5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 1/45

A Systematic Literature Review ofServant Leadership Theory inOrganizational Contexts

Journal of Business Ethics

March 2013, Volume 113, Issue 3, pp 377–393

Denise Linda Parris (1) Email author (deniselparris@gmail.com)Jon Welty Peachey (2)

1. Barney Barnett School of Business & Free Enterprise, Florida Southern College,Lakeland, USA2. Division of Sport Management, Department of Health and Kinesiology, Texas A&MUniversity, College Station, USA

Article

First Online:22 April 2012

Received:20 February 2012

Accepted:08 April 2012

DOI (Digital Object Identifier): 10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6

Cite this article as:Parris, D.L. & Peachey, J.W. J Bus Ethics (2013) 113: 377. doi:10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6

57 Citations2 Shares11k Downloads

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 newleadership theory is significantly distinct, viable, and valuable for organizationalsuccess. The aim of this study was to identify empirical studies that explored servantleadership theory by engaging a sample population in order to assess and synthesizethe mechanisms, outcomes, and impacts of servant leadership. Thus, we sought toprovide an evidence­informed answer to how does servant leadership work, and howcan we apply it? We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR), a methodologyadopted from the medical sciences to synthesize research in a systematic, transparent,

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 2/45

and reproducible manner. A disciplined screening process resulted in a final samplepopulation of 39 appropriate studies. The synthesis of these empirical studiesrevealed: (a) there is no consensus on the definition of servant leadership; (b) servantleadership theory is being investigated across a variety of contexts, cultures, andthemes; (c) researchers are using multiple measures to explore servant leadership; and(d) servant leadership is a viable leadership theory that helps organizations andimproves the well­being of followers. This study contributes to the development ofservant leadership theory and practice. In addition, this study contributes to themethodology for conducting SLRs in the field of management, highlighting aneffective method for mapping out thematically, and viewing holistically, new researchtopics. 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 inthe behavioral sciences. This is because the success of all economic, political, andorganizational systems depends on the effective and efficient guidance of the leaders ofthese systems (Barrow 1977). A critical factor to understanding the success of anorganization, then, is to study its leaders. Leadership is a skill used to influencefollowers in an organization to work enthusiastically towards goals specificallyidentified 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 organizationsinto new directions (Banutu­Gomez and Banutu­Gomez 2007; Kotter 2001).According to Schneider (1987), the most important part in building an organizationwith 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 toexplain and organize the complexity of the nature of leadership and its consequences(Bass and Bass 2008). Over the years, some leadership scholars have called attentionto the implicit connection between ethics and leadership. A burgeoning new researcharea and leadership theory that has been linked to ethics, virtues, and morality isservant 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 roleof organizations is to create people who can build a better tomorrow resonates withscholars and practitioners who are responding to the growing perceptions thatcorporate leaders have become selfish and who are seeking a viable leadership theoryto help resolve the challenges of the twenty­first century. Despite servant leadershipbeing coined by Robert K. Greenleaf over three decades ago in 1970, it remainsunderstudied yet still prominently practiced in boardrooms and organizations (Bassand Bass 2008; Spears 2005). It has received significant attention in the popular press(e.g., Fortune magazine and Dateline) (Spears Center 2011) and leadingorganizational management authors have discussed the positive effects of servantleadership on organizational profits and employee satisfaction; see Max DePree(Leadership is an Art1989), Stephen Covey (Principle Centered Leadership1990),Peter Senge (The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Styles of the Learning

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 3/45

Organization1990), Peter Block (Stewardship: Choosing Service over SelfInterest1993), and Margaret Wheatley (Finding Our Way: Leadership in anUncertain Time2005). However, Greenleaf’s (1970, 1977) conceptualization of servantleadership as a way of life rather than as a management technique perhaps has slowedthe acceptance of this leadership theory in academia as scholars ask the question: If itis a way life—a philosophy, how can it be empirically tested? Even Greenleaf admittedservant leadership is unorthodox and would be difficult to operationalize and apply,as “it is meant to be neither a scholarly treatise nor a how­to­do­it manual” (Greenleaf1977, p. 49). The majority of research to date on servant leadership consists ofdeveloping theoretical frameworks and establishing measurement tools with theintention that future scholars can apply these tools to explore servant leadership inpractice and as a tenable theory. Only a limited amount of research has empiricallyexamined this construct.

As an aid in advancing servant leadership theory, we sought to identify theseempirical studies that investigated servant leadership by engaging a samplepopulation in order to assess and synthesize its mechanisms, outcomes, and impacts.Currently, there does not exist a comprehensive summary of empirical studiesexploring servant leadership theory in organizational settings (e.g., a systematicliterature review (SLR)), which is a gap in the extant literature. Through exploringempirical 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 onceaddressed by the early services marketing and sport management scholars whose newideas and concepts were accepted slowly within the conservative culture of academia(Shannon 1999). Similarly, servant leadership scholars have sought a variety ofpublication outlets for their work while they confront a debate on the distinctivenessand significance of this leadership theory for organizations as well as employees. Inaddition, the acceleration of knowledge production in the management field hasresulted in a body of knowledge that is increasingly transdisciplinary, fragmented,and interdependent from advancement in social sciences. In management research theliterature review is a key tool used to manage the diversity of knowledge for anacademic inquiry; however, a critique of these reviews is that they are typicallydescriptive accounts of contributions of selected writers often arbitrarily chosen forinclusion by the researcher, and that these reviews may lack a critical assessment ofincluded studies (Tranfield et al. 2003). In contrast, a SLR is different from traditionalnarrative reviews in that it adopts a replicable, scientific and transparent process thataims to mitigate bias through exhaustive literature searches and by providing anaudit trail of the conclusions. A current gap in management research is a discussion ofhow to conduct a SLR, how to critically assess studies, and how to integrate theconclusions. In this SLR, we not only ascertain the current state of the field in servantleadership research and synthesize divergent studies, but also advance a rigorousmethodology for conducting a SRL in management research.

Thus, the purpose of this study was to systematically examine and organize thecurrent body of research literature that either quantitatively or qualitatively exploredservant leadership theory in a given organizational setting. In this SRL we onlyincluded empirical studies that investigated servant leadership in an organizationalcontext and excluded studies with a primary focus on model development or testingmeasurement instruments. Earlier reviews on the concept of servant leadershipfocused on: identifying key characteristics (Russell and Stone 2002), measurement

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 4/45

development (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006), and proposing a theoretical framework(Van Dierendonck 2011). Although these reviews help provide insight into howresearchers have attempted to operationalize servant leadership, none of them wasdone in a systematic manner (i.e., no methodology to select articles or limit bias), andnone of them specifically explored empirical research.

The following research questions guided this SLR: (a) How was servant leadershipdefined? (b) In what contexts was servant leadership theory empirically investigated?(c) How was servant leadership examined (i.e., the methodology)? and (d) What werethe results of the examination? We begin this paper by summarizing the origin ofservant leadership and follow with a short discussion of the development of servantleadership as a theory and a new research area. Next, a summary of the method usedfor selecting and reviewing the literature is explained, with details on search strategy,analysis, and assessment of the quality of the reviewed studies. Then, we present ourfindings of the SLR on empirical studies that have explored servant leadership theory.In addition, we discuss the methodological contribution of conducting SLRs in thefield of management as an effective method for mapping out thematically, andviewing holistically, new research topics. We conclude by offering suggestions forfuture research and practice.

Origin of Servant Leadership by Robert K.Greenleaf

Servant leadership was introduced into an organizational context through Greenleaf’sthree foundational essays—The Servant as Leader (1970), The Institution as Servant(1972a), and Trustees as Servants (1972b)—all of which he published after retiringfrom 40 years of management work at AT&T. Greenleaf (1977) defined servantleadership 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 byHesse (1956) and used the character Leo to describe a true servant: “Leadership wasbestowed upon a man who was by nature a servant… His servant nature was the realman, not bestowed, not assumed, and not to be taken away” (p. 21). Servant leadersare distinguished by both their primary motivation to serve (what they do) and theirself­construction (who they are), and from this conscious choice of ‘doing’ and ‘being’they aspire to lead (Sendjaya and Sarros 2002). Greenleaf (1977) believed servantleadership was an inward lifelong journey.

Upon retirement in 1964, Greenleaf launched a second career, which spanned25 years, in which he articulated his new leadership paradigm—servant leadership. Hepromoted servant leadership in many publications and presentations, includinglectures at Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (M.I.T.) Sloan School ofManagement, Harvard Business School, Dartmouth College, and the University ofVirginia; and served as leadership consultant to institutions such as FordFoundation, Lilly Endowment, M.I.T., R.K. Mellon Foundation, and the AmericanFoundation for Management. In 1964 he founded the Center for Applied Ethics,renamed the Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership in 1985, which helpspeople understand the principles and practices of servant leadership (Greenleaf Center

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 5/45

2011). Over 20 % of Fortune magazine top 100 companies have sought guidance fromthe Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, such as Starbucks, Vanguard InvestmentGroup, Southwest Airlines, 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 datingback to ancient teachings of the world’s great religions, as well as to statements ofnumerous great leaders and thinkers (Sendjaya and Sarros 2002). The concept ofservant leadership echoes the messages of Mother Theresa, Moses, Harriet Tubman,Lao­tzu, Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Confucius, and many otherreligious, historic, and current leaders (Keith 2008). Many scholars model JesusChrist’s teachings to his disciples as the ultimate example of servant leadership(Ebener and O’Connell 2010; Lanctot and Irving 2010; Winston 2004). Whereas otherleadership theories are traditionally defined only by what the leader does, servantleaders are defined by their character and by demonstrating their completecommitment to serve others. This creates one of the core challenges for theorists; howto construct models that encompass Greenleaf’s theoretical message of “servanthood­through­leadership­through­practice” (Prosser 2010, p. 28) that operates not only ona surface­level but deep within a person’s being. Although scholars have agreedtheories, frameworks, and models will increase our understanding of the meaning,implications, and applications of servant leadership, it is important to remain awareof the more abstract, underlying principles and concepts of a servant as a leader(Spears 1998; Keith 2008; Prosser 2010).

Servant Leadership as a Theory

Although servant leadership is a growing trend being practiced by private and non­profit 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; McGee­Cooper and Trammell 1995; Rasmussen 1995; Rieser 1995;Senge 1995; Smith 1995; Snodgrass 1993; Spears 1995, 1996; Tatum 1995; Vanourek1995). Many of these writers present narrative examples of how servant leadership isbeing used in organizational settings; however, this is also the primary limitation ofmuch of the servant leadership literature, which is anecdotal in nature instead ofempirical (Bowman 1997; Northouse 1997; Sendjaya and Sarros 2002). Bass (2000)acknowledged that servant leadership requires extensive research, emphasizing that“the strength of the servant leadership movement and its many links to encouragingfollower learning, growth, and autonomy, suggests that the untested theory will playa role in the future leadership of the learning organization” (p. 33). The promise ofservant leadership has since motivated scholars and practitioners to explore thepossibilities of the servant­first paradigm.

Since Farling et al.’s (1999) call for empirical studies, there have emerged threestreams of research (Van Dierendonck and Patterson 2011): (a) a conceptual stream(Spears 1998; Laub 1999; Patterson 2003); (b) a measurement stream (Page andWong 2000; Wong and Page 2003; Ehrhart 2004; Barbuto and Wheeler 2006; Dennisand Bocarnea 2005; Liden et al. 2008; Sendjaya et al. 2008; Van Dierendonck and

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 6/45

Nuijte 2011); and (c) model development (Russell and Stone 2002; Van Dierendonck2011). Notably absent from the above streams are empirical studies that exploreservant leadership theory in a given organizational setting. In addition, in spite of thegrowing amount of research on servant leadership, the theory is still under­defined,with various authors grappling with definitions (Anderson 2009). This is as Greenleaf(1977) predicted, when he warned that servant leadership would be difficult to applyand operationalize. He did not provide a management how­to­do­it­manual; 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 provideinsight into how researchers have organized the complexity of Greenleaf’s concepts onservant leadership into a theoretical framework. Russell and Stone’s (2002) reviewrevealed the following nine functional attributes, or operative qualities and distinctivecharacteristics of servant leaders; vision, honesty, integrity, trust, service, modeling,pioneering, appreciation of others, and empowerment. In addition, Russell and Stonedetermined 11 accompanying attributes, which are interrelated and supportive of thenine core attributes listed above: communication, credibility, competence,stewardship, visibility, influence, persuasion, listening, encouragement, teaching,and delegation. From this assimilation of attributes, Russell and Stone developed amodel of servant leadership to spark future application and research. While theirreview provides a conceptual overview of servant leadership, it lacks a methodology.Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) developed an integrated model of servant leadershipafter conducting a literature review, which synthesized the attributes of servantleadership into five factors; altruistic calling, emotional healing, persuasive mapping,wisdom, and organizational stewardship. The third review by Van Dierendonck (2011)also concludes with another conceptual model, which identifies six key characteristicsof servant leadership: empowering and developing people, humility, authenticity,interpersonal acceptance, providing direction, and stewardship. All of these reviewsexemplify different interpretations of Greenleaf’s writings employing differentterminologies; however, all include the fundamental dimension of servanthood or thewillingness to serve others. These reviews highlight the plurality of servant leadershiptheory, leaving the researcher, student, or practitioner to ponder exactly what servantleadership theory is. As DiMaggio (1995) pointed out “there is more than one kind ofgood theory” (p. 391).

Given that previous reviews have examined the development of conceptualframeworks and measurement tools for servant leadership, the present review focusesonly on empirical studies that have explored servant leadership theory in anorganizational context. As such, the current study is the first review to provide asynthesis, based upon evidence in published peer­reviewed journals, of empiricalstudies conducted on servant leadership theory in organizational settings.

Methodology

The SLR is often contrasted with traditional literature reviews because systematicreviews are objective, replicable, systematic, comprehensive, and the process isreported in the same manner as for reporting empirical research (Weed 2005). Theorigin of SLRs is in the medical, health care, and policy fields, where they have beenused 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,

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 7/45

clarity, accessibility, and impartial inclusive coverage on a particular area (Thorpe etal. 2006). Klassen et al (1998) define SLR as “a review in which there is acomprehensive search for relevant studies on a specific topic, and those identified arethen appraised and synthesized according to a pre­determined explicit method” (p.700). This SRL specifically explored research studies that have examined servantleadership theory in a given organizational setting. Since our focus was gaininginsight on the empirical investigation of servant leadership theory, we excludedstudies with a primary focus on model development or testing measurementinstruments. The approach of this review entailed extensive searches of relevantdatabases with the intention of ensuring, as far as possible, that all literature onservant leadership was identified while maintaining the focus on literature of greatestpertinence to the research questions (i.e., empirical studies that have investigatedservant leadership theory in organizational settings). Next, we discuss our searchmethods, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample, and data analysis.

Search Methods

Published studies were identified through searches of electronic databases accessiblethrough the authors’ university library system. Databases included in this reviewwere: PsycInfo, Eric, Sociological Abstracts, PAIS International, 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, Business Source Complete, Communication and MassMedia Complete, Education and Administration Abstracts, Gender Studies, CINAHL,Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, Human Resources Abstracts, and Medlinethrough the vendor EBSCO. All results were limited to English­only peer­reviewedjournal articles. The searches for published studies were conducted in a systematicmanner, 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 peer­reviewed journal; (b) be in the English language; and (c) usethe keyword “servant leadership.” No restriction was placed on year of publication.The number of articles containing the keyword “servant leadership” retrieved fromeach database was recorded. Next, we examined if there were any external duplicatesfrom the current database being searched and the previous databases that had alreadybeen searched. We recorded the number of external duplicates, and then deleted theduplicated journal articles from the last database searched while keeping a runningtotal of new articles found.

Once all possible studies had been identified, we conducted a second screening toassess eligibility against inclusion criteria and then full text articles were retrieved forthose that met the inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria for the second screeningrequired that the published peer­reviewed article meet all of the following fourspecifications: (a) be in the English language; (b) be an empirical study (i.e., not anessay, book review, letter, literature review, editorial, opinion, journalistic or antidotalarticle); (c) discuss servant leadership as the main topical theme; and (d) examineservant leadership theory either quantitatively or qualitatively. Articles were excludedif any of these four components was not addressed in the abstract, results, or

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 8/45

discussion sections of the respective study. Finally, additional articles meeting theinclusion criteria were found by examining the bibliographies of resources identifiedthrough the secondary screening.

Sample

Peer­reviewed publications were identified using the key terms outlined in theinclusion and exclusion criteria section above. In all, a total of 381 articles whereretrieved; however, after duplicates were deleted there remained 255 articles meetingthe initial inclusion criteria. After the secondary search process was conducted, a finalsample of 44 appropriate studies was obtained. Upon retrieving full text articles, anadditional five articles were excluded after further examination because they did notsatisfy the screening criteria. The final sample of articles constituted 39 empiricalstudies. Peer­reviewed articles meeting the outlined criteria were published between2004 and 2011. The 39 published articles were drawn from a variety of peer­reviewedjournals (n = 27). Table 1 depicts the list of journals included in the study, the numberof articles included from each journal, and the database they were accessed through.

Table 1

Database and journals included in systematic literature review

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 9/45

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

EricEducational Management Administration &Leadership

2

PsycInfoEuropean Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology

1

Scopus Global Virtue Ethics Review 1

CINAHL Health Care Management Review 1

PsycInfo Home Health Care Management & Practice 1

Business SourceComplete

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 SourceComplete

Journal of Business & Economics Research 1

Academic SearchComplete

Journal of Interprofessional Care 1

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 10/45

Database Journal Count

PsycInfo Journal of Management Development 1

Academic SearchComplete

Journal of Park & Recreation Administration 1

PsycInfo Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 2

Business SourceComplete

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 SourceComplete

Review of Business Research 2

Business SourceComplete

Services Marketing Quarterly 1

PsycInfoThe International Journal of Human ResourceManagement

1

We grouped the journals by their area of focus, which showed a concentration ofresearch taking place in leadership (n = 9), education (n = 7), business (n = 6), andpsychology (n = 6), with the fields of nursing (n = 3), management (n = 2), personalselling and sales management (n = 2), ethics (n = 1), parks and recreationadministration (n = 1), services marketing (n = 1), and sports (n = 1) representing asmaller number of empirical studies.

Data Analysis

The Matrix Method (Garrard 1999) was utilized as the strategy for organizing andabstracting pertinent information from these publications. For this study, the

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 11/45

following information was abstracted from each article: (a) How was servantleadership defined? (b) In what contexts was servant leadership theory empiricallyinvestigated? (c) How was servant leadership examined? and (d) What were theresults of the examination? Last, for each publication, the methodology used toexamine servant leadership was evaluated. For qualitative studies, we used a criticalappraisal tool designed by Letts et al. (2007), and for quantitative studies we used acritical appraisal tool designed by the Institute for Public Health Sciences (2002). Inaddition to these two appraisal assessments we used Stoltz et al.’s (2004) criticalappraisal tool, which assessed both quantitative and qualitative studies. We adoptedthese three critical appraisal tools to create a three­point scale to reflect the quality ofstudies: high (I); medium (II)—used if studies did not meet criteria for high (I) or lowquality; and low (III). Table 2 describes our classification for high to low qualitystudies, which was based on the three critical appraisal tools mentioned above.

Table 2

Classification and quality assessment of studies

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 12/45

I = High II = Medium III = Low

QNT

Study using quantitative analysis of data.Clearly focused study, sufficient backgroundprovided, well planned, method appropriate,measures validated, applicable and adequatenumber of participants, data analysissufficiently rigorous with adequate statisticalmethods, findings clearly stated

–

Not focusedstudy,insufficientbackgroundprovided,poorly planned,inappropriatemethod,invalidatedmeasures,inapplicableand inadequatenumber ofparticipants,data analysisinsufficientlyrigorous, withinadequatestatisticalmethods,unclearfindings

QAL

Study using qualitative analysis of data.Purpose stated clearly, relevant backgroundliterature reviewed, design appropriate,identified researcher’s theoretical orphilosophical perspective, relevant and welldescribed selection of participants and context,procedural rigor in data collection strategiesand analysis, evidence of the four componentsof trustworthiness (credibility, transferability,dependability, and confirmability) results arecomprehensive and well described

–

Vaguelyformulatedpurpose,insufficientbackground,few orunsatisfactorydescriptions ofparticipantsand context,trustworthinessinadequatelyaddressed,lacks indescription ofdata collection,data analysis,and results

QNT quantitative study, QAL qualitative study, I high quality, II medium quality, IIIlow quality

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 13/45

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 empiricalstudies along with the assessment of quality for each study. Further, we assess thelevel of supporting evidence for thematic conclusions drawn from combining theresults of multiple studies.

Findings

Overall, this review highlights that servant leadership theory is being researched andtested across a variety of contexts, cultures, disciplines, and themes. Our sampleincluded 11 qualitative studies, 27 quantitative studies, and one mixed method study,all empirically assessing servant leadership theory. Thus, this review illustrates thatservant leadership is being explored both quantitatively and qualitatively, and thetopic has an international appeal with studies being conducted in 11 countries. In thequality assessment, 22 studies were classified as high, 12 as medium, and five as lowquality. Conclusive statements were made based upon the synthesis of findings fromeach article. The conclusions (see Table 3) were classified as A (strong evidence) or B(moderate evidence) based on scientific strength.

Table 3

Overview of conclusions

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 14/45

Resultthemes

Conclusion Evidence References

Cross­culturalapplicability

SL is acceptedand practiced invarious cultures;however,components of SLhave differentweights

Strongevidence infavor ofstatement(A)

Cerit (2009, 2010) (QNT I, QNT I);Hamilton and Bean (2005) (QALIII); Hale and Fields (2007) (QNT I);Han et al. (2010) (QAL II); Pekertiand Sendjaya (2010) (QNT I)

SL attributes

Spears’ (1998) 10characteristicsare representativeof a servantleader applied indifferent context

Strongevidence infavor ofstatement(A)

Boroski and Greif (2009) (QAL III);Crippen (2004) (QAL II); Crippenand Wallin (2008a) (QAL II);Crippen and Wallin (2008b) (QALII); Sturm (2009) (QAL I)

Patterson (2003)and Winston(2003) models ofSL are supported

Strongevidence infavor ofstatement(A)

Winston (2004) (QAL I); Dingmanand Stone (2007) (QAL II)

Team leveleffectiveness

SL leads toincreased leadertrust andorganizationaltrust

Strongevidence infavor ofstatement(A)

Joseph and Winston (2005) (QNT I);Reinke (2004) (QNT II); Senjaya andPekerti (2010) (QNT I); Washingtonet al (2006) (QNT I)

SL fostersorganizationalcitizenshipbehavior

Strongevidence infavor ofstatement(A)

Ebener and O’Connell (2010) (QALI); Hu and Liden (2011) (QNT I);Ehrhart (2004) (QNT I); Walumbwaet al (2010) (QNT I)

Procedural justiceis positivelyassociated withSL

Strongevidence infavor ofstatement(A)

Ehrhart (2004) (QNT I); Walumbwaet al (2010) (QNT I); Chung et al.(2010) (QNT II)

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 15/45

Resultthemes

Conclusion Evidence References

SL increases teameffectiveness

Strongevidence infavor ofstatement(A)

Irving and Longbotham (2007) (QNTI); Schaubroeck et al (2011) (QNT I);Hu and Liden (2011) (QNT I)

SL is associatedwith greaterleadershipeffectiveness

Strongevidence infavor ofstatement(A)

Taylor et al. (2007) (QNT II); Mayeret al. (2008) (QNT I); McCuddy andCavin (2008) (QNT III)

SL enhancescollaboration

Moderateevidence infavor ofstatement(B)

Garber et al. (2009) (QNT II); Sturm(2009) (QAL I); Irving andLongbotham (2007) (QNT I)

Followers’ well­being SL increases

employee jobsatisfaction

Strongevidence infavor ofstatement(A)

Cerit (2009) (QNT I); Jenkins andStewart (2010) (QNT I); Mayer et al.(2008) (QNT I); Chung et al. (2010)(QNT II)

SL creates apositive workclimate

Strongevidence infavor ofstatement(A)

Neubert et al. (2008) (QNT I); Black(2010) (Mixed Method: QNT II andQAL III); Jaramillo et al. (2009a)(QNT I)

SL supportsemployeecreativity andhelping behaviors

Strongevidence infavor ofstatement(A)

Jaramillo et al. (2009b) (QNT I);Neubert et al. (2008) (QNT I)

SL improvesfollowers well­being

Strongevidence infavor ofstatement(A)

Jaramillo et al. (2009b) (QNT I);Rieke et al. (2008) (QNT I)

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 16/45

Resultthemes

Conclusion Evidence References

SL lowersemployeeturnover

Strongevidence infavor ofstatement(A)

Jaramillo et al. (2009a) (QNT I);Babakus et al. (2011) (QNT I)

SL increasescommitment

Strongevidence infavor ofstatement(A)

Cerit (2010) (QNT I); Hamilton andBean (2005) (QAL III); Hale andFields (2007) (QNT I); Han et al.(2010) (QAL II); Pekerti andSendjaya (2010) (QNT I) Jaramillo etal. (2009a) (QNT I); Jaramillo et al.(2009b) (QNT I)

SpiritualitySL is associatedwith workplacespirituality

Insufficientevidence

Herman (2010) (QNT II)

Demographics

Propensitytoward engagingin SL isassociated withdemographicvariables

Insufficientevidence

Fridell et al. (2009) (QNT II);McCuddy and Cavin (2009) (QNTIII); Taylor et al. (2007) (QNT II)

Implementationof SL

Knowledge andframing of SL canaffect adoption

Insufficientevidence

Hamilton and Bean (2005) (QALIII); Savage­Austin and Honeycutt(2011) (QAL III)

Positiverelationshipbetweensuccessionplanning and SL

Insufficientevidence

Dingman and Stone (2007) (QAL II)

SL servant leadership, QNT quantitative study, QAL qualitative study, I high quality,II medium quality, III low quality

If two or more studies of high quality supported a conclusion or one study of highquality in addition to two or more studies of medium quality supported theconclusion, we assigned it an (A) rating. On the other hand, conclusions with onestudy of high quality and one study of medium quality or two studies of mediumquality were assigned a (B) rating. If a conclusion(s) did not fall under (A) strongevidence in favor of conclusion or (B) moderate evidence in favor of conclusion, we

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 17/45

classified it as insufficiently supported and labeled insufficient evidence. Thefollowing discussion of our findings is organized around the four central researchquestions.

How was Servant Leadership Defined?

Servant leadership theory was introduced to readers by authors of empirical studies byciting one or all three of the following: Greenleaf (1977), Spears (1995, 1998, 2004),and Laub (1999). Generally, authors described servant leadership by quoting one ofthese three authors in addition to citing multiple other authors, including, but notlimited to: Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), Graham (1991), Ehrhart (2004), Liden et al.(2008), Page and Wong (2000), and Patterson (2003). Here, we discuss the threemost cited authors on servant leadership that have provided definitions.

Greenleaf (1970, 1972a, b, 1977), the grandfather of servant leadership, was cited by37 of the 39 empirical studies. The majority of authors used part or all of Greenleaf’sdescription from his original essay, The Servant as Leader (1970):

It begins with the natural feeling one wants to serve, to serve first. Thenconscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. That person is sharplydifferent from one who is leader first.

… The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant­first tomake sure that other people’s highest priority needs are being served.The best test, and difficult to administer, is this: Do those served growas 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 atleast not be further deprived? (Greenleaf 1970 as cited in Greenleaf 1977,p. 27).

The majority of authors in our sample, like Greenleaf himself, defined servantleadership theory in a descriptive manner. These descriptions usually cited multiplescholarly works in the conceptual and measurement research streams, in addition tociting leading organizational management authors.

The second most referenced author defining servant leadership theory was LarrySpears. Like Greenleaf, Spears gained his knowledge from practice with most of hisworks being non­empirical. 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 theLarry C. Spears Center for Servant Leadership, Inc. (Spears Center 2011). Spears (1995,1998, 2004) identified 10 characteristics of servant leaders from Greenleaf’s writings:listening, empathy, healing, awareness, persuasion, philosophy, conceptualization,foresight, stewardship, commitment to the growth of people, and buildingcommunity. These attributes are described in Table 4.

Table 4

Spears’ (1998) 10 characteristics of a servant leader

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 18/45

Characteristic Description

ListeningAutomatically responding to any problem by receptively listeningto what is said, which allows them to identify the will of the groupand help clarify that will

EmpathyStriving to accept and understand others, never rejecting them,but sometimes refusing to recognize their performance as goodenough

HealingRecognizing as human beings they have the opportunity to makethemselves and others ‘whole’

AwarenessStrengthened by general awareness and above all self­awareness,which enables them to view situations holistically

Persuasion Relying primarily on convincement rather than coercion

ConceptualizationSeeking to arouse and nurture theirs’ and others’ abilities to‘dream great dreams’

ForesightIntuitively understanding the lessons from the past, the presentrealities, and the likely outcome of a decision for the future

Stewardship Committing first and foremost to serving others needs

Commitment tothe growth ofpeople

Nurtures the personal, professional, and spiritual growth of eachindividual

Buildingcommunity

Identifies means of building communities among individualsworking within their institutions, which can give the healing loveessential for health

Four of the qualitative studies in our sample used Spear’s 10 characteristics to informtheir analysis (Crippen 2004; Crippen and Wallin 2008a, b; Sturm 2009).

The third most cited author in defining servant leadership theory is Laub (1999). HisOrganizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) was an outcome of his dissertation. TheOLA assesses an organization’s health based upon the six key areas of an effective

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 19/45

servant­minded organization by exploring the perceptions of top leaders, managersand supervisors, and the workforce; however, it does not assess the servant leadershipof 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 overthe self­interest of the leader” (1999, p. 81). In addition, authors would list anddescribe Laub’s six key variables of an effective servant­led organization: (a) valuespeople—believing, serving, and non­judgmentally listening to others; (b) developspeople—providing learning, growth, encouragement and affirmation; (c) buildscommunity—developing strong collaborative and personal relationships; (d) displaysauthenticity—being open, accountable, and willing to learn from others; (e) providesleadership—foreseeing the future, taking initiative, and establishing goals; and (f)shares leadership—facilitating and sharing power. The OLA has been widely used inhealth organizations (OLA Group), and was used in six quantitative studies in oursample (Herman 2010; Black 2010; Cerit 2010; Cerit 2009; Irving and Longbotham2007; Joseph and Winston 2005).

In summary, our results confirm Anderson’s (2009) and Van Dierendonck’s (2011)assessments that servant leadership theory remains under­defined with no consensuson its definition or theoretical framework. Scholars are still seeking to articulateGreenleaf’s conceptualization of servant leadership by using a variety of definitionssourced from multiple works.

In What Contexts was Servant Leadership TheoryEmpirically Investigated?

Our sample illustrates servant leadership theory is being studied across cultures,contexts, and across a diversity of research foci. Overall, the sample consisted ofstudies in 11 countries, which included four cross­cultures studies. These findingsdemonstrate 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), withfive cross­culture 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 beingapplied in the following organizational settings: education (n = 17), which consistedof religious schools (n = 6) and secular schools (n = 11); secular for profitorganizations (n = 17), which notably included financial services (n = 4) and nursing(n = 3); public organizations (n = 2); religious organizations (n = 1); non­profitorganizations (n = 1); and in a historical context (n = 1). It is important to note thatservant leadership was examined in a religious context in seven of the 39 studies, andthat the education field represents 44 % of the contextual environment for the entiresample.

This synthesis also revealed seven key research themes, with some studies containingmore than one area of focus. The themes and their associated studies are presented inTable 3. An overall count and description of each theme is as follows: (a) cross­culturalapplicability—acceptance, practices, and different weights of servant leadership in avariety of cultures (n = 7); (b) servant leadership attributes—conceptual modelscharacteristics were studied (n = 7); (c) team level effectiveness—effects of servantleadership explored at the unit level (n = 20); (d) followers’ well­being—effects on

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 20/45

employees in a servant­led environment (n = 20); (e) spirituality—connection betweenspiritual workplace and servant­led workplace was investigated (n = 1); (f)demographics (n = 3); and (g) implementation of servant leadership (n = 3). Wediscuss a synthesis of these themes below in the last section of our findings, where weprovide an overview of the results of studies included in the sample.

How was Servant Leadership Examined (i.e., theMethodology)?

All of the 27 quantitative studies used surveys as the data collection method. The twomost popular measures of servant leadership theory used by these empirical studieswere 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 theServant Leadership Scale developed by Ehrhart (2004)—used by six studies (Ehrhart2004; Jaramillo et al. 2009a, b; Mayer et al. 2008; Neubert et al. 2008; Walumbwa etal. 2010). Instruments that were utilized by two studies included: Barbuto andWheeler’s (2006) instrument (Jenkins and Stewart 2010; Garber et al. 2009); Liden etal.’s (2008) instrument (Hu and Liden 2011; Schaubroeck et al. 2011); and Sendjaya etal.’s (2008) survey (Pekerti and Sendjaya 2010; Sendjaya and Pekerti 2010). Taylor etal. (2007) used Page and Wong’s (1998) self­assessment measure. Washington et al.(2006) used Dennis and Winston’s (2003) instrument, which was an adopted versionof Page and Wong’s (2000) instrument. Rieke et al. (2008) used Hammermeister etal.’s (2008) instrument, which was also an adopted version of Page and Wong’sinstrument. Babakus et al. (2011) and Hale and Fields (2007) used lesser knownscales, those of Lytle et al. (1998) and Dennis (2004), respectively. One study tappeda survey designed by the U.S. Office of Personal Management (OPM). Four studiesused 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 ofauthors combined multiple measurement scales to construct their surveys. Inaddition, the majority of these measures explored servant leadership theory at theunit level of analysis (i.e., group or team performance) while only a few examined it atthe individual level of analysis (i.e., individual performance).

Similarly, the 11 qualitative studies used a variety of servant leadership frameworks toinform their analyses, while three studies did not provide any information onframeworks. Four of the qualitative studies used Spears (1998) 10 characteristics toinform their analyses (Crippen 2004; Crippen and Wallin 2008a, b; Sturm 2009). Twostudies used Patterson (2003) and Winsten’s (2003) models—Dingman and Stone(2007) and Winston (2004). Han et al. (2010) used multiple dimensions anddefinitions 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 oursample reinforce our findings for research question one, where it was found thatauthors have defined servant leadership in various ways. Similarly, as this reviewdemonstrates, there is still not an agreed upon measurement strategy for servantleadership theory.

What were the Results of the Examination?

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 21/45

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 toincreased overall effectiveness of individuals and teams. In Table 3, a synthesis of theconclusions from our sample of articles is divided by theme, with a rating of theevidence to support each individual conclusion. We discuss the results of theseempirical studies by theme below.

Cross­Cultural Applicability

The cross­cultural studies (Hamilton and Bean 2005—U.S. and UK; Hale and Fields2007—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 indicateservant leadership’s acceptability across a variety of cultures. However, these studiesalso show that the different attributes perceived to make up servant leadership are notweighted equally across cultures. For example: Hale and Fields (2007) found thatvision had a significantly stronger relationship with leader effectiveness for Ghanaiansin comparison to North Americans; Han et al. (2009) found “being dutiful” to be anextended form of servant leadership in China; Hamilton and Bean (2005) discoveredthat introducing servant leadership within a Christian context was perceived asobtrusive in the United Kingdom; and Pekerti and Sendjaya (2010) found thatAustralian leaders exhibited more behaviors with authentic self (leadership flows outof who we are as opposed to what we do), while Indonesian leaders exhibited morebehaviors with responsible morality (reflective moral reasoning employed to assesswhether or not the process and outcomes of one’s leadership are ethical) andtransforming influence (articulation and implementation of a shared vision whichprovides inspiration, meaning to one’s work, and creates a positive workenvironment). In contrast to these findings, Schaubroeck et al. (2011) found nosignificant differences in perceptions of servant leadership between Hong Kong andthe U.S. These cross­cultural studies, along with studies conducted in differentcountries, imply that servant leadership might be practiced across a variety ofcultures, but culture­specific perceptions of servant leadership exist based onsocialization and national context.

Servant Leader Attributes

Seven studies explored the conceptual definitions of servant leadership, and foundSpears (1998), Patterson’s (2003), and Winston’s (2003) attributes to berepresentative of servant leadership in different contexts. Five studies (Boroski andGreif 2009; Crippen 2004; Crippen and Wallin 2008a, b; Sturm 2009) within threedifferent contexts (schools, community, and nursing) supported Spears 10characteristics (see Table 3). Two studies (Winston 2004; Dingman and Stone 2007)provided support for Patterson’s (2003) leader­to­follower and Winston’s (2003)follower­to­leader models of servant leadership. Patterson’s model of leader–followerinteraction starts with the leaders’ agapaó (love for others) which she conceptualizesas a collection of the following seven values: being teachable; showing concern forothers; demonstrating discipline; seeking the greatest good for the organization;showing mercy in actions and beliefs with all people; meeting the needs of followersand the organization; and creating a place where peace grows within the organization.These seven values are based upon the biblical concept of the seven beatitudes fromMatthew 5 (Patterson 2003; Winston 2003, 2004). Instead of focusing on leader­follower interaction as Patterson’s model does, Winston’s model focuses on the

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 22/45

follower­to­leader interactions. Winston’s follower­to­leader model starts with thefollowers’ agapaó and then shows how the followers are servant leaders themselves byutilizing the same variables as Patterson’s model. As stated above, studies confirm theapplicability of the variables in both of these models: trust, empowerment, vision,altruism, intrinsic motivation, commitment, and service (Winston 2004; Dingmanand Stone 2007). Thus, the attributes identified by Spears, Patterson, and Winstonwere 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 servant­led organization enhances leader trust andorganizational trust, organizational citizenship behavior, procedural justice, team andleader effectiveness, and the collaboration between team members. Several studiesfound that a servant­led environment provided affirmation of justice and fairtreatment, which is positively associated with procedural justice, or the perception ofhow a work group as a whole is treated (Ehrhart 2004; Walumbwa et al. 2010; Chunget al. 2010). Procedural justice fosters trust in the servant leader and in the servant­ledorganization (Joseph and Winston 2005; Reinke 2004; Sendjaya and Pekerti 2010;Washington et al. 2006). This creates an open and trusting environment, which canenhance collaboration among team members (Garber et al. 2009; Sturm 2009; Irvingand Longbotham 2007). Collaboration in a servant­led organization creates a helpingculture (i.e., a spirit of willingness), which increases team members’ organizationalcitizenship behavior, defined as pro­social and altruistic behaviors that have beenshown to improve organizational performance (Ebener and O’Connell 2010; Hu andLiden 2011; Ehrhart 2004; Walumbwa et al. 2010). Servant leadership also improvesoverall team effectiveness (Taylor et al. 2007; Mayer et al. 2008; McCuddy and Cavin2008) and can enhance leaders’ effectiveness (Irving and Longbotham 2007;Schaubroeck et al. 2011; Hu and Liden 2011). In summary, servant leadership createsa trusting, fair, collaborative, and helping culture that can result in greater individualand organizational effectiveness.

Followers’ Well­Being

Findings from 15 empirical studies illustrate that servant leadership enhancesfollowers’ well­being. These studies showed conceptually and empirically how servantleadership influences followers’ well­being by creating a positive work climate(Neubert et al. 2008; Black 2010; Jaramillo et al. 2009a), which is related to greaterorganizational commitment (Cerit 2010; Hamilton and Bean 2005; Hale and Fields2007; Han et al. 2010; Pekerti and Sendjaya 2010). Greater commitment to theorganization increases employee job satisfaction (Cerit 2009; Jenkins and Stewart2010; Mayer et al. 2008; Chung et al. 2010) and consequently decreases employeeturnover (Jaramillo et al. 2009b; Babakus et al. 2011). Servant leaders create thesepositive outcomes by developing trust while nurturing followers, which encouragesthe creativity, helping behaviors, and well­being of followers (Jaramillo et al. 2009a;Babakus et al. 2011; Rieke et al. 2008). Overall, these studies support the notion thatservant leadership can improve followers’ well­being.

Spirituality

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 23/45

One study (Herman 2010) found a positive connection between workplace spiritualityand servant leadership, while six studies explored servant leadership within religiousintuitions. In addition, many scholars described servant leadership using theteachings of Jesus Christ as a reference (Ebener and O’Connell 2010; Hamilton andBean 2005; Winston 2004). Although there appears to be a relationship betweenspirituality and servant leadership, there was insufficient evidence to drawconclusions for this review.

Demographics

Three studies (Fridell et al. 2009; McCuddy and Cavin 2009; Taylor et al. 2007)attempted to identify demographic characteristics conducive to practicing servantleadership. However, these studies lacked methodological quality sufficient to supportany conclusions. In addition, many of the findings of these studies contradicted eachother as well as other studies within our sample. For example, one study foundsignificant 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), whileanother study found no difference (McCuddy and Cavin 2009). Also, one study foundthat socio­economic factors were positively related to servant behaviors (McCuddyand Cavin 2009), while another study found that no demographic variables weresignificantly related to servant leadership (Taylor et al. 2007) Therefore, it remains tobe discovered if there are in fact demographic characteristics that are related to servantleadership.

Implementation of Servant Leadership

Three studies examined servant leadership in various organizational processes(Hamilton and Bean 2005—leadership development; Savage­Austin and Honeycutt2011—organizational change; Dingman and Stone 2007—succession planning).Nevertheless, these studies were not supported by other empirical studies nor weretheir methodological quality sufficient to provide any conclusions.

Limitations

Although this SLR was conducted in a disciplined manner, potential limitations mustbe acknowledged. We limited the search process to indexed journals available throughthe authors’ university library system that were peer­reviewed published articleswritten in the English language. Thus, this review did not include non­indexedjournals or dissertations because they are not peer­reviewed, or peer­reviewed servantleadership articles published in a language other than English. Given the apparentuniversal interest in servant leadership, as identified in our review, perhaps there aremore empirical studies being published in other languages that would complement orcontradict some of the conclusions drawn from this review. The methodology andfindings of the studies included in the review were assessed by two independentreviewers aided by a critical assessment tool, which was utilized to make theevaluation phase more accurate. However, our attempt to integrate results conductedwith qualitative as well as quantitative data analysis may have limited the ability tosufficiently explore all methodological considerations when fusing the findings of both

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 24/45

types of empirical studies into a coherent text. In order to guide future scholars inconducting SLRs, more work is needed on how to assess the quality of qualitative andquantitative research in the field of management. Given SLRs origins are in themedical field, which conduct controlled trial studies, there are few critical appraisaltools that are applicable to the research methods used in other disciplines, such asqualitative inquiry and cross­sectional studies.

Conclusion

This SLR demonstrates servant leadership theory is applicable in a variety of cultures,contexts, and organizational settings. Even though Greenleaf first coined thephilosophy in the 1970s, it has taken until 2004 for servant leadership to be exploredin an empirical manner. This SLR did not place any limitation on the publication yearof peer­reviewed journal articles; however, no empirical studies were found across allthe databases searched before 2004. To date, the majority of research in servantleadership is either attempting to conceptually define and model the theory or developmeasurement tools to empirical test it. Thus, the greater part of research on servantleadership is addressing one of the major criticisms of the theoretical construct, whichis the difficulty of operationalizing its concepts and principles (Brumback 1999; Wongand Davey 2007). Quay is not alone in his sentiments on Greenleaf’s works: “For allhis good advice and many practical ideas, he is a Don Quixote trying to convincemanagers to pursue good and eschew evil” (1997, p. 83). By Greenleaf’s ownadmission, his ideas are unorthodox, yet the value of this review illustrates thatservant leadership works and is a tenable theory.

The first question of this review sought to discover how servant leadership is beingdefined. 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 ofconsensus creates confusion (Van Dierendonck 2011) amongst researchers, as theycreate their own variations of definitions and theoretical models. Perhaps one daythere will be a generally accepted theory of servant leadership, but the empirical cross­cultural studies in this review highlight that while servant leadership has beenresearched in a variety of cultures, it has different meanings based on socializationand national context. In addition, Greenleaf (1977) argued that servant leadership isan inward life­long journey, implying that the meaning of servant leadership couldchange throughout one’s life time. Therefore, this review does not conclude with amodel or another definition of servant leadership; however, it does provide anoverview of multiple definitions of servant leadership currently being used inempirical studies in order to further our conceptual understanding.

Second, this review explored the contexts in which servant leadership is beingempirically investigated. Our review illustrates the diversity of cultures,organizational settings, and research foci in which servant leadership is beingexplored. There seems to be pronounced interest in investigating servant leadership inthe U.S. and throughout the Asia Pacific region; however, there is a paucity of studiesbeing conducted in other parts of the world. Currently, the majority of studies areexploring servant leadership in an educational setting (44 % of our sample).Organizational settings that have received less attention from researchers includemedical institutions, public organizations, non­profit organizations, and community­

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 25/45

level organizations. Research on servant leadership is concentrated in the fields ofleadership, education, business and psychology; whereas, there is only a smallnumber of studies in the fields of nursing, management, personal selling and sales,ethics, parks and recreation administration, services marketing, and sports. Theresearch themes being explored the least are: spirituality, demographics, andimplementation of servant leadership. Thus, this review helps researchers identifyareas and contexts which are relatively unexplored in relation to servant leadershipand thus ripe for further investigation.

Third, this review examined the tools that can be used to measure the existence andoutcomes of servant leadership. The multiple quantitative and qualitative measuresused by the studies point to the fact that there is currently not an agreed uponmeasurement instrument of the theoretical construct. This review can pointresearchers towards the current measurement tools available, how they are being used,and in what contexts they are being applied. Last, this review synthesized the findingsof these empirical studies (see Table 3). Seven research themes emerged: cross­culturalapplicability, servant leadership attributes, team­level effectiveness, followers’ well­being, spirituality, demographics, and implementation of servant leadership. Thissynthesis can help researchers identify the current findings in the extant literature andto discover research foci that remain relatively underexplored.

Several intriguing directions for future research emerged from our SLR. First, this SLRonly identified 39 empirical studies that explored servant leadership theory inorganizational settings, highlighting the need for researchers to empiricallyinvestigate the construct of servant leadership in a variety of organizational contexts.In the burgeoning field of entrepreneurship, researchers could explore how to build aservant­led organization, or in the field of organizational change, studies couldexplore how to implement servant leadership in an established organization or duringa merger or acquisition. Second, there is a need to investigate the antecedents ofservant leadership development, such as personal attributes of the leader, backgroundof the leader, and organizational history and trajectory. Third, researchers canexamine other outcomes of servant leadership, such as voluntarily organizationalturnover, succession planning, affective organizational commitment, and employeewell­being through generative growth. Last, there is a need to develop criticalappraisal tools for quantitative and quantitative research used in the field ofmanagement to conduct SLRs. Perhaps our integration of several appraisal tools canserve as a template, as we assessed the level of supporting evidence for thematicconclusions drawn from combining the results of multiple studies.

This SLR is the first synthesis of empirical studies exploring servant leadership theoryin organizational contexts that utilizes a rigorous methodology to mitigate biasthrough exhaustive literature searches and by providing an audit trail of theconclusions. This review enhances our understanding of the definition(s) of servantleadership, illustrates the diversity of cultures, organizational settings, and researchfoci in which it is being examined, identifies tools that can be used to measure itsexistence and outcomes, and shows that servant leadership is a viable leadershiptheory that helps organizations and the well­being of followers. Our findingssynthesize empirical research on servant leadership theory across themultidisciplinary fields of business, medicine, psychology, religion, leisure,education, and economics and law. Scholars exploring servant leadership are usingtheories from other disciplines to build upon existing theory and to develop theorythat is uniquely applicable to their field (e.g., organizational behavior, sport, gender).

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 26/45

Thus, this SLR validated servant leadership as a viable and valuable theory, andtherefore, illustrates how servant leadership theory can be used to inform futureempirical studies. In addition, and importantly, this SLR contributes to advancingthe methodology of conducting a SLR in the management context. Here, we showcasehow a SRL can provide an effective method for mapping out thematically the currentbody of research literature that empirically explores servant leadership theory inorganizational contexts. However, this type of systematic review with rigorousmethodology can be applied to other research streams within management as an aidin holistically synthesizing the state of the field in various topical areas.

As a viable leadership theory, servant leadership can perhaps provide the ethicalgrounding and leadership framework needed to help address the challenges of thetwenty­first century: technological advancements, economic globalization, increasedcommunications, the Internet, rising terrorism, environmental degradation, war andviolence, disease and starvation, threat of global warming, intensifying gap betweenthe poor and rich worldwide, as well as many other unsolved issues. Servantleadership contrasts, traditional leader­first paradigms, which applaud a Darwinism,individualistic, and capitalist approach to life, implicating that only the strong willsurvive. Sadly, this belief system is operating at the heart of most organizations and isthe consequence of most of our modern tragedies: Arthur Andersen and Enron, DennisKozlowski and Tyco, and Bernard Ebbers and WorldCom (Forbes 2010). Servantleaders believe “the world does not have to be like this” (Keith 2008, p. ix) and activelywork at changing society for the better. In short, this review shows servant leadershipcan help address these ethical dilemmas.

References

Akuchie, N. D. (1993). The servants and the superstars: An examination of servantleadership in light of Matthew 20: 20–29. Christian Education Journal, 16(1), 39–43.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20servants%20and%20the%20superstars%3A%20An%20examination%20of%20servant%20leadership%20in%20light%20of%20Matthew%2020%3A%2020%E2%80%9329&author=ND.%20Akuchie&journal=Christian%20Education%20Journal&volume=16&issue=1&pages=39­43&publication_year=1993)

Anderson, J. A. (2009). When a servant­leader comes knocking …. Leadership &Organization Development Journal, 30(1), 4–15.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730910927070)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=When%20a%20servant­leader%20comes%20knocking%20%E2%80%A6&author=JA.%20Anderson&journal=Leadership%20%26%20Organization%20Development%20Journal&volume=30&issue=1&pages=4­15&publication_year=2009)

Babakus, E., Yavas, U., & Ashill, N. J. (2011). Service worker burnout and turnoverintentions: Roles of person­job fit, servant leadership, and customer orientation.Services Marketing Quarterly, 32(1), 17–31.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2011.533091)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Service%20worker%20burnout%20and%20turnover%20intentions%3A%20Roles%20of%20person­job%20fit%2C%20servant%20leadership%2C%20and%20customer%20orientation&a

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 27/45

uthor=E.%20Babakus&author=U.%20Yavas&author=NJ.%20Ashill&journal=Services%20Marketing%20Quarterly&volume=32&issue=1&pages=17­31&publication_year=2011)

Banutu­Gomez, M. B., & Banutu­Gomez, S. M. T. (2007). Leadership andorganizational change in a competitive environment. Business RenaissanceQuarterly, 2(2), 69–91.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Leadership%20and%20organizational%20change%20in%20a%20competitive%20environment&author=MB.%20Banutu­Gomez&author=SMT.%20Banutu­Gomez&journal=Business%20Renaissance%20Quarterly&volume=2&issue=2&pages=69­91&publication_year=2007)

Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and constructclarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31, 300–326.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059601106287091)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Scale%20development%20and%20construct%20clarification%20of%20servant%20leadership&author=JE.%20Barbuto&author=DW.%20Wheeler&journal=Group%20%26%20Organization%20Management&volume=31&pages=300­326&publication_year=2006)

Barrow, J. C. (1977). The variables of leadership: A review and conceptual framework.Academy of Management Review, 2, 233–251.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20variables%20of%20leadership%3A%20A%20review%20and%20conceptual%20framework&author=JC.%20Barrow&journal=Academy%20of%20Management%20Review&volume=2&pages=233­251&publication_year=1977)

Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in the learning organization. Journal ofLeadership Studies, 7(3), 18–38.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179190000700302)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20future%20of%20leadership%20in%20the%20learning%20organization&author=BM.%20Bass&journal=Journal%20of%20Leadership%20Studies&volume=7&issue=3&pages=18­38&publication_year=2000)

Bass, B., & Bass, R. (2008). The bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, andmanagerial 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.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Correlational%20analysis%20of%20servant%20leadership%20and%20school%20climate&author=GL.%20Black&journal=Catholic%20Education%3A%20A%20Journal%20of%20Inquiry%20%26%20Practice&volume=13&issue=4&pages=437­466&publication_year=2010)

Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self interest. San Francisco:Berrett­Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Stewardship%3A%20Choosing%20service%20over%20self%20interest&author=P.%20Block&publication_year=1993)

Bordas, J. (1995). Power and passion: Finding personal purpose. In L. Spears (Ed.),Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadershipinfluenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 179–193). New York: Wiley.

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 28/45

Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Power%20and%20passion%3A%20Finding%20personal%20purpose&author=J.%20Bordas&pages=179­193&publication_year=1995)

Boroski, E., & Greif, T. B. (2009). Servant­leaders in community colleges: Theirvalues, beliefs, and implications. Review of Business Research, 9(4), 113–120.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant­leaders%20in%20community%20colleges%3A%20Their%20values%2C%20beliefs%2C%20and%20implications&author=E.%20Boroski&author=TB.%20Greif&journal=Review%20of%20Business%20Research&volume=9&issue=4&pages=113­120&publication_year=2009)

Bowman, M. A. (1997). Popular approaches to leadership. In P. G. Northhouse (Ed.),Leadership: Theory and practice (pp. 239–260). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Popular%20approaches%20to%20leadership&author=MA.%20Bowman&pages=239­260&publication_year=1997)

Brody, D. (1995). First among equals: A corporate executive’s vision and thereemerging philosophy of trustees as servant­leaders. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections ofleadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership influencedtoday’s top management thinkers (pp. 129–132). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=First%20among%20equals%3A%20A%20corporate%20executive%E2%80%99s%20vision%20and%20the%20reemerging%20philosophy%20of%20trustees%20as%20servant­leaders&author=D.%20Brody&pages=129­132&publication_year=1995)

Buchen, I. H. (1998). Servant leadership: A model for future faculty and futureinstitutions. The Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 125–134.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179199800500111)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%3A%20A%20model%20for%20future%20faculty%20and%20future%20institutions&author=IH.%20Buchen&journal=The%20Journal%20of%20Leadership%20Studies&volume=5&issue=1&pages=125­134&publication_year=1998)

Cerit, Y. (2009). The effects of servant leadership behaviors of school principals onteachers’ job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership,37(5), 600–623.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741143209339650)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20effects%20of%20servant%20leadership%20behaviors%20of%20school%20principals%20on%20teachers%E2%80%99%20job%20satisfaction&author=Y.%20Cerit&journal=Educational%20Management%20Administration%20%26%20Leadership&volume=37&issue=5&pages=600­623&publication_year=2009)

Cerit, Y. (2010). The effects of servant leadership on teachers’ organizationalcommitment in primary schools in Turkey. International Journal of Leadership inEducation, 13(3), 301–317.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2010.496933)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20effects%20of%20servant%20leadership%20on%20teachers%E2%80%99%20organizational%20commitment%20in%20primary%20schools%20in%20Turkey&author=Y.%20Cerit&journal=International%20Journal%20of%20Leadership%20in%20Education&volume=13&issue=3&pages=301­317&publication_year=2010)

Chamberlain, P. (1995). Team­building and servant­leadership. In L. Spears (Ed.),Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadership

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 29/45

influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 169–178). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Team­building%20and%20servant­leadership&author=P.%20Chamberlain&pages=169­178&publication_year=1995)

Chung, J. Y., Jung, C. S., Kyle, G. T., & Petrick, J. F. (2010). Servant leadership andprocedural justice in the U.S. national park service: The antecedents of jobsatisfaction. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 28(3), 1–15.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%20and%20procedural%20justice%20in%20the%20U.S.%20national%20park%20service%3A%20The%20antecedents%20of%20job%20satisfaction&author=JY.%20Chung&author=CS.%20Jung&author=GT.%20Kyle&author=JF.%20Petrick&journal=Journal%20of%20Park%20%26%20Recreation%20Administration&volume=28&issue=3&pages=1­15&publication_year=2010)

Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Systematic reviews: Synthesis ofbest evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126(5), 376–380.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003­4819­126­5­199703010­00006)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Systematic%20reviews%3A%20Synthesis%20of%20best%20evidence%20for%20clinical%20decisions&author=DJ.%20Cook&author=CD.%20Mulrow&author=RB.%20Haynes&journal=Annals%20of%20Internal%20Medicine&volume=126&issue=5&pages=376­380&publication_year=1997)

Covey, S. (1990). Principle centered leadership. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Principle%20centered%20leadership&author=S.%20Covey&publication_year=1990)

Crippen, C. L. (2004). Pioneer women in Manitoba: Evidence of servant­leadership.Journal of Women in Educational Leadership, 2(4), 257–271.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Pioneer%20women%20in%20Manitoba%3A%20Evidence%20of%20servant­leadership&author=CL.%20Crippen&journal=Journal%20of%20Women%20in%20Educational%20Leadership&volume=2&issue=4&pages=257­271&publication_year=2004)

Crippen, C., & Wallin, D. (2008a). First conversations with Manitobasuperintendents: Talking their walk. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(2),147–160.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=First%20conversations%20with%20Manitoba%20superintendents%3A%20Talking%20their%20walk&author=C.%20Crippen&author=D.%20Wallin&journal=Alberta%20Journal%20of%20Educational%20Research&volume=54&issue=2&pages=147­160&publication_year=2008)

Crippen, C., & Wallin, D. (2008b). Manitoba superintendents: Mentoring andleadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 36(4), 546–565.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741143208095793)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Manitoba%20superintendents%3A%20Mentoring%20and%20leadership&author=C.%20Crippen&author=D.%20Wallin&journal=Educational%20Management%20Administration%20%26%20Leadership&volume=36&issue=4&pages=546­565&publication_year=2008)

Cyert, R. (2006). Defining leadership and explicating the process. NonprofitManagement and Leadership, 1(1), 29–38.

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 30/45

CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nml.4130010105)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Defining%20leadership%20and%20explicating%20the%20process&author=R.%20Cyert&journal=Nonprofit%20Management%20and%20Leadership&volume=1&issue=1&pages=29­38&publication_year=2006)

De Pree, M. (1989). Leadership is an art. New York: Doubleday Business.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Leadership%20is%20an%20art&author=M.%20Pree&publication_year=1989)

Dennis, R. (2004). Servant leadership theory: Development of the servant leadershipassessment instrument. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Regent University, Virginia Beach,Virginia, USA.

Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. C. (2005). Development of the servant leadershipassessment instrument. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 26(8),600–615.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730510633692)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Development%20of%20the%20servant%20leadership%20assessment%20instrument&author=RS.%20Dennis&author=MC.%20Bocarnea&journal=Leadership%20and%20Organization%20Development%20Journal&volume=26&issue=8&pages=600­615&publication_year=2005)

Dennis, R. S., & Winston, B. (2003). A factor analysis of Page and Wong’s servantleadership assessment instrument. Leadership & Organization DevelopmentJournal, 24(8), 455–459.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730310505885)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=A%20factor%20analysis%20of%20Page%20and%20Wong%E2%80%99s%20servant%20leadership%20assessment%20instrument&author=RS.%20Dennis&author=B.%20Winston&journal=Leadership%20%26%20Organization%20Development%20Journal&volume=24&issue=8&pages=455­459&publication_year=2003)

DiMaggio, P. (1995). Comments on “What Theory is Not”. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 40, 391–397.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393790)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Comments%20on%20%E2%80%9CWhat%20Theory%20is%20Not%E2%80%9D&author=P.%20DiMaggio&journal=Administrative%20Science%20Quarterly&volume=40&pages=391­397&publication_year=1995)

Dingman, W. W., & Stone, A. G. (2007). Servant leadership’s role in the successionplanning process: A case study. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2),98–113.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%E2%80%99s%20role%20in%20the%20succession%20planning%20process%3A%20A%20case%20study&author=WW.%20Dingman&author=AG.%20Stone&journal=International%20Journal%20of%20Leadership%20Studies&volume=2&issue=2&pages=98­113&publication_year=2007)

Ebener, D. R., & O’Connell, D. J. (2010). How might servant leadership work?Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(3), 315–335.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nml.256)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=How%20might%20servant%20leadership%20work%3F&author=DR.%20Ebener&author=DJ.%20O%E2%80%99Connell&journal=Nonprofit%20Management%20and%20Leadership&volume=20&issue=3&pages=315­335&publication_year=2010)

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 31/45

Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents ofunit level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 61–94.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744­6570.2004.tb02484.x)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Leadership%20and%20procedural%20justice%20climate%20as%20antecedents%20of%20unit%20level%20organizational%20citizenship%20behavior&author=MG.%20Ehrhart&journal=Personnel%20Psychology&volume=57&issue=1&pages=61­94&publication_year=2004)

Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. E. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting thestage for empirical research. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6, 49–62.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179199900600104)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%3A%20Setting%20the%20stage%20for%20empirical%20research&author=ML.%20Farling&author=AG.%20Stone&author=BE.%20Winston&journal=Journal%20of%20Leadership%20Studies&volume=6&pages=49­62&publication_year=1999)

Forbes.: 2010, The corporate scandal sheet. Retrieved November 25th fromhttp://www.forbes.com/2002/07/25/accountingtracker.html(http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/25/accountingtracker.html).

Frick, D. M. (1995). Pyramids, circles, and gardens: Stories of implementing servantleadership. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’stheory of servant­leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 241–256). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Pyramids%2C%20circles%2C%20and%20gardens%3A%20Stories%20of%20implementing%20servant%20leadership&author=DM.%20Frick&pages=241­256&publication_year=1995)

Frick, D. M. (2004). Robert K. Greenleaf: A life of servant leadership. San Francisco:Berrett­Koehler.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Robert%20K.%20Greenleaf%3A%20A%20life%20of%20servant%20leadership&author=DM.%20Frick&publication_year=2004)

Fridell, M., Belcher, R. N., & Messner, P. E. (2009). Discriminate analysis genderpublic school principal servant leadership differences. Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal, 30(8), 722–736.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730911003894)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Discriminate%20analysis%20gender%20public%20school%20principal%20servant%20leadership%20differences&author=M.%20Fridell&author=RN.%20Belcher&author=PE.%20Messner&journal=Leadership%20%26%20Organization%20Development%20Journal&volume=30&issue=8&pages=722­736&publication_year=2009)

Garber, J. S., Madigan, E. A., Click, E. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. J. (2009). Attitudestowards collaboration and servant leadership among nurses, physicians andresidents. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23(4), 331–340.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13561820902886253)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Attitudes%20towards%20collaboration%20and%20servant%20leadership%20among%20nurses%2C%20physicians%20and%20residents&author=JS.%20Garber&author=EA.%20Madigan&author=ER.%20Click&author=JJ.%20Fitzpatrick&journal=Journal%20of%20Interprofessional%20Care&volume=23&issue=4&pages=331­340&publication_year=2009)

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 32/45

Garrard, J. (1999). Health sciences literature review made easy: The matrix method.Sudbury, MA: Jones and Barlett Publishers.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Health%20sciences%20literature%20review%20made%20easy%3A%20The%20matrix%20method&author=J.%20Garrard&publication_year=1999)

Gaston, H. G. (1987). A model for leadership: Servant stewardship ministry.Southwestern Journal of Theology, 37(2), 35–43.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=A%20model%20for%20leadership%3A%20Servant%20stewardship%20ministry&author=HG.%20Gaston&journal=Southwestern%20Journal%20of%20Theology&volume=37&issue=2&pages=35­43&publication_year=1987)

Graham, J. (1991). Servant­leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral.Leadership Quarterly, 2(2), 105–119.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1048­9843(91)90025­W)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant­leadership%20in%20organizations%3A%20Inspirational%20and%20moral&author=J.%20Graham&journal=Leadership%20Quarterly&volume=2&issue=2&pages=105­119&publication_year=1991)

Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Indianapolis: The Robert K. GreenleafCenter.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20servant%20as%20leader&author=RK.%20Greenleaf&publication_year=1970)

Greenleaf, R. K. (1972a). The institution as servant. Indianapolis: The Robert K.Greenleaf Center.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20institution%20as%20servant&author=RK.%20Greenleaf&publication_year=1972)

Greenleaf, R. K. (1972b). Trustees as servants. Indianapolis: The Robert K. GreenleafCenter.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Trustees%20as%20servants&author=RK.%20Greenleaf&publication_year=1972)

Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimatepower and greatness. New York: Paulist Press.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%3A%20A%20journey%20into%20the%20nature%20of%20legitimate%20power%20and%20greatness&author=RK.%20Greenleaf&publication_year=1977)

Greenleaf Center, Inc. (2011). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from http://www.greenleaf.org/(http://www.greenleaf.org/).

Hale, J. R., & Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: Astudy of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3(4), 397–417.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1742715007082964)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Exploring%20servant%20leadership%20across%20cultures%3A%20A%20study%20of%20followers%20in%20Ghana%20and%20the%20USA&author=JR.%20Hale&author=DL.%20Fields&journal=Leadership&volume=3&issue=4&pages=397­417&publication_year=2007)

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 33/45

Hamilton, F., & Bean, C. J. (2005). The importance of context, beliefs and values inleadership development. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(4), 336–347.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467­8608.2005.00415.x)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20importance%20of%20context%2C%20beliefs%20and%20values%20in%20leadership%20development&author=F.%20Hamilton&author=CJ.%20Bean&journal=Business%20Ethics%3A%20A%20European%20Review&volume=14&issue=4&pages=336­347&publication_year=2005)

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.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%20in%20sport%3A%20A%20Philosophy%20whose%20time%20has%20arrived&author=J.%20Hammermeister&author=D.%20Burton&author=MA.%20Pickering&author=K.%20Westro&author=N.%20Baldwin&author=M.%20Chase&journal=International%20Journal%20of%20Servant%20Leadership&volume=4&pages=185­215&publication_year=2008)

Han, Y., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kakabadse, A. (2010). Servant leadership in the People’sRepublic of China: A case study of the public sector. Journal of ManagementDevelopment, 29(3), 265–281.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621711011025786)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%20in%20the%20People%E2%80%99s%20Republic%20of%20China%3A%20A%20case%20study%20of%20the%20public%20sector&author=Y.%20Han&author=NK.%20Kakabadse&author=A.%20Kakabadse&journal=Journal%20of%20Management%20Development&volume=29&issue=3&pages=265­281&publication_year=2010)

Herman, R. (2010). The promise of servant leadership for workplace spirituality.International Journal of Business Research, 10(6), 83–102.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20promise%20of%20servant%20leadership%20for%20workplace%20spirituality&author=R.%20Herman&journal=International%20Journal%20of%20Business%20Research&volume=10&issue=6&pages=83­102&publication_year=2010)

Hesse, H. (1956). The journey of the east. New York: Noonday Press.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20journey%20of%20the%20east&author=H.%20Hesse&publication_year=1956)

Hu, J., & Liden, R. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: Anexamination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of AppliedPsychology 1–12. doi:10.1037/a0022465 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022465).

Institute for Public Health Sciences. (2002). 11 questions to help you make sense ofdescriptive/cross­sectional studies. New York: Yeshiva University.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=11%20questions%20to%20help%20you%20make%20sense%20of%20descriptive%2Fcross­sectional%20studies&publication_year=2002)

Irving, J. A., & Longbotham, G. J. (2007). Team effectiveness and six essential servantleadership themes: A regression model based on items in the organizational leadershipassessment. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 98–113.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Team%20effectiveness%20and%20six%20essential%20servant%20leadership%20themes%3A%20A%20regression%20model%20based%20on%20items%20in%20th

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 34/45

e%20organizational%20leadership%20assessment&author=JA.%20Irving&author=GJ.%20Longbotham&journal=International%20Journal%20of%20Leadership%20Studies&volume=2&issue=2&pages=98­113&publication_year=2007)

Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009a). Examining theimpact of servant leadership on sales force performance. Journal of Personal Selling &Sales Management, 29(3), 257–275.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885­3134290304)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Examining%20the%20impact%20of%20servant%20leadership%20on%20sales%20force%20performance&author=F.%20Jaramillo&author=DB.%20Grisaffe&author=LB.%20Chonko&author=JA.%20Roberts&journal=Journal%20of%20Personal%20Selling%20%26%20Sales%20Management&volume=29&issue=3&pages=257­275&publication_year=2009)

Jaramillo, F., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2009b). Examining theimpact of servant leadership on salesperson’s turnover intention. Journal of PersonalSelling & Sales Management, 29(4), 351–365.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885­3134290404)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Examining%20the%20impact%20of%20servant%20leadership%20on%20salesperson%E2%80%99s%20turnover%20intention&author=F.%20Jaramillo&author=DB.%20Grisaffe&author=LB.%20Chonko&author=JA.%20Roberts&journal=Journal%20of%20Personal%20Selling%20%26%20Sales%20Management&volume=29&issue=4&pages=351­365&publication_year=2009)

Jenkins, M., & Stewart, A. C. (2010). The importance of a servant leader orientation.Health Care Management Review, 35(1), 46–54.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0b013e3181c22bb8)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20importance%20of%20a%20servant%20leader%20orientation&author=M.%20Jenkins&author=AC.%20Stewart&journal=Health%20Care%20Management%20Review&volume=35&issue=1&pages=46­54&publication_year=2010)

Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leadertrust, and organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal,26(1), 6–22.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730510575552)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=A%20correlation%20of%20servant%20leadership%2C%20leader%20trust%2C%20and%20organizational%20trust&author=EE.%20Joseph&author=BE.%20Winston&journal=Leadership%20%26%20Organization%20Development%20Journal&volume=26&issue=1&pages=6­22&publication_year=2005)

Keith, K. (2008). The case for servant leadership. Westfield, IN: Greenleaf Center forServant Leadership.

Kelley, M. (1995). The new leadership. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership:How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant­leadership influenced today’s topmanagement thinkers (pp. 194–197). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20new%20leadership&author=M.%20Kelley&pages=194­197&publication_year=1995)

Kiechel, W. III (1995). The leader as servant. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections ofleadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant­leadership influencedtoday’s top management thinkers (pp. 121–125). New York: Wiley.

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 35/45

Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20leader%20as%20servant&author=W.%20Kiechel&pages=121­125&publication_year=1995)

Klassen, T. P., Jahad, A. R., & Moher, D. (1998). Guides for reading and interpretingsystematic reviews. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 157(7), 700–704.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Guides%20for%20reading%20and%20interpreting%20systematic%20reviews&author=TP.%20Klassen&author=AR.%20Jahad&author=D.%20Moher&journal=Archives%20of%20Pediatric%20%26%20Adolescent%20Medicine&volume=157&issue=7&pages=700­704&publication_year=1998)

Kotter, J. P. (2001). What leaders really do? Harvard Business Review, December, 3–12.

Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: Aconstructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 648–657.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Transactional%20and%20transformational%20leadership%3A%20A%20constructive%2Fdevelopmental%20analysis&author=KW.%20Kuhnert&author=P.%20Lewis&journal=Academy%20of%20Management%20Review&volume=12&issue=4&pages=648­657&publication_year=1987)

Lanctot, J. D., & Irving, J. A. (2010). Character and leadership: Situating servantleadership in a proposed virtues framework. International Journal of LeadershipStudies, 6(1), 28–50.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Character%20and%20leadership%3A%20Situating%20servant%20leadership%20in%20a%20proposed%20virtues%20framework&author=JD.%20Lanctot&author=JA.%20Irving&journal=International%20Journal%20of%20Leadership%20Studies&volume=6&issue=1&pages=28­50&publication_year=2010)

Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the ServantOrganizational 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 leadershipinfluenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 99–112). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20search%20for%20spirit%20in%20the%20workplace&author=C.%20Lee&author=R.%20Zemke&pages=99­112&publication_year=1995)

Letts, L., Wilkins, S., Law, M., Stewart, D., Bosch, J., & Westmorland, M. (2007).Critical review form: Qualitative studies (version 2.0). Retrieved fromhttp://www.sph.nhs.uk/sphfiles/caspappraisaltools/Qualitative%20Appraisal%20Tool.pdf(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 multi­level assessment. LeadershipQuarterly, 19, 161–177.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%3A%20Development%20of%20a%20multidimensional%20measure%20and%20multi­level%20assessment&author=RC.%20Liden&author=SJ.%20Wayne&author=H.%20

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 36/45

Zhao&author=D.%20Henderson&journal=Leadership%20Quarterly&volume=19&pages=161­177&publication_year=2008)

Lloyd, B. (1996). A new approach to leadership. Leadership and OrganizationalDevelopment Journal, 17(7), 29–32.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437739610148358)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=A%20new%20approach%20to%20leadership&author=B.%20Lloyd&journal=Leadership%20and%20Organizational%20Development%20Journal&volume=17&issue=7&pages=29­32&publication_year=1996)

Lopez, I. O. (1995). Becoming a servant­leader: The personal development path. In L.Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servantleadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 179–193). New York:Wiley.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Becoming%20a%20servant­leader%3A%20The%20personal%20development%20path&author=IO.%20Lopez&pages=179­193&publication_year=1995)

Lytle, R. S., Hom, P. W., & Mokwa, M. P. (1998). SERV_OR: A managerial measure oforganizational service­orientation. Journal of Retailing, 74, 455–489.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022­4359(99)80104­3)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=SERV_OR%3A%20A%20managerial%20measure%20of%20organizational%20service­orientation&author=RS.%20Lytle&author=PW.%20Hom&author=MP.%20Mokwa&journal=Journal%20of%20Retailing&volume=74&pages=455­489&publication_year=1998)

Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant­leaders help satisfyfollower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 17(2), 180–197.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320701743558)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Do%20servant­leaders%20help%20satisfy%20follower%20needs%3F%20An%20organizational%20justice%20perspective&author=DM.%20Mayer&author=M.%20Bardes&author=RF.%20Piccolo&journal=European%20Journal%20of%20Work%20and%20Organizational%20Psychology&volume=17&issue=2&pages=180­197&publication_year=2008)

McCollum, J. (1995). Chaos, complexity, and servant­leadership. In L. Spears (Ed.),Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadershipinfluenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 241–256). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Chaos%2C%20complexity%2C%20and%20servant­leadership&author=J.%20McCollum&pages=241­256&publication_year=1995)

McCuddy, M. K., & Cavin, M. C. (2008). Fundamental moral orientations, servantleadership, and leadership effectiveness: An empirical test. Review of BusinessResearch, 8(4), 107–117.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Fundamental%20moral%20orientations%2C%20servant%20leadership%2C%20and%20leadership%20effectiveness%3A%20An%20empirical%20test&author=MK.%20McCuddy&author=MC.%20Cavin&journal=Review%20of%20Business%20Research&volume=8&issue=4&pages=107­117&publication_year=2008)

McCuddy, M. K., & Cavin, M. C. (2009). The demographic context of servantleadership. Journal of the Academy of Business & Economics, 9(2), 129–139.

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 37/45

Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20demographic%20context%20of%20servant%20leadership&author=MK.%20McCuddy&author=MC.%20Cavin&journal=Journal%20of%20the%20Academy%20of%20Business%20%26%20Economics&volume=9&issue=2&pages=129­139&publication_year=2009)

McGee­Cooper, A., & Trammell, D. (1995). Servant leadership: Is there really time forit? In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory ofservant leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 113–120). NewYork: Wiley.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%3A%20Is%20there%20really%20time%20for%20it%3F&author=A.%20McGee­Cooper&author=D.%20Trammell&pages=113­120&publication_year=1995)

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 servantleadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1220–1233.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012695)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Regulatory%20focus%20as%20a%20mediator%20of%20the%20influence%20of%20initiating%20structure%20and%20servant%20leadership%20on%20employee%20behavior&author=MJ.%20Neubert&author=KM.%20Kacmar&author=DS.%20Carlson&author=LB.%20Chonko&author=JA.%20Roberts&journal=Journal%20of%20Applied%20Psychology&volume=93&issue=6&pages=1220­1233&publication_year=2008)

Northouse, P. G. (1997). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Leadership%3A%20Theory%20and%20practice&author=PG.%20Northouse&publication_year=1997)

OLA Group (Organizational Leadership Assessment Group). (2011). RetrievedSeptember 4, 2011, from http://www.olagroup.com/ (http://www.olagroup.com/).

Page, D., & Wong, T. P. (1998). A philosophy conceptual framework for measuringservant leadership. Unpublished manuscript (Langley, Canada: Trinity WesternUniversity).

Page, D., & Wong, T. P. (2000). A philosophy conceptual framework for measuringservant leadership. In S. Adjibolosoo (Ed.), The Human factor in shaping the courseof history and development. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=A%20philosophy%20conceptual%20framework%20for%20measuring%20servant%20leadership&author=D.%20Page&author=TP.%20Wong&publication_year=2000)

Parolini, J., Patterson, K., & Winston, B. (2009). Distinguishing betweentransformational and servant leadership. Leadership & Organizational DevelopmentJournal, 30(3), 274–291.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Distinguishing%20between%20transformational%20and%20servant%20leadership&author=J..%20Parolini&author=K..%20Patterson&author=B..%20Winston&journal=Leadership%20%26%20Organizational%20Development%20Journal&volume=30&issue=3&pages=274­291&publication_year=2009)

Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 64(2), 570 (UMI No. 3082719).

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 38/45

Pekerti, A. A., & Sendjaya, S. (2010). Exploring servant leadership across cultures:Comparative study in Australia and Indonesia. The International Journal of HumanResource Management, 21(5), 754–780.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585191003658920)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Exploring%20servant%20leadership%20across%20cultures%3A%20Comparative%20study%20in%20Australia%20and%20Indonesia&author=AA.%20Pekerti&author=S.%20Sendjaya&journal=The%20International%20Journal%20of%20Human%20Resource%20Management&volume=21&issue=5&pages=754­780&publication_year=2010)

Plsek, P., & Wilson, T. (2001). Complexity, leadership, and management in healthcareorganizations. British Medical Journal (BMJ), 323, 746–749.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7315.746)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Complexity%2C%20leadership%2C%20and%20management%20in%20healthcare%20organizations&author=P.%20Plsek&author=T.%20Wilson&journal=British%20Medical%20Journal%20%28BMJ%29&volume=323&pages=746­749&publication_year=2001)

Prosser, S. (2010). Servant leadership: More philosophy, less theory. Westfield, IN:The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%3A%20More%20philosophy%2C%20less%20theory&author=S.%20Prosser&publication_year=2010)

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 servantleadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 282–307). New York:Wiley.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Creating%20a%20culture%20of%20servant%20leadership%3A%20A%20real%20life%20story&author=T.%20Rasmussen&pages=282­307&publication_year=1995)

Reinke, S. J. (2004). Service before self: Towards a theory of servant­leadership. GlobalVirtue Ethics Review, 5, 30–57.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Service%20before%20self%3A%20Towards%20a%20theory%20of%20servant­leadership&author=SJ.%20Reinke&journal=Global%20Virtue%20Ethics%20Review&volume=5&pages=30­57&publication_year=2004)

Rieke, M., Hammermeister, J., & Chase, M. (2008). Servant leadership in sport: A newparadigm for effective coach behavior. International Journal of Sports Science &Coaching, 3(2), 227–239.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1260/174795408785100635)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%20in%20sport%3A%20A%20new%20paradigm%20for%20effective%20coach%20behavior&author=M.%20Rieke&author=J.%20Hammermeister&author=M.%20Chase&journal=International%20Journal%20of%20Sports%20Science%20%26%20Coaching&volume=3&issue=2&pages=227­239&publication_year=2008)

Rieser, C. (1995). Claiming servant­leadership as your heritage. In L. Spears (Ed.),Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadershipinfluenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 49–60). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Claiming%20servant­

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 39/45

leadership%20as%20your%20heritage&author=C.%20Rieser&pages=49­60&publication_year=1995)

Russell, R. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership &Organization Development Journal, 22(2), 76–83.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730110382631)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20role%20of%20values%20in%20servant%20leadership&author=R.%20Russell&journal=Leadership%20%26%20Organization%20Development%20Journal&volume=22&issue=2&pages=76­83&publication_year=2001)

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.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730210424)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=A%20review%20of%20servant%20leadership%20attributes%3A%20Developing%20a%20practical%20model&author=R.%20Russell&author=AG.%20Stone&journal=Leadership%20and%20Organizational%20Development%20Journal&volume=23&issue=3&pages=145­157&publication_year=2002)

Savage­Austin, A., & Honeycutt, A. (2011). Servant leadership: A phenomenologicalstudy of practices, experiences, organizational effectiveness, and barriers. Journal ofBusiness & Economics Research, 9(1), 49–54.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%3A%20A%20phenomenological%20study%20of%20practices%2C%20experiences%2C%20organizational%20effectiveness%2C%20and%20barriers&author=A.%20Savage­Austin&author=A.%20Honeycutt&journal=Journal%20of%20Business%20%26%20Economics%20Research&volume=9&issue=1&pages=49­54&publication_year=2011)

Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition­based and affect­basedtrust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 96(4), 863–871.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022625)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Cognition­based%20and%20affect­based%20trust%20as%20mediators%20of%20leader%20behavior%20influences%20on%20team%20performance&author=J.%20Schaubroeck&author=SSK.%20Lam&author=AC.%20Peng&journal=Journal%20of%20Applied%20Psychology&volume=96&issue=4&pages=863­871&publication_year=2011)

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744­6570.1987.tb00609.x)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20people%20make%20the%20place&author=B.%20Schneider&journal=Personnel%20Psychology&volume=40&pages=437­453&publication_year=1987)

Sendjaya, S., & Pekerti, A. (2010). Servant leadership as antecedent of trust inorganizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(7), 643–663.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437731011079673)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%20as%20antecedent%20of%20trust%20in%20organizations&author=S.%20Sendjaya&author=A.%20Pekerti&journal=Leadership%20%26%20Organization%20Development%20Journal&volume=31&issue=7&pages=643­663&publication_year=2010)

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 40/45

Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. (2002). Servant leadership: Its origin, development, andapplication in organizations. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,9(2), 57–64.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900205)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%3A%20Its%20origin%2C%20development%2C%20and%20application%20in%20organizations&author=S.%20Sendjaya&author=J.%20Sarros&journal=Journal%20of%20Leadership%20and%20Organizational%20Studies&volume=9&issue=2&pages=57­64&publication_year=2002)

Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J., & Santora, J. (2008). Defining and measuring servantleadership behavior in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402–424.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467­6486.2007.00761.x)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Defining%20and%20measuring%20servant%20leadership%20behavior%20in%20organizations&author=S.%20Sendjaya&author=J.%20Sarros&author=J.%20Santora&journal=Journal%20of%20Management%20Studies&volume=45&issue=2&pages=402­424&publication_year=2008)

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth discipline: The art and styles of the learning organization.New York: Doubleday Business.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20Fifth%20discipline%3A%20The%20art%20and%20styles%20of%20the%20learning%20organization&author=P.%20Senge&publication_year=1990)

Senge, P. M. (1995). Robert’s Greenleaf’s legacy: A new foundation for twenty­firstcentury institutions. In L. Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K.Greenleaf’s theory of servant­leadership influenced today’s top managementthinkers (pp. 217–240). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Robert%E2%80%99s%20Greenleaf%E2%80%99s%20legacy%3A%20A%20new%20foundation%20for%20twenty­first%20century%20institutions&author=PM.%20Senge&pages=217­240&publication_year=1995)

Shannon, R. (1999). Sport marketing: An examination of academic marketingpublication. Journal of Services Marketing, 13(6), 517–534.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876049910298775)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Sport%20marketing%3A%20An%20examination%20of%20academic%20marketing%20publication&author=R.%20Shannon&journal=Journal%20of%20Services%20Marketing&volume=13&issue=6&pages=517­534&publication_year=1999)

Smith, W. (1995). Servant­leadership: A pathway to the emerging territory. In L.Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servantleadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 198–213). New York:Wiley.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant­leadership%3A%20A%20pathway%20to%20the%20emerging%20territory&author=W.%20Smith&pages=198­213&publication_year=1995)

Snodgrass, K. R. (1993). Your slaves—on account of Jesus’ servant leadership in theNew Testament. In J. R. Hawkinson & R. K. Johnston (Eds.), Servant leadership (pp.7–19). Chicago: Covenant Publications.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Your%20slaves%E2%80%94on%20account%20of%20Jesus%E2%80%99%20se

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 41/45

rvant%20leadership%20in%20the%20New%20Testament&author=KR.%20Snodgrass&pages=7­19&publication_year=1993)

Spears Center. (2011). Retrieved September 5, 2011 fromhttp://www.spearscenter.org/ (http://www.spearscenter.org/).

Spears, L. (1995). Introduction: Servant­leadership and the Greenleaf legacy. In L.Spears (Ed.), Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servantleadership influenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 1–16). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Introduction%3A%20Servant­leadership%20and%20the%20Greenleaf%20legacy&author=L.%20Spears&pages=1­16&publication_year=1995)

Spears, L. (1996). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant­leadership.Leadership & Organization Development, 17(7), 33–35.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437739610148367)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Reflections%20on%20Robert%20K.%20Greenleaf%20and%20servant­leadership&author=L.%20Spears&journal=Leadership%20%26%20Organization%20Development&volume=17&issue=7&pages=33­35&publication_year=1996)

Spears, L. (1998). Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servantleadership. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Insights%20on%20leadership%3A%20Service%2C%20stewardship%2C%20spirit%2C%20and%20servant%20leadership&author=L.%20Spears&publication_year=1998)

Spears, L. C. (2004). Practicing servant­leadership. Leader to Leader, 34, 7–11.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ltl.94)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Practicing%20servant­leadership&author=LC.%20Spears&journal=Leader%20to%20Leader&volume=34&pages=7­11&publication_year=2004)

Spears, L. C. (2005). On character and servant­leadership: Ten characteristics ofeffective, caring leaders. Greenleaf Center for Servant­Leadership. Retrieved July 12,2011, from http://www.greenleaf.org/leadership/read­about­it/articles/On­Character­and­Servant­Leadership­Ten­Characteristics.htm(http://www.greenleaf.org/leadership/read­about­it/articles/On­Character­and­Servant­Leadership­Ten­Characteristics.htm).

Stoltz, P., Udén, G., & Willman, A. (2004). Support for family careers who care for anelderly person at home—A systematic literature review. Scandinavian Journal ofCaring Sciences, 18, 111–118.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471­6712.2004.00269.x)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Support%20for%20family%20careers%20who%20care%20for%20an%20elderly%20person%20at%20home%E2%80%94A%20systematic%20literature%20review&author=P.%20Stoltz&author=G.%20Ud%C3%A9n&author=A.%20Willman&journal=Scandinavian%20Journal%20of%20Caring%20Sciences&volume=18&pages=111­118&publication_year=2004)

Sturm, B. A. (2009). Principles of servant­leadership in community health nursing:Management issues and behaviors discovered in ethnographic research’. Home HealthCare Management & Practice, 21(2), 82–89.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1084822308318187)

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 42/45

Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Principles%20of%20servant­leadership%20in%20community%20health%20nursing%3A%20Management%20issues%20and%20behaviors%20discovered%20in%20ethnographic%20research%E2%80%99&author=BA.%20Sturm&journal=Home%20Health%20Care%20Management%20%26%20Practice&volume=21&issue=2&pages=82­89&publication_year=2009)

Tatum, J. G. (1995). Meditations on servant­leadership. In L. Spears (Ed.),Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant­leadershipinfluenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 308–312). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Meditations%20on%20servant­leadership&author=JG.%20Tatum&pages=308­312&publication_year=1995)

Taylor, T., Martin, B. N., Hutchinson, S., & Jinks, M. (2007). Examination ofleadership practices of principals identified as servant leaders. International Journalof Leadership in Education, 10(4), 401–419.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603120701408262)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Examination%20of%20leadership%20practices%20of%20principals%20identified%20as%20servant%20leaders&author=T.%20Taylor&author=BN.%20Martin&author=S.%20Hutchinson&author=M.%20Jinks&journal=International%20Journal%20of%20Leadership%20in%20Education&volume=10&issue=4&pages=401­419&publication_year=2007)

Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Pittaway, L., & Macpherson, A. (2006). Knowledge within smalland medium sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journalof Management Reviews, 7(4), 257–281.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468­2370.2005.00116.x)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Knowledge%20within%20small%20and%20medium%20sized%20firms%3A%20A%20systematic%20review%20of%20the%20evidence&author=R.%20Thorpe&author=R.%20Holt&author=L.%20Pittaway&author=A.%20Macpherson&journal=International%20Journal%20of%20Management%20Reviews&volume=7&issue=4&pages=257­281&publication_year=2006)

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developingevidence­informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. BritishJournal of Management, 14, 207–222.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467­8551.00375)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Towards%20a%20methodology%20for%20developing%20evidence­informed%20management%20knowledge%20by%20means%20of%20systematic%20review&author=D.%20Tranfield&author=D.%20Denyer&author=P.%20Smart&journal=British%20Journal%20of%20Management&volume=14&pages=207­222&publication_year=2003)

Van Dierendonck, D. (2011). Servant leadership: A review and syntheses. Journal ofManagement, 27(4), 1228–1261.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310380462)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%3A%20A%20review%20and%20syntheses&author=D.%20Dierendonck&journal=Journal%20of%20Management&volume=27&issue=4&pages=1228­1261&publication_year=2011)

Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijte, K. (2011). The Servant­Leadership Survey (SLS):Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business in

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 43/45

Psychology. doi:10.1007/s10869­010­9194­1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869­010­9194­1).

Van Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. (2011). Servant leadership, recent developmentin theory and research. Dallas, TX: Presented at Greenleaf Center’s annualinternational conference.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%2C%20recent%20development%20in%20theory%20and%20research&author=D.%20Dierendonck&author=K.%20Patterson&publication_year=2011)

Vanourek, R. A. (1995). Servant­leadership and the future. In L. Spears (Ed.),Reflections of leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of servant leadershipinfluenced today’s top management thinkers (pp. 298–307). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant­leadership%20and%20the%20future&author=RA.%20Vanourek&pages=298­307&publication_year=1995)

Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, proceduraljustice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenshipbehavior: A cross­level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 517–529.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018867)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%2C%20procedural%20justice%20climate%2C%20service%20climate%2C%20employee%20attitudes%2C%20and%20organizational%20citizenship%20behavior%3A%20A%20cross­level%20investigation&author=FO.%20Walumbwa&author=CA.%20Hartnell&author=A.%20Oke&journal=Journal%20of%20Applied%20Psychology&volume=95&issue=3&pages=517­529&publication_year=2010)

Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Feild, H. S. (2006). Individual differences inservant leadership: The roles of values and personality. Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal, 27(8), 700–716.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730610709309)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Individual%20differences%20in%20servant%20leadership%3A%20The%20roles%20of%20values%20and%20personality&author=RR.%20Washington&author=CD.%20Sutton&author=HS.%20Feild&journal=Leadership%20%26%20Organization%20Development%20Journal&volume=27&issue=8&pages=700­716&publication_year=2006)

Weed, M. (2005). “Meta interpretation”: A method for interpretive synthesis ofqualitative research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research (FQS), 6(1), 1–21.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=%E2%80%9CMeta%20interpretation%E2%80%9D%3A%20A%20method%20for%20interpretive%20synthesis%20of%20qualitative%20research&author=M.%20Weed&journal=Forum%3A%20Qualitative%20Social%20Research%20%28FQS%29&volume=6&issue=1&pages=1­21&publication_year=2005)

Wheatley, M. (2005). Finding our way: Leadership in an uncertain times. SanFrancisco: Berrett­Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Finding%20our%20way%3A%20Leadership%20in%20an%20uncertain%20times&author=M.%20Wheatley&publication_year=2005)

Whetstone, J. (2002). Personalism and moral leadership: the servant leader with atransforming vision. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 25(3/4),349–359.

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 44/45

Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Personalism%20and%20moral%20leadership%3A%20the%20servant%20leader%20with%20a%20transforming%20vision&author=J.%20Whetstone&journal=Leadership%20and%20Organizational%20Development%20Journal&volume=25&issue=3%2F4&pages=349­359&publication_year=2002)

Winston, B. E. (2003). Extending Patterson’s servant leadership model: Explaininghow leaders and followers interact in a circular model. Virginia Beach, VA: ServantLeadership Research Roundtable.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Extending%20Patterson%E2%80%99s%20servant%20leadership%20model%3A%20Explaining%20how%20leaders%20and%20followers%20interact%20in%20a%20circular%20model&author=BE.%20Winston&publication_year=2003)

Winston, B. E. (2004). Servant leadership at Heritage Bible College: A single­casestudy. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(7), 600–617.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730410561486)Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%20at%20Heritage%20Bible%20College%3A%20A%20single­case%20study&author=BE.%20Winston&journal=Leadership%20%26%20Organization%20Development%20Journal&volume=25&issue=7&pages=600­617&publication_year=2004)

Wong, P. T., & Davey, D. (2007). Best practices of servant leadership ServantLeadership Research Roundtable. Virginia Beach, VA: Regent University.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Best%20practices%20of%20servant%20leadership%20Servant%20Leadership%20Research%20Roundtable&author=PT.%20Wong&author=D.%20Davey&publication_year=2007)

Wong, P. T., & Page, D. (2003). Servant leadership: An opponent­process model andthe revised servant leadership profile. Virginia Beach, VA: Servant LeadershipResearch Roundtable.Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Servant%20leadership%3A%20An%20opponent­process%20model%20and%20the%20revised%20servant%20leadership%20profile&author=PT.%20Wong&author=D.%20Page&publication_year=2003)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Personalised recommendations

Powered by:

1. Conceptualising spiritual leadership in secular organizational contexts and itsrelation to transformational, servant and environmental leadershipCrossman, JoannaLeadership & Organization Development Journal (2010)

5/1/2017 A Systematic Literature Review of Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Contexts | SpringerLink

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551­012­1322­6 45/45

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG. Part of Springer Nature.

Not logged in Charles Sturt University CSU Division of Library Services (3000175634) ­ CAUL/GO8 Consortium(3001018290) 137.166.200.155

About this article

Publisher Name Springer NetherlandsPrint ISSN 0167­4544Online ISSN 1573­0697

About this journalReprints and Permissions