1. 2008
1.1. Anderson (2008)
1.1.1. The overall guiding principle for the biblical, God-centered SL is whether God is glorified by the decisions made and the actions taken by the leader (p. 19)
1.2. Black (2008)
1.3. Dimitrova (2008)
1.4. Hamilton (2008)
1.5. Hays (2008)
1.5.1. Hays (2008) equated being a servant leader to using Douglas McGregor's (1960) Theory Y management style as opposed to Theory X.
1.5.1.1. In Theory Y, leaders allow followers some autonomy and responsibility due to their self-direction and self-control. Work is seen as enjoyable and natural. Followers are valued for and encouraged in their imagination, ingenuity, and creativity.
1.5.1.2. In Theory X, employees tend to dislike work and do it only for pay and security. Leaders must be autocratic and closely supervise employees because they avoid responsibility.
1.5.2. Servant Teacher Instrument
1.5.2.1. Renamed "Leader Profile Assessment"
1.5.2.1.1. Goal is to answer " In a time when flexibility, initiative, responsibility, ownership, self-direction, creativity, empowerment, and teamwork and collaboration are more essential than ever, does continuing to teach in ways that replicate command and control, hierarchy, and power disparities that promote dependence, compliance, and passivity rather than autonomy make sense?" (p. 114).
1.5.3. Leader Profile Assessment (2008)
1.6. Liden, Wayne, Zhao, and Henderson (2008)
1.6.1. Background
1.6.1.1. ..examined previous servant leadership models, including Spears' (1995), Page and Wong's (2000), and Barbuto and Wheeler's (2006).
1.6.2. Servant Leadership Model (see other names)
1.6.2.1. 7 Dimensions
1.6.2.1.1. a) conceptual skills
1.6.2.1.2. b) empowering
1.6.2.1.3. c) helping subordinates
1.6.2.1.4. d) creating value for the community
1.6.2.1.5. e) behaving ethically
1.6.2.1.6. f) emotional healing
1.6.2.1.7. g) putting subordinates first
1.7. Linden, et al (2008)
1.7.1. Leadership Profile Assessment
1.7.1.1. 7 Dimensions
1.7.1.1.1. Putting subordinates first
1.7.1.1.2. helping subordinates grow and succeed
1.7.1.1.3. empowering
1.7.1.1.4. emotional healing
1.7.1.1.5. creating value for the community
1.7.1.1.6. behaving ethically
1.7.1.1.7. conceptual skills
1.7.2. References to:
1.7.2.1. Liden et al (2014)
1.8. Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko & Roberts (2008)
1.9. Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko & Roberts (2008)
1.9.1. Referenced to:
1.9.1.1. In Linden (2014), p. 360 - "Neubert and colleagues (2008) investigated the impact of initiating structure and servant leadership in the same model. These authors used the 14-item Ehrhart (2004) servant leadership measure and collected same source data, with three weeks separating collection of IV/mediator and DVs.
1.9.1.1.1. Neubert and colleagues conducted a CFA that revealed separate factors for servant leadership and initiating structure.
1.9.1.1.2. Their results suggest that promotion (vs. prevention) focus mediates the relationship between servant leadership and helping creative behaviors, suggesting that servant leadership can shift followers' focus from prevention to promotion. (p.360).
1.10. Senjaya et al (2008)
1.10.1. Servant Leadership Behavior Scale (SLBS)
1.10.1.1. 6 Dimensions of SLSB
1.10.1.1.1. a) Voluntary subordination
1.10.1.1.2. b) authentic self
1.10.1.1.3. c) covenantal relationship
1.10.1.1.4. d) responsible morality
1.10.1.1.5. e) transcendental spirituality
1.10.1.1.6. f) transforming influence
1.10.1.2. Cons
1.10.1.2.1. "Sendjaya et. al.'s model is very comprehensive, though one might argue too broad because it overlaps other leadership theories" (Rohm, 2013, p 45).
1.11. Svoboda (2008)
2. 2003
2.1. Dennis & Winston (2003)
2.1.1. 3 Dimensions
2.1.2. Article: A factor analysis of Page & Wong's servant leadership instrument
2.1.2.1. In this article they set out to extend Page & Wong's work and see if their items would reduce to the factors that they originally intended.
2.2. Patterson (2003)
2.2.1. Patterson proposed in her doctoral work that SL are primarily others focused .
2.2.2. 7 Characteristics
2.2.2.1. a) agapao love
2.2.2.2. b) humility
2.2.2.3. c) altruism
2.2.2.4. d) vision
2.2.2.5. e) trust
2.2.2.6. f) empowerment
2.2.2.7. g) service
2.2.3. Defined servant leaders as ones "who lead an organization by focusing on their followers, such that the followers are the primary concern and the organizational concerns are peripheral" (p. 5)
2.3. Stone, Russell, & Patterson (2003)
2.3.1. Do not have a particular affinity for the abstract corporation or organization; rather, they value the people who constitute the organization (p. 5).
2.3.1.1. Task
2.3.1.2. Prerequisites
2.4. Wong and Page (2003)
2.4.1. Servant Leadership Model (SLM)
2.4.1.1. 7 Characteristics / Factors
2.4.1.1.1. a) developing and empowering others
2.4.1.1.2. b) power and pride (this is a negative trait, the opposite of which is vulnerability and humility if scored in reverse)
2.4.1.1.3. c) authentic leadership
2.4.1.1.4. d) open, participatory leadership
2.4.1.1.5. e) inspiring leadership
2.4.1.1.6. f) visionary leadership
2.4.1.1.7. g) courageous leadership
2.4.2. Revised Servant Leadership Profile (RSLP)
2.4.3. "Servant Leadership: An Opponent-Process Model and the RSLP"
2.4.3.1. The paper was presented at the SL Roundtable in 2003;
3. 2004
3.1. Dennis (2004)
3.2. Reinke (2004)
3.2.1. Leadership and Organizational Trust Inventory
3.2.1.1. 4 Dimensions
3.2.1.1.1. a) vision
3.2.1.1.2. b) openness
3.2.1.1.3. c) stewardship
3.2.1.1.4. d) trust
3.2.2. Definition
3.2.2.1. "A servant leader is one who is committed to the growth of both the individual and the organization, and who works to build community within organizations" (p. 33).
3.2.3. Validity and Reliability
3.2.3.1. Reinke developed the survey instrument through an ROTC unit on her college campus and then tested it in a Georgia community. She was interested in how trust affects leadership.
3.3. Ehrhart (2004)
3.3.1. 7 Dimensions
3.3.1.1. a) forming relationships with subordinates
3.3.1.2. b) empowering subordinates
3.3.1.3. c) helping subordinates grow and succeed
3.3.1.4. d) behaving ethically
3.3.1.5. e) having conceptual skills
3.3.1.6. f) putting subordinates first
3.3.1.7. g) creating value for those outside the organization
3.3.2. "Unnamed survey" by Erhart but later named "Organizational Citizenship Behavior Servant Leadership Measure" by Peltz (2011)
3.3.3. Feedback
3.3.3.1. "Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) claim the 14 items measure "a one-dimensional model of servant leadership" (p. 258)
3.3.3.2. "It focuses 'on ethical behaviors and prioritization of subordinates' concerns'" (Ehrhart, 2004, p. 73).
3.3.3.3. " Though some might consider that Ehrhart developed a measure of servant leadership, it seems he was really trying to discern the relationship between servant leadership, moderated by procedural justice, and a helping conscientiousness elements of organizational citizenship behavior.
3.3.4. References to:
3.3.4.1. Liden et al (2014)
3.3.4.1.1. Liden et al (2014) state that this study is one of the first published authors of an empirical article on servant leadership (of the van Dierendonck 14 list, I think), p. 360
3.3.4.1.2. States that Ehrhart developed his own scale from seven dimensions of servant leadership based upon his review of the literature and used this scale in a cross-sectional study involving a grocery store chain (p.360)
3.4. Laub (2004)
3.4.1. Servant leadership is more a mindset or a paradigm than a leadership style (p. 9)
3.5. Smith, Montagno & Kuzemenko (2004)
3.6. Stone, Russell & Patterson (2004)
3.6.1. JT Notes
3.6.1.1. focus of the article is on transformational versus servant leadership; some history etc. I pulled a good quote about leadership values into Scrivener
4. 2005
4.1. Dennis and Bocarnea (2005)
4.1.1. Refined the 42-item SLA to measure Patterson's (2003) model within organizations. They did not find evidence of Patterson's altruism and service dimensions, noting that they may require further definition.
4.1.2. Servant Leadership Assessment Instrument (SLAI)
4.1.2.1. 5 Dimensions of SLA
4.1.2.1.1. a) agapao love
4.1.2.1.2. b) humility
4.1.2.1.3. c) vision
4.1.2.1.4. d) trust
4.1.2.1.5. e) empowerment
4.1.3. Article?
4.2. Spears (2005)
4.3. Humphreys (2005)
5. 2002
5.1. Barbuto and Wheeler (2002)
5.2. Greenleaf (2002)
5.2.1. Servant First
5.2.1.1. begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead (p. 27). Chu, p. 4
5.2.2. Strive to motivate followers
5.2.3. Posed the question as to how one knows whether he or she is a servant leader and pointed to the follower and wrote the following:
5.2.3.1. "The difference manifests itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure the other people's highest priority needs are being served...Do those served grow as persons? Do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants?" (p. 27)
5.3. Russell & Stone (2002)
5.3.1. 9 Characteristics
5.3.1.1. a) vision
5.3.1.2. b) honesty
5.3.1.3. c) integrity
5.3.1.4. d) trust
5.3.1.5. e) service
5.3.1.6. f) modeling
5.3.1.7. g) pioneering
5.3.1.8. h) appreciation of others
5.3.1.9. i) empowerment
5.3.2. References to:
5.3.2.1. Parris & Peachey (2013) state "While their review provides a conceptual overview of servant leadership, it lacks a methodology" (p. 380)
5.4. Sendjaya and Sarros (2002)
5.4.1. Reviewed previous SL literature to create their six-dimension model.
5.4.1.1. Said they extend four earlier models - OLA, RSLP, SLQ, and SSLI
5.4.2. Servant Leadership Behavior Scale
5.4.2.1. 6 Dimensions of SLBS
5.4.2.1.1. a) voluntary subordination
5.4.2.1.2. b) authentic self
5.4.2.1.3. c) covenental relationships
5.4.2.1.4. d) responsible morality
5.4.2.1.5. e) transcendental spirituality
5.4.2.1.6. f) transforming influence
5.4.3. References to:
5.4.3.1. Parris & Peachey (2013) citation "Servant leaders are distinguished by both their primary motivation to serve (what they do) and their self-construction (who they are), and from this conscious choice of 'doing' and 'being' they aspire to lead" (p. 379)
6. 2006
6.1. Barbuto and Wheeler (2006)
6.1.1. Background
6.1.1.1. Barbuto and Wheeler have worked at the U of Nebraska; reviewed Spears (1995) 10 servant leadership characteristics and added an eleventh - calling.
6.1.1.2. Barbuto & Wheeler (2006) developed an integrated model of servant leadership after conducting a literature review, which synthesized the attributes of servant leadership into five factors (see list in this section)
6.1.2. Servant Leadership Model
6.1.2.1. 5 Characteristics
6.1.2.1.1. a) altruistic calling
6.1.2.1.2. b) emotional healing
6.1.2.1.3. c) wisdom
6.1.2.1.4. d) persuasive mapping
6.1.2.1.5. e) organizational stewardship
6.1.3. ..introduced a 23-item five-dimensional instrument that would match the 10 characteristics described by Spears.
6.2. Whittington, Frank, May, Murray, and Goodwin (2006)
6.2.1. Servant Shepherd Leadership Indicator (SSLI)
6.2.1.1. 4 Dimensions of SSLI
6.2.1.1.1. a) other-centeredness
6.2.1.1.2. b) facilitative environment
6.2.1.1.3. c) self-sacrifice
6.2.1.1.4. d) follower affirmation
7. 2007
7.1. Barbuto and Wheeler (2007)
7.1.1. 5 Dimensions
7.1.2. Quote: The ultimate servant leader has developed eleven characteristics and is continuously improving. These characteristics include:
7.1.2.1. having a calling
7.1.2.2. listening
7.1.2.3. empathy
7.1.2.4. healing
7.1.2.5. awareness
7.1.2.6. persuasion
7.1.2.7. conceptualization
7.1.2.8. foresight
7.1.2.9. stewardship
7.1.2.10. growth
7.1.2.11. building community
7.2. Wong and Davey (2007)
7.2.1. "Wrote that servant leadership is akin to participative, transformational, steward, and relationship-oriented leadership theories" (Rohm, 2013, p.20)
7.2.2. Five Factors
7.2.2.1. Factor 1: A servant's heart (humility & selflessness) - Who we are (Self-identity)
7.2.2.2. Factor 2: Serving and developing others - Why we want to lead (Motive)
7.2.2.3. Factor 3: Consulting and involving others - How we lead (Method)
7.2.2.4. Factor 4: Inspiring and influencing others - What affects we have (Impact)
7.2.2.5. Factor 5: Modeling integrity and authenticity - How others see us (Character)
7.2.3. ABOUT
7.2.3.1. Used the term "Theory S" to describe the theoretical framework of servant leadership. Theory S emphasizes the importance of leadership motivation and postulates that most workers will respond positively to leaders who seek to serve and empower them (Wong, 2003).
8. 2009
8.1. Adamson (2009)
8.2. Anderson (2009)
8.2.1. References to:
8.2.1.1. Liden, 2014, 362 - "Anderson (2009), for example, criticized the servant leader model as detrimental to organizational goals. To him, servant leadership represents an agency problem, where concern with followers reduces the concern and energy applied to organizational goals"
8.3. Farmer (2009)
8.3.1. First mentioned in Nwogu (2012) dissertation; said that Farmer observed fewer than 400 leadership books written on SL and fewer than 130 dissertations
8.4. Fridell, Newcom-Belcher, and Messner (2009)
8.4.1. Servant Leadership Styles Inventory
8.4.1.1. 4 Dimensions
8.4.1.1.1. a) daily reflection
8.4.1.1.2. b) consensus building
8.4.1.1.3. c) healing relationships
8.4.1.1.4. d) drive sense of self-worth
9. 2011
9.1. Chu (2011)
9.1.1. Church/Pastoral
9.1.1.1. Success on SL is measured by their ability to produce more servants; thus the organizational SL tendency of a church can be a reflection of the SL of the pastor of that church
9.1.2. Other
9.1.2.1. Natural propensity to serve rather than to lead
9.1.2.2. "Servant leadership is a radical and countercultural concept" (p. 3)
9.1.2.3. Servant leaders exist to serve (p.4)
9.1.2.4. It is the heart more than the skill set of a SL that drives his SL (p.4).
9.2. Fields and Winston (2011)
9.2.1. Parsimonious Servant Leadership Measure
9.2.1.1. 1 Dimension
9.2.1.1.1. Servant Leadership
9.3. Reed, Vidaver-Cohen and Coldwell (2011)
9.3.1. Executive Servant Leadership Scale
9.3.1.1. 5 Dimensions
9.3.1.1.1. a) interpersonal support
9.3.1.1.2. b) building community
9.3.1.1.3. c) altruism
9.3.1.1.4. d) egalitarianism
9.3.1.1.5. e) moral integrity
9.3.1.2. Reed et. al., took 55 items from four earlier servant leader instruments (Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Ehrhart, 2004; Liden et. al, 2008; Page & Wong, 2003), created a 4-point Likert scale, and tested their model with 218 adult learners and alumni at a Florida private college, presumably Eckerd College, where Reed works.
9.3.1.2.1. Through factor analysis, they reduced the number of items to 25 then the five dimension
9.4. van Dierendonck (2011)
9.4.1. "argued that of the attempts to measure servant leadership, only scales by Liden and colleagues (2008) and by Van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011) met adequate psychometric standards" (p. 359 in Liden et al 2014).
9.4.2. References to
9.4.2.1. Liden et al (2014), p. 359-360, indicates that van Dierendonck's work uncovered a modest 14 refereed journal articles on servant leadership in the workplace.
9.4.2.1.1. Liden et al (2014) continues - "van D (2011) provided a six-point comprehensive review of SL research. First and overview and background of the construct; second the key components of SL, third the empirical and theoretical differences between SL and other leadership models, specifically transformational leadership, authentic leadership, ethical leadership, empowering leadership, spiritual leadership, self-sacrificing leadership, and Level 5 leadership (p.361). Fourth, vD reviewed current methods for measuring SL. Fifth he reviewed antecedents and consequences of SL based upon the extant empirical evidence. Sixth he offered suggestions for future research.
9.4.2.2. ..van Dierendonk's conceptual model, which identifies six key characteristics of servant leadership: empowering and developing people, humility, authenticity, interpersonal acceptance, providing direction, and stewardship
9.5. van Dierendonck and Nuijten (2011)
9.5.1. Servant Leadership Survey
9.5.1.1. 8 Dimensions of SLS
9.5.1.1.1. a) empowerment
9.5.1.1.2. b) accountability
9.5.1.1.3. c) standing back
9.5.1.1.4. d) humility
9.5.1.1.5. e) courage
9.5.1.1.6. f) interpersonal acceptance
9.5.1.1.7. g) stewardship
9.5.1.2. VALIDITY
9.5.1.2.1. One of the first to create and validate their models across cultures not in the US but in both the Netherlands and UK.
9.5.1.2.2. Internal subscales is good; results show that the SLS has convergent validity with other leadership measures, and also adds unique elements to the leadership field. Evidence for criterion-related validity came from studies relating the eight dimensions to well-being and performance.
9.5.1.2.3. IMPLICATIONS: "With this survey, a valid and reliable instrument to measure the essential elements of servant leadership has been introduced" (p. 249)
9.5.1.3. ORIGINALITY/VALUE
9.5.1.3.1. "The SLS is the first measure where the underlying factor structure was developed and confirmed across several field studies in two countries."
9.5.2. References To:
9.6. Hu & Liden (2011)
9.6.1. References to:
9.6.1.1. Liden et al (2014), p. 360 referenced Hu and Linden's 2011, using Liden and colleagues (2008) 28-item scale, investigating the impact of servant leadership on the team-level variables of team potency and team OCB in a sample of five banks in China.
9.6.1.1.1. In this study, support was found for a moderated-mediation model, showing that servant leadership has direct positive effects on team effectiveness as well as effects that are partially mediated by team potency.
9.6.1.1.2. Team potency also mediated the impact of goal clarity and process clarity on team effectiveness.
9.7. Schaubroeck, Lam & Peng (2011)
9.7.1. References to:
9.7.1.1. Liden et al (2014), p. 361 - "Schaubroeck and colleagues (2011) conducted a cross-sectional study sampling US and Hong Kong branches of the same bank using the Liden et al (2008) 28-item scale. This study is similar to Neubert and colleagues' (2008) in that the impact of two different leadership models was investigated in the same study.
9.7.1.1.1. Difference between SL and transformational leadership clarified (p. 361)
9.8. Three Streams of Research
9.8.1. a) conceptual stream (Spears, 1998; Laub, 1999; Patterson, 2003)
9.8.2. b) a measurement stream (Page & Wong, 2000; Wong & Page, 2003; Ehrhart, 2004; Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006; Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005; Liden et al, 2008; Sendjaya et al, 2008; Van Cierendonck and Nuijte, 2011)
9.8.3. c) model development (Russell & Stone, 2002; Van Dierendonck, 2011)
10. 2012
10.1. Mittal and Dorfman (2012)
10.1.1. GLOBE Servant Leadership Scale
10.1.1.1. 5 Dimensions
10.1.1.1.1. a) egalitarianism
10.1.1.1.2. b) moral integrity
10.1.1.1.3. c) empowering
10.1.1.1.4. d) empathy
10.1.1.1.5. e) humility
10.1.2. Group including Mittal and Dorfman identified 9 cultural dimensions and then then 6 Culture Specific Styles that make up the Culturally Endorsed Implicit Leadership Theory (CLT)
10.1.2.1. Mittan and Dorfman took the 112 items of the GLOBE survey and culled it down to 41, 35, and finally 27 items through exploratory factor analysis. They compared the data of 12,681 respondents from the GLOBE studies for these 27 items to get the five dimensions
10.2. Peterson, Galvin & Lange (2012)
10.2.1. References to:
10.2.1.1. Liden et al (2014) states "Peterson and colleagues (2012) examined antecedents and outcomes of CEO servant leadership in a sample of 126 technology organizations in the US, using a shortened 16-item version of the Liden et al (2008) scale.
10.2.1.1.1. Results showed a negative relationship between CEO narcissism and SL, and a positive relationship between CEO founder status (vs. non-founder) and SL.
10.2.1.1.2. The study provides evidence that top management servant leadership enhances organizational-level performance.
11. 2010
11.1. Yukl (2010)
11.1.1. "Servant leadership in the workplace is about helping others to accomplish shared objectives by facilitating individual development, empowerment, and collective work that is consistent with the health and long-term welfare of followers" (p. 419) - as stated in Rohm, p. 20
11.2. Walumbwa, Hartnell & Oke (2010)
11.2.1. Referenced to:
11.2.1.1. Linden et al (2014) - "Walumbwa and colleagues (2010) extended Ehrhart's (2004) findings. The focus of their study was to show group and individual-level intermediary processes that explain how servant leadership increases OCB.
11.2.1.1.1. These authors used Ehrhart's (2004) 14-item scale in a longitudinal study involving multisource data from seven multinational corporations operating in Kenya, Africa.
12. 2001
12.1. McGee-Cooper & Looper (2001)
12.1.1. Listen to understand needs and concerns of others
12.1.2. Works toward consensus
12.1.3. Honors paradox
12.1.4. Works to create answers beyond the compromise of "we/they" negotiations
13. 2014
13.1. Liden, Wayne, Liao & Meuser (2014 in press)
13.2. Liden, Panaccio, Meuser, Hu, and Wayne (2014)
14. 2013
14.1. Hunter et al (2013)
14.2. Parris & Peachey (2013)
14.2.1. Their study was to be the first review to provide a synthesis, based upon evidence in published peer-reviewed journals, of empirical studies conducted on servant leadership theory in organizational settings. (p. 380)