Leadership, Leadership Styles, And Servant Leadership
Journal of Management ResearchVol. 18, No. 4, Oct.-Dec. 2018, pp. 261-269Leadership, Leadership Styles,and Servant LeadershipFranco Gandolfi and Seth StoneAbstractResearch on leadership has become a prominent scholarly and professional pursuit in an ever-changing,highly complex, and multi-dimensional globalized world. In spite of an over-abundance of scientific andanecdotal work, a myriad of leadership-related questions have remained unanswered. The purpose of thisconceptual paper is to demystify leadership and to bring clarity to what leadership and leadership styles are,identify critical attributes of effective leadership, and demonstrate that servant leadership meets the criteriafor effective leadership.Keywords: Leadership, Leadership Styles, Servant LeadershipINTRODUCTIONThere perhaps has never been a more importanttime to shine the spotlight of the wide-rangingdiscussion on leadership to the style of servantleadership. The lists of potential reasons for sucha shift are many. First, it requires little more thana brief scan of daily news headlines to recognizethat the world is entrenched in a leadership crisis.Second, leadership has become increasinglymore difficult, complex, and multi-faceted fororganizations of all types globally, thereby bringingnew questions and challenges regarding the “best”type of leader, which ironically has done littlemore than cloud the overarching discussion onleadership (Gandolfi & Stone, 2016). Further,despite the significant body of literature onFranco GandolfiVice ChancellorManipal International University (MIU)Nilai, Negeri Sembilan - 71800MalaysiaSeth StoneAdjunct ProfessorRegent UniversityVirginia Beach, Virginia – 23464,USAleadership, it continues to remain one of themost misunderstood business phenomena to date(Gandolfi, 2016). If the goal is to understand theconsequences of leadership and its various styles,specifically servant leadership, it is important firstto bring clarity to what leadership is and why it issuch a pivotal concept.Though there has been substantial researchcompleted and authenticated with regard to whatare now considered mainstream styles of acceptedleadership, such as democratic, transactional, andtransformational leadership, there is very littleresearch on servant leadership by way of actualcomparison (Gandolfi, Stone, & Deno, 2017).Robert Greenleaf (1970) had brought servantleadership into the corporate spotlight, but notwithout resistance and much skepticism, as ittook nearly thirty years to begin garnering anymeaningful attention from leadership experts andscholars (Gandolfi et al., 2017). At this juncture, inthe midst of trying to understand leadership itself,it is imperative to simultaneously understand whatservant leadership is and is not (Brown & Bryant,2015), as a means to make a compelling case forits application alongside other accepted leadershipstyles.
The purpose of this paper is to help bring clarityboth to what leadership and leadership stylesactually are, as well as identify critical attributes ofeffective leadership. The objective is to demonstratethat servant leadership meets the criteria foreffective leadership and is potentially highlydesirable for organizations of all type and industryin the 21st Century and beyond. This paper willbegin with a brief explanation of the importanceof leadership, as well as provide working definitionsfor both leadership and leadership styles. It willthen distill the key attributes of effective leadershipand make the case that servant leadership holds arightful place amongst other leadership styles. Thisis done by providing a historical context, as well ashow and why servant leadership works and must beapplied in today’s organizations.leadership has become a systemic issue on a globallevel, thus it is not surprising to see more and morecases such as these to arise. In fact, a Gallup studythat examined the relationships between employeesand their managers found that of 7,200 peoplesurveyed who left their jobs; roughly half did sobecause of a bad manager (Snyder, 2015). Thisinsight shows that no organization or industryis immune from poor leadership leading someto believe that it could even be characterizedas ubiquitous (Gandolfi & Stone, 2016). Poorleadership takes its toll on every imaginablestakeholder from those inside and outside theorganizations. This reality places leadership in astate of crisis on a global level. Therefore, theremust be a sense of urgency in the uncoveringof the most desirable and effective methods forleading organizations.THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LEADERSHIPHow a leader chooses to behave, or in moreacademic terminology how a leader accessesa repertoire of styles, impacts the variousstakeholders profoundly. Chaleff (2009) positsthat all important social accomplishments requirecomplex group efforts and, thus, leadership andfollowership are both necessary in the pursuit ofa common purpose. This inherently forces leadersto emerge, but the type of leader that rises to thetop will indeed make or break the organization.From a purely organizational perspective, withoutclearly drawn maps to the future, an organizationtends to be hamstrung by its past (Miller, 1995).It is the responsibility of leadership to moveorganizations to a desired future state withoutlosing sight of those who will get it there. It isan extremely difficult balancing act. However, itis what makes leadership so incredibly significantand demonstrates why the chosen leadership styleis a decision with the highest of stakes the globalcommunity faces today.While there is much disagreement with regard towhat leadership actually is, the one commonalitythat can be found across virtually all of the existingleadership literature is that leadership is important.While this point may appear rather obvious, itshould not be lost on us. The reason being is thatwhen leadership is ineffective, absent, or toxic theresult is that people, organizations, communities,and even entire societies are impacted, sometimesin the most devastating ways (Gandolfi & Stone,2016). Leadership failures are well-documented and,at times, appear to be the rule, not the exception.Ken Lay of Enron, Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco,and the infamous Bernie Madoff are just a fewwell-documented business examples that can bepointed to the past few decades alone. Morerecent examples include the much publicized FIFAleadership fiasco and the Volkswagen integritycrises and, even more recently, the clear lack ofleadership at the Olympic Games in Brazil. Thelatter was evidenced by complete leadershipfailure both by the athletes who represented theirrespective countries as well as the local leadership(Gandolfi & Stone, 2016). There are always lessonsand takeaways in the moment that spark discussionson ethics, policies, and even governmentregulations. However, leadership problems persisteven in spite of these efforts. It appears that poor262DEFINING LEADERSHIP ANDLEADERSHIP STYLEThere are countless definitions of leadershipthat exist. Yet, a proper understanding of whyleadership is so significant and why the chosenleadership style is so important becomesJournal of Management Research
particularly valuable to introduce workingdefinitions of both leadership and leadership style.Gandolfi (2016) asserts that the combination offive components render a potent working definitionof leadership - (i) there must be one or moreleaders, (ii) leadership must have followers, (iii)it must be action oriented with a legitimate (iv)course of action, and there must be (v) goals andobjectives. Working from these five criteria, thefollowing definition was selected for the purposeof this article:“A leader is one or more people who selects, equips,trains, and influences one or more follower(s) whohave diverse gifts, abilities, and skills and focuses thefollower(s) to the organization’s mission and objectivescausing the follower(s) to willingly and enthusiasticallyexpend spiritual, emotional, and physical energyin a concerted coordinated effort to achieve theorganizational mission and objectives.” (Winston &Patterson, 2006, p. 7)Winston and Patterson (2006) provide a definitionas it relates to the components needed for definingleadership as stated above. Additionally, thisdefinition provides an unequivocal demonstrationthat leadership is not one-dimensional. Rather,leadership requires a deep understanding aboutthe role of people in the ultimate success of themission and vision of the organization (Gandolfi& Stone, 2016). This assists in moving leadershipout of a theoretical realm into a very tangible andpragmatic space, giving room to explore leadershipstyles and how they connect to a definition such asthis.While a significant body of research existsaddressing various leadership styles, there is asurprising shortcoming of research examining thenotion of a leadership “style” (Gandolfi & Stone,2016). It is almost a forgone assumption that thereis general understanding and consensus with regardto what a leadership style is, which is erroneous anddoes not serve the greater discussion on leadershipwell. Such a lack of clarity could be contributing tothe widely disparate views on leadership (Gandolfiet al., 2017).Volume 18, Number 4 October–December 2018Buchanan (2013) opines that the world has movedthrough different phases of leadership since theearly part of the 20th Century. Specifically, there wasfirst the concept of “command-and-control” thatprevailed into the 1980s, which was followed by“empower-and-track” through the mid 2000’s, and,finally, “connect-and-nurture,” which is the currentapproach. While this timeframe may not holduniversally true, it provides a high-level justificationas to why different leadership styles have emerged.Additionally, early theories of leadership had madethe assumption that good leadership was based ontraits (Shazia, Anis-ul-Haq, & Niazi, 2014). This ledto the notion that leaders are born and not made.It was the well-known psychologist Kurt Lewin andteam (1939) who introduced that leaders could bemade and were not necessarily just born. In theirseminal work, Lewin, Lippit, and White (1939)categorized and introduced three leadership stylesthat set the framework for future styles to emerge– autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire (Martin,2015). Additional styles began to focus on theleader/follower relationship and how the actions ofone will impact the other (Shazia et al., 2014).Armandi, Oppedisano, and Sherman (2003) notethat leadership is about influencing a group ofpeople in the direction of a decided commongoal. Leadership is also highly intentional. Rookeand Torbert (2005) assert that differences amongleaders are not determined by their philosophyof leadership, personality, or even managementstyle. Rather, it has to do with how they readand interpret their surroundings and how thoseinterpretations influence reactions leaders havein various situations. This requires a high degreeof self-awareness, emotional intelligence, andenvironmental context both inside and outside theorganization (Rooke & Torbert, 2005).Leadership effectiveness in the eyes of followersis closely tied to the leader being driven, ableto inspire, and prioritize needs, which in turnproduces a sense of safety and calm for followers(McDermott, Kidney, & Flood, 2013). This pointsdirectly to the connection between leader and263
follower as outlined by Winston and Patterson(2006).why a deeper exploration of servant leadership isnecessary in today’s leadership climate.With this understanding of how leadership stylesdeveloped over time, the authors of this paperdefined a leadership style as follows:HISTORICAL CONTEXT OFSERVANT LEADERSHIP“An intentional means by which a leader influencesa group of people in an organization to a widelyunderstood future state that is different from thepresent one.” (Gandolfi & Stone, 2016)It is important to note that this definition does notindicate a better future, merely a different futurestate. Research shows that not all leadership styleswill lead to a better organizational future state.Thus, making the selection of leadership style isa pivotal decision and, in the midst of the currentleadership crisis, it is time to turn the attention to astyle still widely dismissed - servant leadership.UNDERSTANDING TRULYEFFECTIVE LEADERSHIPPrior to delving into servant leadership specifically,it is important to note the principles of effectiveleadership based on what has been presented thusfar. First are two guiding principles, (i) virtuallyeveryone has some capacity to form leadershiprelationships (Gandolfi, 2016), and (ii) leaders aremade and not born (Gandolfi & Stone, 2016).Andersen (2012) postulates that while somepeople are born with innate qualities and characterattributes that propel and/or accelerate theirleadership journey, the vast majority of peoplelive in a practical reality where their leadershipskills must be intentionally cultivated to achievetheir maximum potential leadership output. Suchcultivation cannot happen without relationships(Komives, Lucas, & McMahon, 1998).Kouzes and Posner (2007) have produced someof the most authoritative research on the subjectof leadership effectiveness and arrived at five keyattributes. These are; (i) to model the way, (ii) toinspire a shared vision, (iii) to challenge the process,(iv) to enable others to act, and (v) to encouragethe heart. Understanding these elements ofeffective leadership provides critical context for264Servant leadership dates back thousands of years.Many ancient monarchies had widely acknowledgedthat leadership was for the service of people andcountry (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). In a moremodern context, Greenleaf (1970) reinvigorated thenotion of the servant leader.Though in some circles servant leadership isfalsely assumed as a Christian paradigm, servantleadership has influenced and been influenced bymany cultures around the world (Gandolfi et al.,2017). Winston and Ryan (2008) posit that theteachings of Confucius are similar in construct toservant leadership and some of the constructs ofservant leadership show up in the Zhou Dynasty(111 - 249 B.C.). The traditional tribal leadershipof the Bedouin-Arab culture also aligned with theconcept of servant leadership, as these leaders wereexpected to be selfless and emphasize the needsof family and guests above their own (Hirschy,Gomez, Patterson, & Winston, 2012).One of the best-recorded examples of servantleadership is derived from the teachings ofJesus Christ among the Jewish culture nearly twothousand years ago. Sendjaya and Sarros (2002)state that Jesus was the first to “introduce thenotion of servant leadership to everyday humanendeavor” (p. 58). Such teaching was paradoxicaltwo thousand years ago, and in many respects, stillpresents a conundrum today as the notion of theleader as a servant appears as nothing short of anoxymoron.In the 20th Century, Mahatma Gandhi and MartinLuther King Jr. serve as prominent examples ofservant leadership. While they slightly predateGreenleaf ’s (1970) description of the servantleader, the alleged ten characteristics of servantleadership (Spears, 2004) exist in both examples.Spears (2004) clarifies Greenleaf ’s definitionof servant leadership by presenting ten salientJournal of Management Research
characteristics - listening, empathy, healing,awareness, persuasion, conceptualization, foresight,stewardship, commitment to growth of people, andbuilding community (Gandolfi et al., 2017). Spears’s(2004) introduction of this characteristic modelhas re-ignited the systematic study of servantleadership in the 21st Century. Consequently, studieson servant leadership proliferated resulting in 39articles published in reputable management journalsbetween 2004 and 2011 alone (Parris & Peachey,2013).Despite its introduction as an organizationalleadership style four decades ago and more thanten years of empirical work (Laub, 1999), servantleadership has remained in the early stage oftheoretical development (Liden, Wayne, Liao, &Meuser, 2014). Though our understanding ofservant leadership has advanced, it has not yet beenfully operationalized (Van Dierendonck, 2011).THE WHAT, WHY, AND HOW OFSERVANT LEADERSHIPThe dichotomous nature of servant leadership hasthe capacity to lead to a general misunderstandingof what the concept entails (Gandolfi et al., 2017).Sendjaya and Sarros (2002) suggest that one ofthe reasons servant leadership suffers from ascarcity of research is that it is difficult to createa legitimate perception of a servant who leads. Aconfusion is thus quite possible due to an incorrectunderstanding of the roles of a leader and aservant. Historically speaking, the trait theory ofleadership stemming from the ‘great man myth’(Hoffman, Woehr, Maldagen-Youngjohn, & Lyons,2011) identified leadership with traits that allowedleaders to lead with authority and power (Mcfarlane,2011). The great man myth perception ofleadership says little of interpersonal skills neededto lead well (Yukl, 2012). On the other hand, thehumility and meekness of the servant are “seen asweak or ineffective in a society where domination,oppressive strategies, and individualism are strongervalues than humility, collectivism, and sharingof power and authority with others” (Mcfarlane,2011, p. 31). These misconceptions of leaderand servant have produced a belief that servantVolume 18, Number 4 October–December 2018leaders engage a lackadaisical or laissez-faire style.Plainly, servant leadership is neither disengagednor weak and it does not lack enthusiasm anddetermination (i.e., lackadaisical). It also does notlet things take their own course without interfering(i.e., laissez-faire) (Gandolfi et al., 2017). Servantleaders are as proactive, ambitious, and driven asany other leader. They just have a different focusand set of motivation that guide their leadershipand decision making. In fact, what differentiatesservant leadership from other styles of leadershipis the primary focus on the follower first (Stone,Russell, & Patterson, 2004). Whereas many, if notmost styles of leadership direct their focus first ona mission and second on empowering followersto achieve that mission, servant leadership directsits focus first on the ability of the individuals tosucceed and then subsequently on the success ofthe mission. Again, this is counterintuitive to mostmodern schools of management and leadershipthought. In this way, the servant leader serves thosewho follow their lead and collectively with theirteam serve an organization or mission (Gandolfiet al., 2017). This leadership focus reveals strengththrough discipline and humility requiring the leaderto put their own needs after the needs of those theyserve. Servant leaders help their followers to growand succeed, which in turn aids in accomplishingthe organizational mission. The perception ofa servant leader should be one of a courageoussteward who holds people accountable for theirown good (Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).By the very nature of how servant leadership mustbe executed, it is an immensely difficult task. Infact, it could be argued that it is more challengingthan most if not all other prevalent styles. This isdue to the fact that, in practical reality, it is ofteneasier to require follower compliance than it is toinspire a willing acceptance of the requirementsneeded to meet an organizational mission andvision (Patterson, 2006). Thus, it is little wonderwhy for the scholastic and practitioner communitiesalike, a philosophy rooted in placing the needs offollowers ahead of the needs of the organizationis counter-intuitive to what so many have believedto be a logical or viable form of organizationalleadership (Brown & Bryant, 2015).265
This poses an immediate question: Why would anorganization seek to embrace servant leadership?Servant leaders, at their core, are those individualswho develop and empower others to reach theirhighest potential (Sendjaya & Sarros, 2002). Thisspeaks directly to the individual potential of thefollower(s) rather than the organization. Servantleadership assumes that if the followers aremaximizing their potential, it will directly translateto the potential of the organization and its overallperformance.Interestingly, Graham (1991) as well as Farling,Stone, and Winston, (1999) assert that servantleadership is comparable to Burns’ (1978)transforming leadership, in that both approachesencourage leaders and followers to “raise oneanother to higher levels of motivation andmorality.” (p. 20). However, while both styles ofleadership share this commonality, this is wheretheir similarities end.Management and organization theory suggests thatthe most traditional approaches have a tendency toconsolidate power amongst few people within anentity, who in turn expect rigid compliance withinand across the organizational hierarchy (Winston& Fields, 2015). As such and strictly within thiscontext, charismatic and transformational stylesfocus on inspiring and engaging followers as chiefmeans to attain organizational goals (Winston &Fields, 2015).A combination of philosophical assumptions aswell as tangible and empirical evidence suggestthat servant leadership not only “work”, butcan be touted as effective and desirable. Servantleadership works because it incorporates a provenelement of effective leadership. Still, effectiveleadership is neither linear nor is it a one-wayform of communication or event. Rather, it ishighly interactive (Northouse, 2007). The notionof leadership being a two-way relationship rendersmany archaic leadership styles as ineffective.Servant leadership is increasingly being seen asthe most interactive style of leadership when itcomes to leader/follower engagement. This is dueto the fact that the primary emphasis for attainingorganizational goals is based on serving the266followers tasked with achieving those.Manby (2012) and Stone (2015) suggest that whenservant leadership is applied correctly with theproper intentions, an authentic and natural formof reciprocity takes place between the leader andthe follower, thus increasing workforce engagementand improving organizational performance(Gandolfi & Stone, 2017).Servant leadership also works from a purely moralperspective. Corporate crises and political scandalshave dominated news headlines across the globe.At the time of writing, Malaysia and its muchpublicized 1MDB scandal have riveted much ofthe South-Asians media headlines for most of 2017and 2018. These crises and scandals seem to emergein spite of the imposition of stringent rules andregulations from governments and ethics boardsalike. Price (2004) states that humans are morelikely to behave immorally when there is sufficientreason to believe that we have run out of intereststo behave morally. With an understanding of andconsidering Spears’ (2004) ten characteristics ofservant leadership, there is arguably no morallyvirtuous leadership style in existence today.While moral and ethical leadership failure areplausible in a servant-led firm, servant leadershipacts as the best safeguard against these typesof failures based on what we know about thephenomenon to date. From a follower perspective,today’s workforce is far removed from the days ofjob security, pension plans, and employer-sponsoredincentives that were made readily available asrecently as one or two workforce generations ago.Finally, Collins (2001) identified a Level 5 leaderwhich “blends extreme personal humility withintense professional will” (p. 21). To date, servantleadership is the only style that prescriptivelycalls for personal humility as one of the keysto successful implementation. The authors ofthis paper contend that servant leadership fitsseamlessly within the context of what Collinsidentifies as the highest level of leadership. Makingservant leadership a highly desirable leadership stylein theory and due to the fact that servant leadershipcan now be quantitatively measured, it becomesJournal of Management Research
easier for even the greatest of skeptics to see itsviability and potency of this often misunderstoodconcept.CONCLUDING THOUGHTSThe purpose of this paper was to bring clarity towhat leadership and leadership styles are, identifycritical attributes of effective leadership, anddemonstrate that servant leadership meets thecriteria for effective leadership. Greenleaf ’s (1970)thrusting of servant leadership into the corporatespotlight was the most significant contribution toservant leadership to date. Examples of servantleader such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin LutherKing, Jr., and Mother Teresa demonstrate thatGreenleaf did not resurrect a dead practice.Rather, he began to articulate and operationalizean ongoing practice and thus an important steptoward current organizational understanding. WhileGreenleaf ’s (1970) contributions are significant,they have failed to demystify the practice of servantleadership. More recent work by Patterson (2006),Winston & Patterson (2006), Van Dierendonck& Nuijten (2011), Brown & Bryant (2015), andGandolfi & Stone (2016) have contributed to afunctional understanding of servant leadership.Further research on servant leadership must fostermore widespread understanding and acceptance ofits viability in contemporary organizations.REFERENCESAndersen, E. (2012). “Are leaders born or made?,” [Online] available at 21/are-leaders-born-or-made/#8ef6372ba27b.Armandi, B., Oppedisano, J. & Sherman, H. (2003). “Leadership theory and practice: a “case” in point,” Management Decision, 41 (10),pp. 1076–1088.Brown, S. & Bryant, P. (2015). “Getting to know the elephant: a call to advance servant leadership through construct consensus,empirical evidence, and multilevel theoretical development,” Servant Leadership: Theory and Practice, 2 (1), pp. 10–35.Buchanan, L. (2013). “Between Venus and Mars: 7 traits of true leaders,” [Online] available at traits-of-true-leaders.html.Burns, J. M. (1978). “Leadership,” New York: Harper & Row.Chaleff, I. (2009). “The Courageous Follower: Standing Up to & For Our Leaders (3rd ed.),” San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Collins, J. (2001). “Good to Great,” New York: HarperCollins.Farling, M. L., Stone, A. G., & Winston, B. E. (1999). “Servant leadership: setting the stage for empirical research,” Journal ofLeadership & Organizational Studies, 6 (1–2), pp. 49–72.Gandolfi, F. (2016). “Fundamentals of leadership development,” Executive Master’s in Leadership Presentation, Georgetown University,June 2016.Gandolfi, F. & Stone, S. (2016). “Clarifying leadership: high-impact leaders in a time of leadership crisis,” Review of InternationalComparative Management, 17 (3), pp. 212 – 224.Gandolfi, F., & Stone, S. (2017) “The emergence of leadership styles: A clarified categorization,” Review of International ComparativeManagement, 18 (1), pp. 18–30.Gandolfi, F., Stone, S., & Deno, F. (2017) “Servant leadership: An ancient style with 21st Century relevance,” Review of InternationalComparative Management, 18 (4), pp. 350–361.Graham, J. W. (1991). “Servant-leadership in organizations: inspirational and moral,” The Leadership Quarterly, 2 (2), pp. 105–119.Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). “The servant as leader,” Servant Leadership, pp. 1–338.Hirschy, M. J., Gomez, D., Patterson, K., & Winston, B. (2012). “Servant leadership, humane orientation, and Confucian doctrine ofJen,” In Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of Strategic Management. Proceedings (11), p. 3. Jordan Whitney Enterprises,Inc.Volume 18, Number 4 October–December 2018267
Hoffman, B. J., Woehr, D. J., Maldagen‐Youngjohn, R., & Lyons, B. D. (2011). “Great man or great myth? A quantitative review ofthe relationship between individual differences and leader effectiveness,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(2), pp. 347–381.Komives, S, Lucas, N., & McMahon, T. (1998). “Exploring Leadership for College Students What Want to Make A Difference,” SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2007). “The Leadership Challenge (4th ed.),” San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Laub, J. A. (1999). “Assessing the servant organization,” Florida Atlantic University.Lewin, K., Lippit, R., & White, R.K. (1939). “Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates,” Journal ofSocial Psychology, 10, pp. 271–301.Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). “Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unitperformance,” Academy of Management Journal, 57 (5), pp. 1434–1452.Manby, J. (2012). “Love Works,” Grand Rapids: Zondervan.Martin, M. (2015). “What kind of leader are you? Traits, skills and styles,” [Online] available at tml.McDermott, A., Kidney, R. & Flood, P. (2011). “Understanding leader development: Learning from leaders,” Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal, 32 (4), 358–378.Mcfarlane, D. A. (2011). “Impressed and inspired: encountering genuine leadership with dr. barry posner and dr. agueda ogazon,” EJournal of Organizational Learning & Leadership, 9 (2), 26–48.Miller, C. (1995). “The Empowered Leader: 10 Keys to Servant Leadership,” Nashville: B&H Publishing Group.Northouse, P. (2007) “Leadership: Theory and Practice (4th ed.),” Thousand Oaks: Sage.Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). “A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts,” Journalof Business Ethics, 113 (3), pp. 377–393.Patterson, K. (2006). “Servant-leadership: A brief look at love and the organizational perspective,” International Journal of ServantLeadership, 2, 287–296.Price, T.L. (2004) “Ethics, the Heart of Leadership, J.B Ciulla (ed.),” Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing.Rooke, D. & Torbert, W.R. (1998). “Seven transformations of leadership,” [Online] available at adership.Sendjaya, S., & Sarros, J. C. (2002). “S
Leadership, Leadership Styles, and Servant Leadership Franco Gandolfi and Seth Stone Abstract Research on leadership has become a prominent scholarly and professional pursuit in an ever-changing, highly complex, and multi-dimensional globaliz
Servant Leadership Through his initial work on servant leadership, Greenleaf (1977) provided a foundation for the contemporary study and emerging discipline of servant leadership. The key to Greenleaf’s conceptualization of servant leadership is his understanding of what characterizes the servant
Isaiah 40 —66: The Servant . 4 Jacob/Israel is God’s servant 48:20 Jacob, God’s servant to be free from Babylon 49:3 * Servant in whom God will show his glory 49:5 * Servant with a ministry to Jacob, to bring them back to God 49:6 * Servant is a light to the nations, bringing salvation
EDUC 406: Servant Leadership (6 semester hours) provides students with an overview and awareness of servant leadership and the values of servant leadership in the education and/or organizational workplace settings. Student Learning Outcomes EDUC 406: Servant Leadership is intended to address the following course learning outcomes.
Servant Leadership Overview Servant Leadership is a concept that has been around for ages, however the phrase "servant leadership" is attributed to Robert K. Greenleaf, in his essay titled, The Servant as Leader (1970). Servant Leadership focuses on the growth and well-being of others and their communities.
Servant to deliver His people. Isaiah 52:13-53:12, the "Song of the Servant's Victory" or "Last Servant Song," spells out the description of this Servant.2 In spite of 1 The Holy Bible, English Standard Version Study Bible, Lane T. Dennis and Wayne Grudem, eds. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), Psalm 121:1. All Scripture references
Servant Leadership The Institution as Servant by Robert K. Greenleaf Seven Pillars of Servant Leadership – Practicing the Wisdom of Leading by Serving by James W. Sipe and Don M. Frick The Servant Leader-How to Build a Creative Team, Develop Great Morale, and Improve Bottom-Line Performance by James A. Autry
A. The Evolution of Servant Leadership Though Robert K. Greenleaf pioneered the concept of servant leadership more than 50 years ago, servant leadership is more relevant today than ever before. Greenleaf wrote that the servant leader focuses “primarily on the growth and well-b
1. Servant-leadership is a weak form of leadership. 2. Only "powerful" people can be servant-leaders. 3. Servant-leadership is not the same as service leadership which is based in service rather than serving. 4. Servant-leadership sounds good in theory, but it's not practical.
