, Bruce Winston. 2014. The Relationship Between theServant Leadership Behaviors of Immediate Supervisors and Followers’ Perceptions of Being Empoweredin the Context of Small Business. Journal of Leadership Education 13:3, 70-82. [CrossRef]

65. Nam-Hee Ye, Ha-Young Min. 2014. The Structural Relationship between Director's ServantLeadership, Teacher's Empowerment and Organizational Cynicism Affecting on Teacher's OrganizationalCommitment at Kindergartens and Child Care Centers. Korean Journal of Child Studies 35:3, 119-135.[CrossRef]

66. Dirk De Clercq, Dave Bouckenooghe, Usman Raja, Ganna Matsyborska. 2014. Servant Leadershipand Work Engagement: The Contingency Effects of Leader-Follower Social Capital. Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly 25:2, 183-212. [CrossRef]

67. Dirk van Dierendonck, Daan Stam, Pieter Boersma, Ninotchka de Windt, Jorrit Alkema. 2014.Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformationalleadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 25:3, 544-562. [CrossRef]

68. Robert E. Overstreet, Benjamin T. Hazen, Joseph B. Skipper, Joe B. Hanna. 2014. Bridging the GapBetween Strategy and Performance: Using Leadership Style to Enable Structural Elements. Journal ofBusiness Logistics n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]

69. Hannes Zacher, Liane K. Pearce, David Rooney, Bernard McKenna. 2014. Leaders’ Personal Wisdom andLeader–Member Exchange Quality: The Role of Individualized Consideration. Journal of Business Ethics121:2, 171-187. [CrossRef]

70. Dr Harald Pechlaner, Dr Metin Kozak, Mr Michael Volgger Pietro Beritelli Associate Professor, IMP-HSG, University of St Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland Thomas Bieger Professor, IMP-HSG, Universityof St Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland . 2014. From destination governance to destination leadership –defining and exploring the significance with the help of a systemic perspective. Tourism Review 69:1,25-46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

71. Frankie J. Weinberg, William B. Locander. 2014. Advancing workplace spiritual development: A dyadicmentoring approach. The Leadership Quarterly 25:2, 391-408. [CrossRef]

72. Simon C.H. Chan Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,Hong Kong Wai-ming Mak Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong PolytechnicUniversity, Hong Kong . 2014. The impact of servant leadership and subordinates' organizational tenureon trust in leader and attitudes. Personnel Review 43:2, 272-287. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

73. Tamar Shultz. 2014. Evaluating Moral Issues in Motivation Theories: Lessons from Marketing andAdvertising Practices. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 26:1, 1-20. [CrossRef]

74. Ani Wahyu Rachmawati, Donald C. Lantu. 2014. Servant Leadership Theory Development &Measurement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 115, 387-393. [CrossRef]

75. Armin Pircher Verdorfer, Claudia Peus. 2014. The Measurement of Servant Leadership. Zeitschrift fürArbeits- und Organisationspsychologie A&O 58:1, 1-16. [CrossRef]

76. Wei-Ling Tchong. 2014. A review of Catholic school leadership in Taiwan. International Journal ofResearch Studies in Management 3:1. . [CrossRef]

77. Lim Jin-Seop. 2013. A Study on the Self-Sufficiency Performance of the Middle-Old Aged: an Analysis ofInteraction Effect of Individual Factors and Local self-support center’s Factors. Korea Social Policy Review20:4, 37-75. [CrossRef]

78. 송송송, 송송송. 2013. Relationship between Leadership and Followership of Hotel F&B Organization.FoodService Industry Journal 9:3, 93-102. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

79. Long-Zeng Wu, Eliza Ching-Yick Tse, Pingping Fu, Ho Kwong Kwan, Jun Liu. 2013. The Impact ofServant Leadership on Hotel Employees’ “Servant Behavior”. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54:4, 383-395.[CrossRef]

80. Benjamin G. Voyer ESCP Europe, London, UK and Institute of Social Psychology, London Schoolof Economics and Political Science, London, UK Bryan McIntosh Richmond University, London,UK and Division of Women's Health, School of Medicine, King's College, London, UK . 2013.The psychological consequences of power on self-perception: implications for leadership. Leadership &Organization Development Journal 34:7, 639-660. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

81. Nathan EvaDepartment of Management, Monash University, Caulfield, Australia SenSendjayaDepartment of Management, Monash University, Caulfield, Australia. 2013. Creating futureleaders: an examination of youth leadership development in Australia. Education + Training 55:6, 584-598.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

82. Joyce K.H. NgaTaylor's Business School, Taylor's University, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia Soo Wai Mun(Nadiah Soo)Taylor's Business School, Taylor's University, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. 2013. The perceptionof undergraduate students towards accountants and the role of accountants in driving organizationalchange. Education + Training 55:6, 500-519. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

83. Peter Y.T. Sun. 2013. The servant identity: Influences on the cognition and behavior of servant leaders.The Leadership Quarterly 24:4, 544-557. [CrossRef]

84. Ali Iftikhar Choudhary, Syed Azeem Akhtar, Arshad Zaheer. 2013. Impact of Transformational andServant Leadership on Organizational Performance: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics116:2, 433-440. [CrossRef]

85. Bozena Poksinska, Dag Swartling, Erik Drotz. 2013. The daily work of Lean leaders – lessonsfrom manufacturing and healthcare. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 24:7-8, 886-898.[CrossRef]

86. Laura Burton, Jon Welty Peachey. 2013. The Call for Servant Leadership in Intercollegiate Athletics.Quest 65:3, 354-371. [CrossRef]

87. Ji-Eun Lee, Barbara A. Almanza, SooCheong (Shawn) Jang, Douglas C. Nelson, Richard F. Ghiselli.2013. Does transformational leadership style influence employees’ attitudes toward food safety practices?.International Journal of Hospitality Management 33, 282-293. [CrossRef]

88. 송송송, Lee Hwan-Beom. 2013. The Moderating Effect of Servant Leadership on Relationship betweenJob Stress and Customer Orientation: In Case of Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs. Korean Journalof Local Government & Administration Studies 27:2, 65-90. [CrossRef]

89. Angus J. DuffSchool of Human Resource Management, York University, Toronto, Canada. 2013.Performance management coaching: servant leadership and gender implications. Leadership &Organization Development Journal 34:3, 204-221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

90. Robin Stanley Snell, Zhang Yi, Almaz M.K. Chak. 2013. Representational predicaments for employees:their impact on perceptions of supervisors' individualized consideration and on employee job satisfaction.The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24:8, 1646-1670. [CrossRef]

91. Ho Sun Lee, 송송송, 송송송, 송송송, 송송송. 2013. 송송송 송송송송 송송송송송송송 송송송 송송: 송송송 송송송송송송 송송송송 송송송송. KoreanReview of Organizational Studies 10:1, 203-234. [CrossRef]

92. Beverly Alimo-MetcalfeA Critical Review of Leadership Theory 13-47. [CrossRef]93. Denise Linda Parris, Jon Welty Peachey. 2012. Building a legacy of volunteers through servant leadership:

A cause-related sporting event. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 23:2, 259-276. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

94. Lena Zander, Audra I. Mockaitis, Christina L. Butler. 2012. Leading global teams. Journal of WorldBusiness 47:4, 592-603. [CrossRef]

95. Haina Zhang, Ho Kwong Kwan, André M. Everett, Zhaoquan Jian. 2012. Servant leadership,organizational identification, and work-to-family enrichment: The moderating role of work climate forsharing family concerns. Human Resource Management 51:5, 747-767. [CrossRef]

96. Andrea Bobbio, Dirk Van Dierendonck, Anna Maria Manganelli. 2012. Servant leadership in Italy and itsrelation to organizational variables. Leadership 8:3, 229-243. [CrossRef]

97. Donald P. Moynihan, Bradley E. Wright, Sanjay K. Pandey. 2012. Working Within Constraints: CanTransformational Leaders Alter the Experience of Red Tape?. International Public Management Journal15:3, 315-336. [CrossRef]

98. Trae Stewart. 2012. Classroom teacher leadership: service-learning for teacher sense of efficacy and servantleadership development. School Leadership & Management 32:3, 233-259. [CrossRef]

99. Jen-te Yang. 2012. Effects of ownership change on organizational settings and strategies in a Taiwanesehotel chain. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31:2, 428-441. [CrossRef]

100. Michel DionUniversité de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada. 2012. Are ethical theories relevant for ethicalleadership?. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 33:1, 4-24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

101. Donghong Ding, Haiyan Lu, Yi Song, Qing Lu. 2012. Relationship of Servant Leadership and EmployeeLoyalty: The Mediating Role of Employee Satisfaction. iBusiness 04:03, 208-215. [CrossRef]

102. Han-Jin Hwan. 2011. Impact of the Intermediate of Empowerment on the Relationship between ServantLeadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association 11:9,302-314. [CrossRef]

103. Dirk van Dierendonck, Inge Nuijten. 2011. The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validationof a Multidimensional Measure. Journal of Business and Psychology 26:3, 249-267. [CrossRef]

104. Dirk van Dierendonck. 2011. Servant Leadership: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Management 37:4,1228-1261. [CrossRef]

105. Zeljka Vidic, Damon Burton. 2011. Developing Effective Leaders: Motivational Correlates of LeadershipStyles. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 23:3, 277-291. [CrossRef]

106. Lora L. Reed, Deborah Vidaver-Cohen, Scott R. Colwell. 2011. A New Scale to Measure ExecutiveServant Leadership: Development, Analysis, and Implications for Research. Journal of Business Ethics101:3, 415-434. [CrossRef]

107. Michaéla C. Schippers, René Hogenes. 2011. Energy Management of People in Organizations: A Reviewand Research Agenda. Journal of Business and Psychology 26:2, 193-203. [CrossRef]

108. Sen Sendjaya, Brian Cooper. 2011. Servant Leadership Behaviour Scale: A hierarchical model and test ofconstruct validity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20:3, 416-436. [CrossRef]

109. Nicholas Clarke. 2011. An integrated conceptual model of respect in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly22:2, 316-327. [CrossRef]

110. Inbal Nahum-Shani, Anit Somech. 2011. Leadership, OCB and individual differences: Idiocentrism andallocentrism as moderators of the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership andOCB. The Leadership Quarterly 22:2, 353-366. [CrossRef]

111. Billy Brocato, Jonatan Jelen, Thomas Schmidt, Stuart Gold. 2011. Leadership conceptual ambiguities.Journal of Leadership Studies 5:1, 35-50. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

112. Sherry K. SchneiderDepartment of Psychology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida, USAWinnette M. GeorgePoint Fortin, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies. 2011. Servant leadership versustransformational leadership in voluntary service organizations. Leadership & Organization DevelopmentJournal 32:1, 60-77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

113. Nicola M. Pless, Thomas Maak. 2011. Responsible Leadership: Pathways to the Future. Journal of BusinessEthics 98:S1, 3-13. [CrossRef]

114. Sen SendjayaDepartment of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia AndrePekertiUniversity of Queensland Business School, UQ St Lucia, St Lucia, Australia. 2010. Servantleadership as antecedent of trust in organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 31:7,643-663. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

115. Judi Brownell. 2010. Leadership in the Service of Hospitality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51:3, 363-378.[CrossRef]

116. Yusuf Cerit. 2010. The effects of servant leadership on teachers’ organizational commitment in primaryschools in Turkey. International Journal of Leadership in Education 13:3, 301-317. [CrossRef]

117. 송송송. 2010. A Mediating Effect of Psychological Empowerment on the Relationship between TopExecutives' Servant Leadership Level Perceived by Social Workers and Organizational CitizenshipBehavior(OCB). Korean Journal of Social Welfare 62:2, 307-328. [CrossRef]

118. Bill R. Brocato, Jonatan Jelen, Thomas Schmidt, Stuart GoldA Postmodern Resolution to LeadershipConceptual Ambiguities 356-373. [CrossRef]

119. Jian-ming YaoComprehensive Correspondence Analyses between Logistics Service Concrete Modes andThree Series of Decision Drives 1-4. [CrossRef]

120. G. Lenssen, S. Tyson, S. Pickard and D. BevanBoleslaw RokBased at the Business Ethics Centre,Kozminski University, Warsaw, Poland. 2009. Ethical context of the participative leadership model: takingpeople into account. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 9:4, 461-472.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

121. Jeanine ParoliniJeanine Parolini Consulting, Chanhassen, Minnesota, USA Regent University, VirginiaBeach, Virginia, USA Kathleen PattersonSchool of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship,Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA Bruce WinstonSchool of Global Leadership andEntrepreneurship, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA. 2009. Distinguishing betweentransformational and servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 30:3, 274-291.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

122. Lee,Kyu-Yong, 송송송. 2009. The Relationships between Servant Leadership and Service Quality : TheMediating effects of Psychological Empowerment. Journal of Korea Service Management Society 10:1,67-91. [CrossRef]

123. Jon Aarum AndersenLilllehammer University College, Lillehammer, Norway. 2009. When a servant‐leader comes knocking …. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 30:1, 4-15. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

124. Sen Sendjaya, James C. Sarros, Joseph C. Santora. 2008. Defining and Measuring Servant LeadershipBehaviour in Organizations. Journal of Management Studies 45:2, 402-424. [CrossRef]

125. Debra Jackson. 2008. Servant Leadership in Nursing: A framework for developing sustainable researchcapacity in nursing. Collegian 15:1, 27-33. [CrossRef]

126. Ann Marie RyanHow May I Help You? Editing as Service 27-38. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

127. Insuk Lee, 송송송, 송송송. 2007. A Study on the Effect of Catholic Church's Servant Leadership on Members'Attitude. The Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 20:4, 375-393. [CrossRef]

128. Erwin RauschDean ElmutiLumpkin College of Business and Applied Sciences, Eastern Illinois University,Charleston, Illinois, USA William MinnisLumpkin College of Business and Applied Sciences, EasternIllinois University, Charleston, Illinois, USA Michael AbebeLumpkin College of Business and AppliedSciences, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, USA. 2005. Does education have a role indeveloping leadership skills?. Management Decision 43:7/8, 1018-1031. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

129. Jonatan Jelen, Billy Brocato, Thomas M. Schmidt, Stuart S. GoldIn Search of a Star Trek Affective State42-59. [CrossRef]

130. Nathan S. Hartman, Thomas A. ConklinEthics and Leadership 873-891. [CrossRef]131. Geraldine Torrisi-Steele“But We've Got No Power”: 42-54. [CrossRef]132. Ben TranThe Origin of Servant Leadership: 31-63. [CrossRef]133. Nathan S. Hartman, Thomas A. ConklinEthics and Leadership 182-200. [CrossRef]134. Wallace A. Williams Jr., Christopher Thomas, Anthony P. Ammeter, Mario Hayek, Milorad M.

NovicevicAccountability to a Servant Leader and OCB 1-23. [CrossRef]135. Sharmila Jayasingam, Mahfooz A. AnsariLeading in a Knowledge Era 2038-2055. [CrossRef]136. Claudio PousaMeasuring Servant Leadership 211-242. [CrossRef]137. Ben TranThe Origin of Servant Leadership 262-294. [CrossRef]138. Sharmila Jayasingham, Mahfooz A. AnsariLeading in a Knowledge Era 28-45. [CrossRef]139. Kristen M. BowersServant Leadership Practices in a Volunteer-Led Organization 71-91. [CrossRef]140. John Kilroy, Corné L. Bekker, Mihai C. Bocarnea, Bruce E. WinstonSeven Scales to Measure the Seven

Beatitudes in Leaders 164-187. [CrossRef]141. Chan Kyun Park, Doo Hun Lim, Boreum JuTransformational Leadership and Teacher Engagement in

an International Context 22-42. [CrossRef]142. Raj Selladurai, Shawn CarraherLead like the Greatest Leader! 350-355. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by C

HA

RL

ES

STU

RT

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

3:31

30

Apr

il 20

17 (

PT)

Transformational versus servant leadership

Documents

Transcript of Transformational versus servant leadership