Scientific Research on Servant Leadership
Dr. Robert C. Liden, who is leading the Singapore 2013 Servant Leadership Research Initiative, has provided the following highlights of scientific research on servant leadership:
Although preceding the most popular contemporary leadership theories, servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1970) has received relatively less attention in the academic literature than other approaches to leadership (Yukl, 2010). With few exceptions, such as Jill Graham’s (1991) theoretical exploration that introduced servant leadership to academic researchers, scientific research on servant leadership did not begin in earnest until Mark Ehrhart’s empirical research was published in 2004. Using a short measure of servant leadership that he developed in his 2004 study, Ehrhart found that servant leadership explained variance in team organizational citizenship behaviors (i.e. discretionary behaviors not required of employees), beyond variance explained by the two dominant approaches to leadership, transformational leadership and leader-member exchange (LMX). His research demonstrated that servant leader behaviors were related to organizational justice (fairness in decisions made regarding employees), which in turn led employees to reciprocate by engaging in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs).
Using Ehrhart’s (2004) measure, Walumbwa, Hartnell, and Oke (2010) replicated the positive relationship between servant leadership and OCBs. These researchers found that servant leadership encouraged OCBs by enhancing self-efficacy (people’s self confidence in their ability to perform specific tasks well), creating a service climate at work, and establishing a fair workplace. Empirical research has also revealed that employees of servant leaders are more creative than those working with leaders who scored lower on servant leadership (Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008). Furthermore, servant leadership has been shown to be positively related to follower job satisfaction ((Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008).
Following Ehrhart’s (2004) seminal empirical work, Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson (2008) developed a more comprehensive and psychometrically sound measure of
servant leadership (Van Dierendonck, 2011). They identified seven key dimensions of servant leadership: behaving ethically, emotional healing, putting subordinates first, helping subordinates grow and succeed, empowering, creating value for the community, and conceptual skills. With their newly created measure of servant leadership, these researchers found servant leadership to explain variability in employee commitment to the organization, job performance, and community citizenship behavior, even when statistically controlling the influence of transformational leadership and LMX. Whereas transformational leaders are seen as putting their organization’s needs first and encouraging employees to sacrifice their own interests to meet the goals of the organization (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006), servant leaders put the best interest of the followers as their top priority.
Following Ehrhart’s study, which focused on servant leadership at the team level (i.e., team member perceptions of the leader’s servant leadership behavior were aggregated to the team level), additional research has now been conducted at the team level. Schaubroeck, Lam, and Peng (2011) found servant leadership at the team level is related to team performance, explaining an additional 10% of the variation in team performance beyond that explained by transformational leadership. Schaubroeck and his colleagues, using the Liden et al. (2008) servant leadership measure, demonstrated that servant leadership led to team performance through its positive influence on affect-based trust, which was shown to provide psychological safety to team members. When employees feel psychologically safe, they are willing to take risks associated with being creative, are willing to challenge the status quo (which leads to better decision making), and are motivated to perform well as a way of reciprocating for fair treatment by the leader.
Another team level study found servant leadership to be positively related to team potency (team confidence in its ability to perform well) and subsequent team performance (Hu & Liden, 2011). A noteworthy finding of the Hu and Liden investigation is that servant leadership was shown to positively influence the relationship between goal clarity and team potency. Not only did the findings show that goal clarity was more positively related to team potency the more servant leadership was present, it was also discovered that teams that did not have a servant leader had lower potency and lower subsequent performance the clearer their goals! Evidently, without the support of a servant leader, team members found it frustrating to completely understand the goal, but not receive the leader support needed to successfully meet the goal.
A very important study by Peterson and her colleagues (2012) investigated servant leadership at the organizational level using a 16-item version of Liden and colleagues (2008) measure of servant leadership. Specifically, these researchers found that company performance, as measured by return on assets, was higher in companies led by CEOs who engaged in servant leadership. Interestingly, CEOs who had founded the company and those who scored lower on the personality characteristic, narcissism, were found to be significantly more likely to engage in servant leadership. The negative relationship between leader narcissism and servant leadership is consistent with Greenleaf’s (1970) contention that leaders should help others before providing for themselves.
Servant leaders gain team member trust and build long term relationships by showing genuine concern for all team members (Liden et al., 2008). And because it is the leader’s team, follower trust in leadership acts to elevate team members’ trust in the capabilities of their team to be effective. Second, given the complexity of modern work environments, many potential changes and unexpected problems arise that require team members’ collaboration to solve. Servant leaders, who are fair, and honest with team members, promote open and problem-driven communication within the team, resulting in enhanced team member confidence in their team’s capabilities to be effective even in the face of uncertainty and obstacles. Third, servant leaders cultivate personal integrity among team members to create a spiritual climate within the team (Liden et al., 2008), which elicits team members to cooperate with and care about each other and enables them to be optimistic about their team’s capabilities to be
effective.
Although available research on servant leadership has been highly supportive, much additional work is needed to better understand the antecedents and consequences of servant leadership, as well as contextual variables that may influence the way in which servant leadership relates to individual, team, and organizational outcomes (Liden, Panaccio, Meuser, Hu, & Wayne, in press; Van Dierendonck, 2011). An additional research need is to explore servant leadership across a wider range of cultures, as the majority of available research studies have relied on samples taken from the United States (Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et al., 2008; Peterson et al., 2012), China (Han, Kakabadse, & Kakabadse, 2010; Hu & Liden, 2011; Schaubroeck et al., 2011), and Africa (Hale, & Fields, 2007; Walumbwa et al., 2010). Research on servant leadership is needed in other parts of the world, including Canada, Europe, Mexico, South America, and other parts of Asia besides China, such as India, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
Dr. Robert C. Liden, who is leading the Singapore 2013 Servant Leadership Research Initiative, has provided the following highlights of scientific research on servant leadership:
Although preceding the most popular contemporary leadership theories, servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1970) has received relatively less attention in the academic literature than other approaches to leadership (Yukl, 2010). With few exceptions, such as Jill Graham’s (1991) theoretical exploration that introduced servant leadership to academic researchers, scientific research on servant leadership did not begin in earnest until Mark Ehrhart’s empirical research was published in 2004. Using a short measure of servant leadership that he developed in his 2004 study, Ehrhart found that servant leadership explained variance in team organizational citizenship behaviors (i.e. discretionary behaviors not required of employees), beyond variance explained by the two dominant approaches to leadership, transformational leadership and leader-member exchange (LMX). His research demonstrated that servant leader behaviors were related to organizational justice (fairness in decisions made regarding employees), which in turn led employees to reciprocate by engaging in organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs).
Using Ehrhart’s (2004) measure, Walumbwa, Hartnell, and Oke (2010) replicated the positive relationship between servant leadership and OCBs. These researchers found that servant leadership encouraged OCBs by enhancing self-efficacy (people’s self confidence in their ability to perform specific tasks well), creating a service climate at work, and establishing a fair workplace. Empirical research has also revealed that employees of servant leaders are more creative than those working with leaders who scored lower on servant leadership (Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008). Furthermore, servant leadership has been shown to be positively related to follower job satisfaction ((Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo, 2008).
Following Ehrhart’s (2004) seminal empirical work, Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson (2008) developed a more comprehensive and psychometrically sound measure of
servant leadership (Van Dierendonck, 2011). They identified seven key dimensions of servant leadership: behaving ethically, emotional healing, putting subordinates first, helping subordinates grow and succeed, empowering, creating value for the community, and conceptual skills. With their newly created measure of servant leadership, these researchers found servant leadership to explain variability in employee commitment to the organization, job performance, and community citizenship behavior, even when statistically controlling the influence of transformational leadership and LMX. Whereas transformational leaders are seen as putting their organization’s needs first and encouraging employees to sacrifice their own interests to meet the goals of the organization (Piccolo & Colquitt, 2006), servant leaders put the best interest of the followers as their top priority.
Following Ehrhart’s study, which focused on servant leadership at the team level (i.e., team member perceptions of the leader’s servant leadership behavior were aggregated to the team level), additional research has now been conducted at the team level. Schaubroeck, Lam, and Peng (2011) found servant leadership at the team level is related to team performance, explaining an additional 10% of the variation in team performance beyond that explained by transformational leadership. Schaubroeck and his colleagues, using the Liden et al. (2008) servant leadership measure, demonstrated that servant leadership led to team performance through its positive influence on affect-based trust, which was shown to provide psychological safety to team members. When employees feel psychologically safe, they are willing to take risks associated with being creative, are willing to challenge the status quo (which leads to better decision making), and are motivated to perform well as a way of reciprocating for fair treatment by the leader.
Another team level study found servant leadership to be positively related to team potency (team confidence in its ability to perform well) and subsequent team performance (Hu & Liden, 2011). A noteworthy finding of the Hu and Liden investigation is that servant leadership was shown to positively influence the relationship between goal clarity and team potency. Not only did the findings show that goal clarity was more positively related to team potency the more servant leadership was present, it was also discovered that teams that did not have a servant leader had lower potency and lower subsequent performance the clearer their goals! Evidently, without the support of a servant leader, team members found it frustrating to completely understand the goal, but not receive the leader support needed to successfully meet the goal.
A very important study by Peterson and her colleagues (2012) investigated servant leadership at the organizational level using a 16-item version of Liden and colleagues (2008) measure of servant leadership. Specifically, these researchers found that company performance, as measured by return on assets, was higher in companies led by CEOs who engaged in servant leadership. Interestingly, CEOs who had founded the company and those who scored lower on the personality characteristic, narcissism, were found to be significantly more likely to engage in servant leadership. The negative relationship between leader narcissism and servant leadership is consistent with Greenleaf’s (1970) contention that leaders should help others before providing for themselves.
Servant leaders gain team member trust and build long term relationships by showing genuine concern for all team members (Liden et al., 2008). And because it is the leader’s team, follower trust in leadership acts to elevate team members’ trust in the capabilities of their team to be effective. Second, given the complexity of modern work environments, many potential changes and unexpected problems arise that require team members’ collaboration to solve. Servant leaders, who are fair, and honest with team members, promote open and problem-driven communication within the team, resulting in enhanced team member confidence in their team’s capabilities to be effective even in the face of uncertainty and obstacles. Third, servant leaders cultivate personal integrity among team members to create a spiritual climate within the team (Liden et al., 2008), which elicits team members to cooperate with and care about each other and enables them to be optimistic about their team’s capabilities to be
effective.
Although available research on servant leadership has been highly supportive, much additional work is needed to better understand the antecedents and consequences of servant leadership, as well as contextual variables that may influence the way in which servant leadership relates to individual, team, and organizational outcomes (Liden, Panaccio, Meuser, Hu, & Wayne, in press; Van Dierendonck, 2011). An additional research need is to explore servant leadership across a wider range of cultures, as the majority of available research studies have relied on samples taken from the United States (Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et al., 2008; Peterson et al., 2012), China (Han, Kakabadse, & Kakabadse, 2010; Hu & Liden, 2011; Schaubroeck et al., 2011), and Africa (Hale, & Fields, 2007; Walumbwa et al., 2010). Research on servant leadership is needed in other parts of the world, including Canada, Europe, Mexico, South America, and other parts of Asia besides China, such as India, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
References
Ehrhart, M. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit-level organizational
citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61-94.
Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 105-119.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Newton Centre, MA: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center.
Hale, J. R.,& Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3(4), 397-417.
Han, Y., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kakabadse, A. (2010). Servant leadership in the People's Republic of China: A case study of the public sector. Journal of Management
Development, 29(3), 265-281.
Hu, J., & Liden, R.C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 851-862.
Liden, R.C. (2012). Leadership research in Asia: A brief assessment and suggestions for the future. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29, 205-212.
Liden, R.C., Panaccio, A., Meuser, J.D., Hu, J., & Wayne, S.J. (in press). Servant leadership: Antecedents, processes, and outcomes. In Day, D.V. (Ed.) The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H. & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measures and multilevel assessment, Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161-177.
Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 17, 180-197.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,93(6), 1220-1233.
Peterson, S., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. 2012. CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65: 565-596.
Piccolo, R. F.,& Colquitt, J.A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327-340.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. 2011. Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 863-871.
Van Dierendonck, D. 2011. Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37: 1228-1261.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517-529.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (seventh edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Graham, J. W. (1991). Servant leadership in organizations: Inspirational and moral. Leadership Quarterly, 2, 105-119.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. Newton Centre, MA: The Robert K. Greenleaf Center.
Hale, J. R.,& Fields, D. L. (2007). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: A study of followers in Ghana and the USA. Leadership, 3(4), 397-417.
Han, Y., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kakabadse, A. (2010). Servant leadership in the People's Republic of China: A case study of the public sector. Journal of Management
Development, 29(3), 265-281.
Hu, J., & Liden, R.C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 851-862.
Liden, R.C. (2012). Leadership research in Asia: A brief assessment and suggestions for the future. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 29, 205-212.
Liden, R.C., Panaccio, A., Meuser, J.D., Hu, J., & Wayne, S.J. (in press). Servant leadership: Antecedents, processes, and outcomes. In Day, D.V. (Ed.) The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H. & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measures and multilevel assessment, Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161-177.
Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 17, 180-197.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,93(6), 1220-1233.
Peterson, S., Galvin, B. M., & Lange, D. 2012. CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65: 565-596.
Piccolo, R. F.,& Colquitt, J.A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 327-340.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S. K., & Peng, A. C. 2011. Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 863-871.
Van Dierendonck, D. 2011. Servant leadership: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 37: 1228-1261.
Walumbwa, F. O., Hartnell, C. A., & Oke, A. (2010). Servant leadership, procedural justice climate, service climate, employee attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior: A cross-level investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 517-529.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (seventh edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
