Servant leadership in the workplace

Abstract

Servant Leadership is a perspective, approach, and theory of leadership that has been recognized with merit, as addressed in this chapter. Our discussion begins with an overview, background, and a review of some relatively well-known foundational theories and concepts of leadership. The chapter then provides the origins, character, and purpose of Servant Leadership, and describes how Servant Leadership is intended to work. The chapter also evaluates how Servant Leadership may be adapted for use in today's organizations, along with anticipated advantages and unexpected disadvantages. Finally, the chapter examines whether managers should attempt to be Servant Leaders and what putting Servant Leadership to practice in the workplace may mean and require. © The Author(s). Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018. All rights reserved.

Full text

Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online
Chapter Title Servant Leadership in the Workplace AU2
AU1
Copyright Year 2018
Copyright Holder The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer International Publishing
AG, part of Springer Nature
Corresponding Author Family Name Kohntopp
Particle
Given Name Thomas
Suffix
Organization/University Walden University, College of
Management and Technology
City Minneapolis
State MN
Country USA
Email tkohntopp@yahoo.com
Email thomas.kohntopp@mail.waldenu.edu
Corresponding Author Family Name McCann
Particle
Given Name Jack
Suffix
Organization/University Tusculum College
City Greeneville
State TN
Country USA AU3
Email jackmccann9@gmail.com
Abstract Servant Leadership is a perspective, approach, and theory of leadership
that has been recognized with merit, as addressed in this chapter. Our
discussion begins with an overview, background, and a review of some
relatively well-known foundational theories and concepts of leadership.
The chapter then provides the origins, character, and purpose of Servant
Leadership, and describes how Servant Leadership is intended to work.
The chapter also evaluates how Servant Leadership may be adapted for
use in today’s organizations, along with anticipated advantages and
unexpected disadvantages. Finally, the chapter examines whether
managers should attempt to be Servant Leaders and what putting
Servant Leadership to practice in the workplace may mean and require.
BookID 449423_0_En__ChapID _Proof# 1 - 15/3/18

1Servant Leadership in the Workplace AU2
AU1
2Thomas Kohntopp and Jack McCann
3Contents
4Introduction ....................................................................................... 2
5Management and Leadership .. . .................................................................. 2
6Evolution of Leadership Perspectives .. .......................................................... 3
7Servant Leadership .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8Servant Leadership in Practice .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
9What Works with Servant Leadership ............................................................ 9
10 What Does Not Work with Servant Leadership ................................................. 10
11 International Perspective of Servant Leadership .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 11
12 The Future of Servant Leadership in the Workplace ............................................ 15
13 Institution as Servant .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
14 Organizations That Have Adopted Servant Leadership ......................................... 18
15 International Application of Servant Leadership ................................................. 20
16 Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Context .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
17 Recommendations for Future Research .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 23
18 Conclusions ....................................................................................... 24
19 References .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 25
T. Kohntopp (*)
Walden University, College of Management and Technology, Minneapolis, MN, USA
e-mail: tkohntopp@yahoo.com;thomas.kohntopp@mail.waldenu.edu
J. McCann (*)
Tusculum College, Greeneville, TN, USA
AU3
e-mail: jackmccann9@gmail.com
#The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer International Publishing AG, part
of Springer Nature 2018
S. Dhiman et al. (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and
Fulfillment,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61929-3_11-1
1

20 Introduction
21 AU4Servant Leadership is a perspective, approach, and theory of leadership that has been
22 recognized with merit, as AU5addressed in this chapter. Our discussion begins with an
23 overview, background, and a review of some relatively well-known foundational
24 theories and concepts of leadership. The chapter then provides the origins, character,
25 and purpose of Servant Leadership, and describes how Servant Leadership is
26 intended to work. The chapter also evaluates how Servant Leadership may be
27 adapted for use in today’s organizations, along with anticipated advantages and
28 unexpected disadvantages. Finally, the chapter examines whether managers should
29 attempt to be Servant Leaders and what putting Servant Leadership to practice in the
30 workplace may mean and require.
31 Management and Leadership
32 Management and leadership are two fundamental concepts that likely became a part
33 of civilization when people began to interact and collaborate (Drucker 2008).
34 Attention to management and leadership, with respect to business, grew during an
35 industrial revolution (Steiner and Steiner 2012, p. 25; Bampilis 2012, pp. 425–428).
36 Their similarities and differences are the topic of regular discussion in basic business
37 courses at many colleges and universities where “business”is taught. In practice,
38 though, organizations typically do not excessively dwell on them and often talk
39 about management and leadership synonymously.
40 The value and importance of one over the other and their connection have been
41 addressed in almost every fundamental management textbook. In the classic defini-
42 tion of management that includes planning, organizing, leading, and controlling, the
43 place of leadership is quite evident (Jones and George 2015, p. 7). However, in
44 recent years, the interest in leadership over management has evolved. Management
45 is often considered something that one does with things like inventory, information,
46 money, time, or waste. On the other hand, leadership involves people, where the
47 leader inspires and motivates people to accomplish tasks, achieve goals, and aspire
48 to higher levels (Black 2017). Management has been relegated to the basic and
49 fundamental, while leadership has become lofty and noble.
50 The examination and investigation of management and leadership are relatively
51 new, historically, when compared to the “hard”sciences, like physics, chemistry,
52 astronomy, biology, geology, and mathematics too. The physical sciences are gen-
53 erally considered to be detailed, complex, and difficult to understand or master. This
54 contrasts with the “soft”or social sciences that are more people-centered, like
55 psychology, sociology, and various fields of business (e.g., organization behavior,
56 marketing, human resources, management, leadership). It is extremely difficult to
57 establish firm, consistent concepts, ideas, or theories when it comes to people,
58 though. People are always changing, and the environment in which they thrive is
59 constantly evolving. A “hard”science example is when two Hand one Owill always
60 be water (H
2
O). As far as we know, water has always been water since the initial
2 T. Kohntopp and J. McCann

61 formation of water. In contrast for the “soft”sciences, since the dawn of humanity,
62 every person has been different after birth. Identical twins experience the world from
63 different perspectives, which establishes individuality. They may be almost alike, but
64 life will alter perspectives, and identical will shift to similar. This concept is aligned
65 to the biopsychosocial model of development, which is grounded in biology and
66 brings into play aspects of early behavior and the surrounding environment (Mischel
67 et al. 2002). “Soft”science investigation is less predictable than “hard”science and
68 every much as challenging.
69 The point of this discussion is that studying leadership and formulating theories
70 about it are nebulous. Understanding leadership, what AU6makes a successful leader and
71 how to sustain effectiveness, is difficult. As a result, theories and models of leader-
72 ship emerge, are embraced, evolve, and often become a part of history.
73 Evolution of Leadership Perspectives
74 Like theories and models in various areas of business and education, perspectives on
75 leadership and how leaders act have changed over time. In fact, there are so many
76 theories that debate is common about which leadership style is most effective. The
77 answer, of course, is “it all depends.”A synopsis of some well-publicized theories
78 and models preceding a perspective on Servant Leadership is in order. They will be
79 presented in a relatively chronological order with respect to when they first appeared
80 or were proposed. They also tend to evolve from a primary focus on the individual
81 (i.e., leader), expand to include the importance of others (i.e., followers), and then
82 examine the importance of surrounding environments. This is only a sample, as
83 many others also exist.
84 Trait. Theories in this group are based on the notion that to be an effective leader,
85 you must have been born with certain necessary traits or characteristics. Possessing
86 key traits is not a guarantee that a person will become an effective leader, but without
87 the traits, it was almost certain that one would not be capable of leadership. In fact,
88 this idea about traits has been around since before anyone was discussing the concept
89 of leadership. Daft (2015, p. 36) promoted the great man theory, which was aligned
90 with the notion that leaders are born and “not made”(Carlyle 1841). DuBrin (2013,
91 pp. 37–51) indicated that the characteristics for effective leadership are personality
92 traits such as humility, trustworthiness, and extroversion, among many others, but
93 nothing else, which is quite limiting. Support for the trait concept of leadership
94 began to weaken after Stogdill (1948) reviewed many theoretical studies. He found
95 that traits were important leadership characteristics, though the value or importance
96 of certain traits was widely dependent of the situation in which the leader worked.
97 Behavior. Behavior theories started to emerge when more questions came to light
98 in the late 1950s about the absolute idea that personal characteristics were the sole
99 foundation for leader effectiveness. The behavior theories did not void the impor-
100 tance of individual traits. These theories merely wanted to recognize that how leaders
101 acted also influenced their effectiveness and more so than the actual traits. Research
102 by Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1958), Hemphill and Coons (1957), Bowers and
Servant Leadership in the Workplace 3

103 Seashore (1966 AU7), and Blake and Mouton (1985), all suggested the importance of how
104 a leader acted as the key factor in effectiveness. Knowing one’s followers and
105 responding accordingly seemed essential to becoming an exceptional leader. As
106 Maxwell (2008) stated, “To see how the leader is doing, look at the people”
107 (p. 74). Essentially, followers define the leader. Without them, a leader’s success
108 was often up to chance. However, the shortcoming of behavior theories is that they
109 still did not account for the environment in which the follower was to be led.
110 Contingency. The reason that new leadership theories continued to be proposed
111 was that situations regularly arose where universal traits or consistent behaviors were
112 not contributing to a leader’s success (Daft 2015, p. 66). Basically, people started to
113 embrace the notion that there was no single theory or model of leadership based on
114 traits or behaviors that would always work. Different models were proposed by
115 Deresky (2002, p. 307), Fiedler (1967), Hersey and Blanchard (1982), House
116 (1971), and Vroom and Jago (1988). Taken collectively, they were complex,
117 encompassing theories in the realm of “leadership science,”if such a thing exists.
118 They are concerned with leaders, followers, and the context in which leaders and
119 followers interact.
120 Relational. Theories in this category consider the leader, followers, and the
121 environment. However, in contrast to the foundational concept of “leader in front”
122 is a shift where leader-follower interaction occurs with mutual influence. Leaders
123 engage workers, inviting them to contribute to organization direction and help shape
124 the vision. A key facet of relational theories is the importance of a favorable leader-
125 follower relationship and that leaders solicit input and listen to followers. Transfor-
126 mational leadership is one notable model that falls into this category (Khurana
127 2002). Servant Leadership is also relational (Daft 2015,p.18).
128 Servant Leadership
129 Servant Leadership is another evolution in leadership concepts. A perspective of it
130 will be presented that provides an overview of the theory. Practical application of
131 Servant Leadership will be explored, along with what seems to work and situations
132 and circumstances that hinder Servant Leadership. The chapter will conclude by
133 contemplating the future of Servant Leadership.
134 Greenleaf (1970,1977) is credited with introducing the concept of leader as a
135 servant. He argued that true leadership is essentially synonymous with service and
136 great leaders are identified by the way they serve others and society (1977). As the
137 developer of the modern context of Servant Leadership, Greenleaf “suggests that
138 managing the institutions that care for others has transitioned from managing
139 through personal involvement to becoming something that is mediated by an
140 organization and its stakeholders”(McCann et al. 2014, p. 1). An effective influence
141 in organizations, the idea of giving or providing service offers a person “a psycho-
142 logical, emotional, spiritual reward in the form of internal security and peace”
143 (Covey 2003, p. 141).
4 T. Kohntopp and J. McCann

144 Greenleaf modeled Servant AU8Leadership on the character, Leo, in the story Journey
145 to the East (Hesse 1956). Leo is the servant for a group traveling across the desert
146 and does everything for the group and serves them in any way that they need, and
147 then he disappears. The group finally realized that Leo was not their servant; he was
148 their leader and led by serving them. Greenleaf (1970) carefully considered this
149 paradox and described his leadership philosophy as it applies to classroom instruc-
150 tion when you consider the teacher as servant.
151 The theory begins with a natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first and
152 foremost. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. Leadership and service
153 manifest in the care taken by the servant (leader) making sure the highest priority is
154 satisfying the needs of others. The best test is to ask, “Do those served grow as
155 individuals; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more
156 autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants”(Greenleaf 1970.p.4)?
157 From a practical perspective, leaders who serve others consider the likelihood of
158 an integrated approach to reaching goals. Effective leaders generally wield a volume
159 of power, but the most powerful leaders are the ones who share their power with
160 others. Absolute power is less important than being relatively powerful. In a similar
161 vein, helping followers achieve their goals should, in a well-organized context, flow
162 upward so that leader goals are met.
163 AServant Leader has concern and a high regard for customers, clients, constit-
164 uents, and the community in which the organization resides. The Servant Leader also
165 embraces a moral and ethical approach to work (Shirin 2014). The values held and
166 actions of a Servant Leader often favorably manifest to family and life too (Zhang
167 et al. 2012; Tang et al. 2016).
168 The premise of this chapter is that Greenleaf’sServant Leadership is one of the
169 most effective leadership models to address the challenges facing business today.
170 The “servant as leader”model promotes the leader’s display of humility, and that the
171 leader’s own needs are secondary to the needs of followers and the organization. Key
172 qualities of Servant Leadership are being a good listener, self-awareness, empathy,
173 and stewardship. The model stresses a better understanding of employee needs and
174 maximizing employee potential while, at the same time, linking individual goals to
175 organizational needs and objectives. Berendt et al. (2012) postulate that Servant
176 Leaders can be viewed as trustees of the human capital of an organization. Jones
177 (2012a) found that the effects of Servant Leadership were positive in the leader-
178 follower relationship and resulted in greater customer focus, increased employee
179 satisfaction, feelings of empowerment, an organizational culture of inclusion, and
180 overall enhanced performance. According to Jones, employing Servant Leadership
181 was conducive to greater organizational productivity and increased fiscal stability.
182 He further concluded that the increased profits occurred as a net effect of Servant
183 Leadership mediated through improved job satisfaction, a reduction in employee
184 turnover, and a greater focus on the customer. Mayer et al. (2008) also discovered
185 that increased employee performance led to greater customer focus when employees
186 perceived their leader to exhibit Servant Leadership behaviors. The focus on “end
187 customer”and benefits to the organization are an evolution from the earliest
Servant Leadership in the Workplace 5

188 perspectives of Servant Leadership (Greenleaf 1970), where the key connection was
189 leader-employee.
190 Greenleaf (1977) presented the need for a new kind of leadership model, a
191 leadership model that was described as one that places serving the needs of others
192 first. Servant Leadership theory taps into the natural feeling that leaders desire to first
193 serve others, the employees, customers, and community. The true test for Servant
194 Leadership is whether those who are served grow as individuals. Do those being
195 served become the best employees and people they can be? Are they healthier, wiser,
196 freer, more autonomous, and more likely themselves to become servants? These are
197 pertinent questions. Greenleaf’s initial idea that the Servant Leader has an inner need
198 to serve and meet the needs of others has now expanded, to a degree. The initial
199 position is still relevant, but a greater interest has emerged for employee growth and
200 development.
201 In practice, Servant Leadership presents as an orientation to service, global
202 vision, and paying attention to spiritual and moral behaviors. Building on the
203 original perspective of serving a follower (Greenleaf 1970), Servant Leaders change
204 their organizations, invent new paradigms, and clear a space where something new
205 can flourish, and they accomplish this, not so much by doing as by being (Zohar
206 1997). Liden et al. (2008) found that Servant Leadership helps to create a positive
207 work environment, increasing employees’sense of belonging and loyalty to the
208 organization. Liden et al. proposed a seven-dimensional model of Servant Leader-
209 ship that focused on leadership behaviors that empower employees, help employees
210 grow and succeed, put employees first, provide emotional healing, utilize conceptual
211 skills, and create value for the community and organization, with ethics at the core of
212 leadership behavior. This model is certainly an expansion on original thought around
213 Servant Leadership. The basic core of “service to follower”has been operationalized
214 into seven worthy components that provide some guidance on actions leaders can
215 implement.
216 Laub (2004) is often believed to be the researcher who helped to refine the
217 definition of Servant Leadership. Laub developed the Organizational Leadership
218 Assessment (OLA) used to assess an organization’s health based on six key areas of
219 a servant-oriented organization. Laub’s key variables AU9for a servant-led organization
220 are reflective of the following: (a) valuing people, believing, serving, and nonjudg-
221 mentally listening to others; (b) developing employees and providing learning
222 opportunities, growth, encouragement, and affirmation; (c) building community
223 and developing collaborative and personal relationships and behaviors;
224 (d) displaying authenticity, openness, accountability, and willingness to learn from
225 others; (e) providing leadership, development and sharing of the vision for the
226 future, taking initiative, and goal development; and (f) sharing leadership, facilitat-
227 ing, and power sharing. Laub’s work is another effort to expand original Greenleaf
228 (1970) thought and operationalize the model. From an empirical perspective, it
229 illustrates an endeavor to measure Servant Leadership.
6 T. Kohntopp and J. McCann

230 Servant Leadership in Practice
231 Edward D. Hess, professor of business administration and Batten Executive-in-
232 Residence at the University of Virginia, Darden School of Business, has spent
233 years researching high-performing companies and discovered that their leaders did
234 not fall into the common leadership theory characteristics of charismatic, visionary,
235 or being educated at the top schools but rather that they fit the definition of Servant
236 Leader. He found Servant Leadership in place at companies such as Best Buy,
237 Chick-fil-A, Levy Restaurants, Home Depot, Ritz Carlton, Room & Board,
238 Starbucks, Southwest Airlines, San Antonio Spurs, TSYS, UPS, the US Marine
239 Corps, and Whole Foods (Hess 2013). Reporting that Servant Leadership was being
240 practiced in these notable organizations was somewhat of a revelation. When
241 Greenleaf (1970,1977) introduced the model, it did not appear that leaders felt the
242 need to serve or at least did not acknowledge it.
243 As previously discussed, leadership has been extensively examined for many
244 years, with Servant Leadership an emerging focus only since around 2004. Robert
245 Greenleaf defined Servant Leadership in the 1970s as not just a management
246 technique but as a way of life that begins with “the natural feeling that one wants
247 to serve, to serve first”(Parris and Peachey 2013, p. 383). Since Greenleaf’s
248 foundational essay The Servant as Leader (1970), research has developed to better
249 understand the tenants of Servant Leadership. The model for Servant Leadership,
250 where it has been implemented, has significant implications for the individual and
251 the organization (Guillaume et al. 2012). According to the Greenleaf Center, more
252 than 20% of the Fortune magazine top 100 companies have sought guidance from
253 the Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership, including Starbucks, Vanguard Invest-
254 ment Group, and Southwest Airlines, among other organizations (Parris and Peachey
255 2013). One thing that seems to have changed since Greenleaf’s“natural feeling”way
256 of life concept was first introduced is the recognition that Servant Leadership could
257 be learned, and its principles put into practice, in maybe a less than a natural way.
258 The interest in applied Servant Leadership research is relatively new. Recent
259 studies have attempted to understand the theoretical concept or develop tools to
260 measure Servant Leadership. Research had its origin in literature pertaining to the
261 medical, healthcare, and policy fields where findings were primarily used to make
262 clinical and policy decisions (Parris and Peachey 2013). To advance the understand-
263 ing of the theory, a practical construct was needed to operationalize a model of
264 Servant Leadership for empirical research that would stand apart from other models
265 of leadership (Huckabee 2008).
266 Another advancement to the original concept of Servant Leadership was pre-
267 sented in pioneering research by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006), which led to a method
268 to capture Servant Leadership skills. They developed an instrument to operationalize
269 and measure five factors derived from characteristics deemed to be indicative of
270 Servant Leadership. The Servant Leadership Questionnaire measures (a) altruistic
271 healing, (b) emotional healing, (c) wisdom, (d) persuasive mapping, and
272 (e) organizational stewardship. A description of each factor as explained by Barbuto
273 and Wheeler demonstrates how to determine the extent to which leaders demonstrate
Servant Leadership in the Workplace 7

274 their skills in each of the five subscales. Servant Leaders create serving relationships
275 with their followers, unlike transformational leaders who focus on transcending
276 followers’self-interest toward organizational goals.
277 Altruistic healing (AH) measures the level to which a leader seeks to make a
278 positive impact in the lives of others. From the perspective of Servant Leadership,
279 the goal is to serve others; therefore, leaders who are high in this attribute will focus
280 on the interests of others before their own interests and in the process of leading work
281 toward meeting the needs of others. Another significant component of this factor has
282 been described as a generosity of the spirit consistent with a philanthropic purpose in
283 life (Barbuto and Wheeler 2006).
284 Emotional healing (EH) assesses the leader’s commitment to and the skill in
285 developing spiritual recovery from either hardship or trauma. Leaders who score
286 high in this category display such traits as empathy and strong listening skills. Both
287 traits serve to facilitate the healing process by creating an environment that provides
288 a space through which employees feel safe to share personal and professional
289 concerns.
290 Wisdom (W) includes a combination of awareness of one’s workplace surround-
291 ings and the ability to anticipate consequences within the dynamic of the workplace.
292 A factor in this intuitive-based skill is the ability to understand organizational
293 dynamics and connect reasonable outcomes based on environmental cues.
294 Persuasive mapping (PM) describes the leaders who can influence others. Spe-
295 cifically, this factor encompasses the leader who can use reasoning and conceptual
296 frameworks to affect people. Considered high in the ability to earn buy-in for
297 organizational visionary aspirations, these leaders can communicate the reasons
298 that others should support the organizational goals.
299 Organizational stewardship (OS) addresses the interconnectedness that an orga-
300 nization must demonstrate while making a positive contribution to society. Founded
301 on the premise of ethics and value orientation, this factor is evidenced by the extent
302 that a leader prepares an organization to be involved in community development
303 programs and community outreach (Melchar and Bosco 2010). Focused in the works
304 performed in society, this factor recognizes the importance of developing an internal
305 community spirit at the workplace that leaders can then apply in societal groups
306 outside of the organization.
307 Beyond his 1970 work, Greenleaf (2009) stated his beliefs about Servant Lead-
308 ership in organizations:
309 This is my thesis: caring for persons, the more able and the less able serving each other, is the
310 rock upon which a good society is built. Whereas, until recently, caring was largely person to
311 person, now most of it is mediated through institutions –often large, complex, powerful,
312 impersonal; not always competent; sometimes corrupt. If a better society is to be built, one
313 that is more just and more loving, one that provides greater creative opportunity for its
314 people, then the most open course is to raise both the capacity to serve and the very
315 performance as servant of existing major institutions by new regenerative forces operating
316 within them. (p. 9)
8 T. Kohntopp and J. McCann

317 What Works with Servant Leadership
318 Hess (2013) described Servant Leaders as people centric, valued service to others,
319 and believed in the duty of stewardship. Furthermore, these leaders led by example,
320 were humble and passionate, and were detailed managers with long tenure in their
321 organizations who empathized with “line”employees. These Servant Leaders
322 tended to live by the “golden rule”and respected the rights of all employees knowing
323 that behaviors counted and that good intentions were only that. Their behaviors were
324 the key to success, along with the way they communicated with others. They treated
325 people with dignity and lived in the moment, typically not multitasking and not
326 interrupting others, but instead they choose to listen intently to others. They smiled,
327 said please and thank you, acknowledged contributions of others, admitted mistakes,
328 apologized, understood that it was not necessary to be the smartest person in the
329 room all the time, and spent time on the “front lines”valuing employees and
330 customers. These leaders possessed self-awareness and emotional intelligence.
331 Hess (2013) also found that Servant Leaders understood that their attitudes and
332 beliefs either enabled or inhibited high performance, building or destroying trust
333 with people. Finally, they realized that leadership was hard work that required
334 dedicated daily, consistent behavior that exemplified Servant Leadership, fostering
335 high employee engagement and exceptional performance in the workplace. Servant
336 Leaders acted AU10in ways that d everyone to see a common vision of the organization’s
337 future. To stress this notion, it is not what is said, though appropriate words help, but
338 their actions that enabled those around them to see the vision. This connection to the
339 future is very important, as a collective vision helps establish a smoother path to
340 mission accomplishment.
341 According to Bennis and Nanus (1985), vision inspires the best and most
342 effective performance within people. Patterson (2003) found that vision was most
343 often regarded as an organizational attribute identifying the organization’s destina-
344 tion or destiny. However, the Servant Leader must have a faith and vision of what
345 can be achieved and create the ability and belief that individuals can improve, move
346 forward, and reach goals. Servant Leaders encourage the enrichment of lives and
347 encourage people to become better than they are or ever thought possible. They
348 encourage employees to believe that their work is more than just a job, and Servant
349 Leaders focus on mission and the mission to serve (Melrose 1995). Patterson (2003)
350 stated that vision in Servant Leadership is about person-centered vision for others
351 and not necessarily organizational vision. Improving a person’s ability and capacity
352 should thus lead to organizational improvements as well. As the leader considers the
353 future, sees the future state, and then works to assist everyone in reaching that goal,
354 people within the organization become energized and motivated to contribute to
355 future success.
356 Practicing Servant Leadership encompasses three dimensions: motives, means,
357 and ends (or outcomes). Servant Leadership further embraces the “triple bottom
358 line”(sustaining people, profits, and the planet) and practices moral symmetry to
359 balance the needs of all affected (SanFacon and Spears 2010). Servant Leadership
360 effects are closely linked to employee satisfaction and organizational profits, as
Servant Leadership in the Workplace 9

361 various studies have alluded to a direct causal relationship between leadership and
362 customer satisfaction and employee satisfaction and financial performance (Jones
363 2012b; Khan et al. 2012; Obiwuru 2011).
364 Irving and Longbotham (2007) found that Servant Leadership has also been
365 identified as a significant predictor of team effectiveness as defined by Laub’s
366 (1999) Organizational Leadership Assessment. This is an important matter in orga-
367 nizations. This research utilized a multiple regression model to examine the effec-
368 tiveness of teams. The essential Servant Leadership variables identified were
369 (a) providing accountability, (b) supporting and resourcing, (c) engaging in honest
370 self-evaluation, (d) fostering collaboration, (e) communicating with clarity, and
371 (f) valuing and appreciating (p.110). It was determined that organizations that
372 operate with team structures may be better able to gain an understanding of Servant
373 Leadership in general. So, though the six essential Servant Leadership themes help
374 foster teamwork, an organizational structure with teams may also be more function-
375 ally receptive to Servant Leadership.
376 From studies presented in this section, changes since Greenleaf (1970)first
377 introduced Servant Leadership primarily related to implementing the model in
378 organizations. Almost all research embraced the original role of a leader to serve.
379 Additional expansion has looked at the Servant Leader’srole in improving organi-
380 zational performance.
381 What Does Not Work with Servant Leadership
382 It has been observed that Servant Leadership is effective in many situations, but it
383 may often be more practical in politics or in organizations and positions where
384 leaders are elected to serve a team, committee, organization, or community. Servant
385 Leadership is only one style for leading an organization, and it is not for everyone or
386 every organization, since everyone does not possess the capacity to be a Servant
387 Leadership and every organization is not ready for Servant Leadership. Many
388 believe that in a competitive leadership situation, those who practice Servant Lead-
389 ership will be left behind by leaders using other leadership styles (e.g., command and
390 control). Tenney (2014) found that Servant Leaders may be perceived as weak or
391 timid in organizations. However, motivated by the desire to serve others, they may
392 achieve real leadership strength by empowering followers to achieve excellence. To
393 direct focus from short-term thinking to serving others, leaders can create great
394 workplace cultures that can deliver long-term results. Murray (2010) found that
395 Servant Leadership is known to take time to incorporate, and it may not be a good fit
396 in situations where quick decisions must be made or tight deadlines must be met.
397 From a practical perspective, the organization must decide whether it can sustain
398 operations while Servant Leadership is embraced and becomes woven into the
399 organization culture. When short-term results are required, striving for or adopting
400 Servant Leadership may not be wise, as with any organization change that requires
401 time to develop.
10 T. Kohntopp and J. McCann

402 Grant (2013) discovered that Servant Leaders gave to everyone in their organi-
403 zations in selfless ways and were not egocentric or selfish. They did not place their
404 needs ahead of the higher aims of the organization or society. However, is it possible
405 to be selfless without serving the needs of followers? Servant Leadership makes it a
406 practice to give to everyone until the leader detects a habitual taker, someone who
407 only takes and does not give back to the organization, abusing the relationship
408 between employee, the organization, and leadership. It is exhausting to be so giving
409 and work as a servant to followers, but it is also rewarding when followers are
410 committed to the organization and leader. Therefore, it can be argued that true,
411 successful leadership calls for sacrifice on the part of followers too. Servant Lead-
412 ership is not a paternalistic one-way process. Servant Leaders are not maids or
413 butlers, gardeners, or chauffeurs. If the philosophical perspective of Servant Lead-
414 ership is not truly instilled into the organization culture and embraced by all, some
415 employees may merely absorb the benefits of working for a Servant Leader without
416 reciprocating into the environment. This malady of worker apathy is a general
417 problem not unique at attempts to adopt Servant Leadership but is something that
418 can derail various improvement initiatives that organizations attempt (Wagner and
419 Hartner 2006).
420 Heskeet (2013) states that some proponents of Servant Leadership feel an
421 emotional attachment to the philosophy because their ideal of a Servant Leader is
422 a spiritual deity, like Jesus Christ, for example. Another model of a Servant Leader is
423 Martin Luther King, who called for people to give up their prejudices. Mahatma
424 Gandhi is also an example of a Servant Leader and led the effort to call for Britain to
425 give up its claims to India. Leadership has often been defined as influencing people
426 to do things they would not do otherwise of their own volition. The desire to be
427 godlike or close to God is not a new concept, but a religious group’s motivations may
428 not be the same as that for a business. In a strict sense, businesses need to serve their
429 customers and owners and not necessarily the employees who simply are a means to
430 an end. So, the religious connection to Servant Leadership may likely come from a
431 personal and not organizational perspective. Basically, religious groups serve the
432 needs of its members and spiritual affiliations and not the needs of a company,
433 though some would point out that many religious organizations are very successful
434 businesses.
435 Table 1presents a perspective from a sample of research that highlights various
436 behaviors, conditions, or actions that tend to be compatible with successful imple-
437 mentation or practice of Servant Leadership. It also indicates conditions under which
438 Servant Leadership will likely flounder.
439 International Perspective of Servant Leadership
440 Most research on Servant Leadership over time has been conducted at settings in the
441 United States. Recently, a trend toward more non-US-based studies has evolved.
442 Roberts (2017) has reported that “The numbers and percentage of servant leadership
443 studies in non-US settings increased dramatically to 57.1% during 2009–2013 and
Servant Leadership in the Workplace 11

444 71.7% from 2014–2017”(p. 12). Uncommon in earlier days, examples of interna-
445 tional research on Servant Leadership will now be summarized. Generally, leader-
446 ship concepts discussed are like those introduced by Greenleaf (1970,1977). There
447 are new perspectives, too, especially in how Servant Leadership may be
448 operationalized in different communities, cultures, and countries.
449 An investigation by Burke et al. (2014) examined the relationship between
450 Servant Leadership and service quality provided by frontline employees in top
451 level hotels (four- and five-star). The authors believed high-quality service to be
452 instrumental for organization performance and ultimate success. A total of
453 221 employees working at high-end hotels in Turkey participated in the study. A
454 general definition of Servant Leadership was considered for the research, “Servant
455 leadership focusses on serving the needs of employees and larger communities
456 inside and outside an organization”(p. 3). Servant Leadership was measured using
457 an instrument developed by Linden et al. (2008). Burke et al. indicated that Servant
458 Leadership and worker service performance were positively related, though perfor-
459 mance was determined by self-report measures. Employees who felt their hotel
t:1Table 1 Servant leadership (SL): what works and what does not work
t:2 Leader attributes Helps SL work Inhibits SL working Citation
t:3 People centric, value
service, humble,
passionate, people-
centered, dignity
Behavior/action, emotional
intelligence
Intentions only, words
alone, lack of daily
dedication
Hess (2013)
t:4 Person-centered Faith to support vision,
encouragement along with
guidance
Vision alone, primary
focus on organization,
work is merely a job
Patterson
(2003)
t:5 Sustaining people,
profits, the planet,
moral symmetry
Balance the needs of all Dissatisfied
employees
SanFacon
and Spears
(2010)
t:6 Belief in teams,
authentic interaction
Accountability,
supporting, engaging in
honest self-evaluation,
fostering collaboration,
communicating with
clarity, valuing, and
appreciating
Lack of teamwork
skills, no interest in
collaboration
Irving and
Longbotham
(2007)
t:7 Service to others,
desire to serve
Empower followers to
achieve excellence
Interpersonal or
interdepartmental
competition/conflict,
short-term goals
Tenney
(2014)
t:8 Value employees,
belief in mutual
support
Opportunity to collaborate
for decisions
Short deadlines,
immediate decisions
required
Murray
(2010)
t:9 Give to others,
benevolent, meet the
needs of others,
selfless
Meet the needs of
employees, address
employee concerns
Habitual takers,
employees shirk
responsibility, apathy
Grant (2013)
12 T. Kohntopp and J. McCann

460 embraced and practiced Servant Leadership and also believed that the quality of
461 service offered at their hotel was high.
462 An investigation comparing transformational and Servant Leadership was
463 conducted by Choudhary et al. (2013) with 155 employees from a for-profit sector
464 business in Pakistan. The authors were interested in how the two leadership styles
465 related to organizational learning and performance, as learning generally increases
466 performance. Transformational leadership was defined as “an ethical leadership style
467 that involves a leader’s capability to promote intellectual stimulation through inspi-
468 ration”(p. 435). For Servant Leadership, the study relied on the perspective of
469 Greenleaf and Spears (2002) where Servant Leaders establish favorable relation-
470 ships that support, motivate, and guide employees. Servant Leadership was mea-
471 sured using nine items developed by Jacobs (2006). Results indicated that
472 transformational leadership and Servant Leadership both predicted organizational
473 learning, though transformational leadership accounted for a greater share of the
474 variance. The authors concluded that transformational leadership and Servant Lead-
475 ership were both noteworthy in generating organizational learning. The leadership
476 approach to use would depend in part on the organizational culture and on the
477 organizational leaders. It was also suggested that Servant Leadership may be more
478 compatible to nonprofit businesses where the drive for organizational performance
479 may be less intense.
480 Servant Leadership research usually takes place in the context of an organiza-
481 tional setting having some degree of permanence. A study by Krog and Govender
482 (2015) examined another perspective without organizational longevity, that of a
483 project team. This focus is important to investigate, since so much business is
484 accomplished with teams that form and then dissolve after a project. Basically, a
485 clearer understanding of how Servant Leadership operates in a project management
486 perspective is important. The authors considered Servant Leadership to embrace
487 “altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping and
488 organisational stewardship”(p. 202). An instrument to measure Servant Leadership
489 developed by Barbuto and Wheeler (2006) was employed in the study involving
490 44 participants in South Africa. It was hypothesized that the effective practice of
491 Servant Leadership would result in project success. Results were very favorable with
492 almost all aspects of Servant Leadership measured in this study. Emotional healing
493 was the only attribute not significantly related to project success. This study was
494 exploratory, but it points to an avenue of research that should be investigated more.
495 An investigation of Servant Leadership was conducted in Turkey with
496 102 employees in banking and higher education (Bal Tastan and Kalafatoglu
497 2015). The study examined Servant Leadership and organizational commitment,
498 hypothesizing that the two variables would have a positive relationship. However,
499 work exhaustion was thought to be a moderator in that it would diminish the Servant
500 Leadership –organization commitment relationship. An instrument developed by
501 Reed et al. (2011) was used to measure Servant Leadership. Results of the research
502 indicated that Servant Leadership was positively related to organization commit-
503 ment and that it accounted for a significant amount of the variance in organization
504 commitment. As suspected, it was also found that increased levels of “felt work
Servant Leadership in the Workplace 13

505 exhaustion”weakened the relationship between Servant Leadership and organiza-
506 tion commitment. The implication of these findings points to an observation that a
507 favorable influence of Servant Leadership in one organization may not appear in
508 another and that other moderating variables should be identified.
509 Rai and Prakash (2016) investigated how Servant Leaders motivated employees
510 and the role of organization support in the process of supporting Servant Leadership.
511 The authors applied Servant Leadership such that the “servant leader promotes
512 openness”and that Servant Leaders “help followers get adequate assistance during
513 task performance”(p. 125). Servant Leadership was measured using an instrument
514 developed by Linden et al. (2014). Participants in manufacturing and service sectors
515 in India were included in the research (N=182). Results indicated that high Servant
516 Leadership practices were positively related to “POS [perceived organizational
517 support], knowledge assimilation, knowledge application, and knowledge dissemi-
518 nation. Servant Leadership had a significant negative correlation with time pressure”
519 (p. 129). In general, results suggested that high Servant Leadership practices will be
520 conducive and compatible with workers who are highly educated and possess
521 knowledge to focus on work performance and broader organization success.
522 An investigation by Chatbury et al. (2011) examined the relationship between
523 Servant Leadership and supervisor/organizational trust with lower-level administra-
524 tive employees in a South African petrochemical company (N=190). The authors
525 believed that employees who had higher trust in their supervisor and company would
526 demonstrate better individual performance, which would lead to enhanced organi-
527 zation success. Establishing a Servant Leadership –supervisor/organization trust
528 relationship –would be a precursor for this model. A scale developed by Sendjaya
529 et al. (2008) was used to measure Servant Leadership. Results of the analyses
530 revealed a significant positive relationship between Servant Leadership and trust.
531 Chatbury, Beaty, and Kriek concluded that “These findings suggest that this model
532 of leadership has the potential to enhance interpersonal trust between workers and
533 their managers in South Africa”(p. 61). The next question to ask is how strong
534 would the relationship be in other cultures or countries.
535 A study conducted in the United Arab Emirates by Politis (2013) examined the
536 relationship between Servant Leadership and team performance. Greenleaf ’s(1970)
537 concept of Servant Leadership, giving priority to the needs of employees and
538 customers and the leader serving others, was adopted for this research. An abridged
539 version of the Page and Wong (2000)Servant Leadership scale was used to collect
540 data from 181 employees. Results of the analyses produced significant positive
541 relationships between Servant Leadership and team performance. Politis urged
542 organizations to examine the compatibility of their cultures with Servant Leadership
543 philosophies. If favorable conditions exist, training in Servant Leadership concepts
544 and practices should be pursued.
545 Maden et al. (2014) conducted research in Turkey that examined how service
546 communication and Servant Leadership influenced organization service processes.
547 For this research, important aspects of Servant Leadership included leader-employee
548 communication and interaction, along with how leaders performed as role models.
549 The expectation for this investigation was that quality service processes would
14 T. Kohntopp and J. McCann

550 positively affect strategic organization performance and customer service. Data were
551 collected from representatives of 106 respected Turkish firms. Results indicated that
552 effective service communication positively influenced strategic organization perfor-
553 mance as well as customer service. More importantly for our interest, Servant
554 Leadership was found to positively influence strategic organizational performance
555 and customer service. Results of this study further suggest the importance of Servant
556 Leadership to organization performance and the influence it sways on an interna-
557 tional stage.
558 Another study investigated the relationship between Servant Leadership and
559 voice behavior in higher education in Turkey (Erkutlu and Chafra 2015). Voice
560 behavior pertained to faculty members speaking up, voicing concern, and articulat-
561 ing issues. The authors also considered how psychological empowerment and
562 psychological safety mediated the Servant Leadership –voice behavior relationship.
563 A total of 793 faculty members and deans from ten state universities participated in
564 the research. The investigation embraced Servant Leadership in the context that
565 “Leaders rely on one-on-one communication ...”and “it [Servant Leadership]
566 stresses personal integrity and focuses on forming solid long-term relationships
567 with employees”(p. 30). Results of the investigation pointed to positive relation-
568 ships between Servant Leadership and psychological empowerment and Servant
569 Leadership and psychological safety. The implication is that when Servant Leader-
570 ship is the organizational norm, employees (a) take ownership, act in ways they
571 choose, and perform their jobs appropriately and (b) feel confident in their actions
572 without fear of repercussions for mistakes or errors. With respect to voice behavior,
573 when Servant Leadership was practiced in the university, faculty members felt free
574 to express concerns, issues, or problems, which is not necessarily the norm in some
575 institutions of higher learning.
576 Taylor et al. (2013) believed there was ample research on leadership and specifi-
577 cally Servant Leadership, though there was little understanding with how to best
578 develop Servant Leaders. Their research involved young adults attending college in
579 South Africa as participants in a program to develop Servant Leadership skills. The
580 multifaceted training program adopted a definition of Servant Leadership
581 “characterised by an attitude of service, evident in a concern for others and a readiness
582 to serve”(p. 288). A noteworthy component of the program was performing service to
583 others after classroom instruction. Observations by the authors pointed to the active
584 service experience as essential for developing Servant Leadership skills. Implications
585 for organizations would be to foster Servant Leadership in managers by designing
586 work (e.g., projects, programs) that included service experiences, especially in
587 non-work settings through volunteer endeavors or community projects.
588 The Future of Servant Leadership in the Workplace
589 As organizations move away from the traditional command and control approach to
590 management, the challenge for today’s organizations will be in implementing Ser-
591 vant Leadership, as it represents such a contrast to the traditional types of
Servant Leadership in the Workplace 15

592 management. Scruggs-Garber (2009) considers Greenleaf’sServant Leadership to
593 be the most effective leadership model to address the challenges that face today’s
594 organizations. He believes that managers and certainly leaders by nature serve and
595 care for employees and are in the ideal position to help organizations adopt and
596 incorporate Servant Leadership. The Servant Leader model centers on identifying
597 and addressing the requirements of followers ahead of self-interest, ultimately
598 leading to the development and growth of the follower as opposed to the needs of
599 the manager or the organization (Jones 2012a).
600 Greenleaf (1991,1996) stated that the task facing the Servant Leader was to
601 withdraw from current practices and orient oneself to focus on organizational
602 priorities. They must differentiate the important from the less important and attend
603 to the priorities. This may not be unique to Servant Leadership, but it is a focus of
604 this leadership style. All organizations need vision, and adopting Servant Leadership
605 can help management focus on leading the organization to meet its strategic goals.
606 Bennis and Nanus (1985) stated, “The problem with many organizations, and
607 especially the ones that are failing, is that they have the tendency to be over managed
608 and under led”(p. 21). Leaders should be vision, judgment, and effectiveness
609 oriented, while managers are more concerned with efficiency and mastering routines
610 or doing things correctly. Bennis and Nanus suggested that vision brings to life and
611 transforms organization purpose into practical action. They further believed that
612 vision was important when choosing a direction to follow. In addition, the authors
613 postulated that the leader must first formulate a mental image of the possible and
614 desired future state of the organization. In their view, vision may be as vague as a
615 dream or as precise as an organizational goal or mission statement. The visioning
616 process can help facilitate organizational change and transformation so that Servant
617 Leadership will be used to lead the organization.
618 Greenleaf et al. (1996) drew inspiration and reflected on vision from a familiar
619 passage in the Book of Proverbs:“Where there is no vision, the people perish”
620 (29:18). They believed that vision was primarily about foresight, the ability to see the
621 issues of the past, then learn their realities in the present, and finally discern their
622 consequences for the future. They used the term “healer”when it came to the
623 purpose or mission and the value of a person. Healers make whole by helping others
624 see a larger and nobler vision and purpose for the organization and one greater than
625 they would attain for themselves. These concepts, vision, and healing are further
626 expansion of Greenleaf’s initial perspective.
627 Institution as Servant
628 According to Greenleaf (2009), serving people who are unable to serve themselves is
629 the foundation of a good society. This caring was primarily between individuals and
630 is now provided by institutions that may be large, powerful, formal, often incompe-
631 tent, and occasionally corrupt. If a better society is to be created, then it is necessary
632 to raise the capacity of the servant and major institutions by new regenerative forces
633 that exist within them. He indicated that large institutions were the best candidates to
16 T. Kohntopp and J. McCann

634 become serving institutions for practical reasons, because they were structured, were
635 more likely to afford it, and could communicate their experience and without them
636 not much is possible to raise the level of society.
637 Greenleaf (2009) found that the need for this change was because of the switch
638 from a society based on individuals to one dominated by large institutions, such as
639 large universities, businesses, and churches. Critics of today’s society see our
640 problem as failure in trusteeship in these institutions. The crisis is in institutional
641 quality and comes from neglect and not from evil-intentioned people. Large univer-
642 sities have become too narrowly focused on preparation for professional careers
643 versus what should be a creative experience. They have become a combination of
644 elitist tradition and mass education that cannot withstand a collapse of value changes
645 in society. Business shapes our culture and sets values, but many firms lack a sense
646 of responsibility to society, often referred to as corporate social responsibility
647 (Steiner and Steiner 2012, pp. 133–134). Businesses have become prolific in pro-
648 duction of goods and services, but their social impact is below what should be
649 expected by a good society. Churches once gave hope and security in serving as a
650 mediator between God and man but now serve many who seek value in their own
651 experiences and are now missing the value-shaping influence that was the churches’
652 predominant role in society.
653 A focus on the trustee to help drive organizational change toward serving is
654 another point upon which Greenleaf (2009) draws. Those who are members of
655 governing boards of institutions either for-profit or nonprofit are charged with the
656 fiduciary responsibility of an institution. This role must go beyond a passive one and
657 begs for a dynamic one that motivates force from trustees and one that moves it
658 toward the serving institution. Institutions must make contributions to society that
659 are equal to its opportunity to build toward a more just and loving society. Plus, the
660 institution should offer creative opportunities for its employees. This enhanced
661 trustee role is only possible if trust exists in the organization. A chairperson serves
662 the trustees, and they, in turn, must lead by serving. These individuals typically
663 spend more time in the enhanced role than other trustees and must make caring
664 count. Trustees are those who must stand as symbols of trust and institutional quality,
665 embracing a noble path of action.
666 On another point, Greenleaf (2009) argues that a board of trustees that does not
667 lead along with a single power broker as the chief executive officer fosters an
668 organizational structure designed for mediocrity. The university, business, or church
669 may not be a complete failure, but they will be judged by what can be accomplished
670 in a reasonable manner using all its available resources. Just like individual leaders,
671 so much more can be achieved by an institution that shares power throughout,
672 though this is typically not possible in organizations that adopt a hierarchical or
673 pyramidal structure. For success, Greenleaf envisioned two strong teams made up of
674 trustees and the administration that shift from the top (CEO) to primus inter pares
675 (first among equals). The primus is the builder of the team of trustees and adminis-
676 tration that cares and serves all the people the institutions touches. There is still a
677 “first,”and leader, but not a chief. These individuals prove their leadership among a
678 group of able peers. The primary idea is that no single person has unrestrained
Servant Leadership in the Workplace 17

679 power. The one who is designated as “in charge”is moderated and encouraged by a
680 group of peers with the purpose of defining the institution, specifying its goals and
681 purpose. This perspective ensures that the trustees are clear on the concept and help
682 to instill it in the organization.
683 A good society made up of institutions that shape its character by serving
684 individuals and groups for creative acts of services is one of the great dreams of
685 Greenleaf. The need in society is a revolution of expectations for institutions that can
686 be met by people who desire to serve as leaders. Trustees who are strong and
687 dedicated to their institutions and can be trusted are the foundation for changing
688 that serves and gives more to society (Greenleaf 2009).
689 Organizations That Have Adopted Servant Leadership
690 Emrich (n.d.) highlighted businesses that practice aspects of Servant Leadership,
691 each with a unique story and approach. Some of these companies are familiar to the
692 average consumer and others less famous, yet each is worth mentioning, along with a
693 couple of additions. Though Servant Leadership is never explicitly discussed by the
694 organizations, how the companies operate demonstrates various components
695 grounded in the model. Readers interested in further detail are encouraged to visit
696 company websites to learn more.
697 Aflac. American Family Life Insurance Company, more commonly known as
698 Aflac, is highly admired by employees for the care and concern leaders practice daily
699 (https://www.aflac.com/about-aflac/our-company/default.aspx). The company has a
700 diverse and dynamic management team comprised of men and women who actively
701 support and engage its workforce, along with an intense interest in corporate social
702 responsibility. Aflac talks about leaving its “duckprints in the workplace”as refer-
703 ence to taking care of employees, because employees take care of business. Aflac
704 management considers its workforce as the lifeblood of the business and provides a
705 noteworthy profit-sharing program as one means of appreciation.
706 Many believe that organizations are successful because they operate in an envi-
707 ronment that is hard-driving, focused on business, and focused on financial results.
708 However, Aflac, a AU11Fortune 135 company with annual revenues of $22 billion, is
709 focused on these important things, but it also how they go about doing things. They
710 indicate that sales, earnings, and the number of policies in force are important,
711 especially providing products to help provide protection to more than 50 million
712 people worldwide. They espouse the notion that doing good is good for business
713 (“2016 Social Responsibility”2016).
714 Aflac follows the tenets of customer care with the following: communicating
715 regularly, responding immediately, know your stuff, treat everyone with respect and
716 care, your problem is my problem, shoot straight, and cover the customer, not your
717 behind. These courtesies are rarely found in today’s hard-driving business world
718 (“2016 Social Responsibility”2016), p. 7). The tenets are the ultimate embodiment
719 of the Aflac approach, which is an approach steeped in servant leadership.
18 T. Kohntopp and J. McCann

720 Aflac has been recognized by Ethisphere as one of the “World’s Most Ethical
721 Companies,”for the past 11 years. In 2017, Fortune magazine recognized Aflac as
722 one of the 100 Best Companies to Work for in America for the 19th consecutive year
723 and in 2017 included Aflac on its list of the Most Admired Companies for the 16th
724 time. Aflac Incorporated is a Fortune 500 company listed on the New York Stock
725 Exchange under the symbol AFL (“Richard L. Williams”2017).
726 Container Store. Described in the “Letter from the chairman”(2017), the
727 Container Store has been working on creating a retail store experience unlike any
728 other, “a differentiated shopping experience offering customers innovative, time and
729 space-saving solutions coupled with astonishing customer service from happy, well-
730 trained, well-paid salespeople”(p. 1). It is regarded as a great place to work with a
731 culture that drives the value of its business. Employees describe the culture with
732 words and feelings including love, passion, family, sweet, security, support, mindful,
733 magical, and matchless. It is also considered a company that practices Servant
734 Leadership in which stakeholders are served. The Container Store operates beyond
735 profits and leads through the practice of Conscious Capitalism
®
, which rests on
736 achieving a higher purpose, stakeholder orientation, conscious leadership, and a
737 conscious culture (“The four principles”n.d.).
738 At the Container Store, the principle of conscious leadership is rooted in
739 Greenleaf’s teachings that focus on good leaders first becoming servants. According
740 to “The four principles”(n.d.), conscious leaders focus on the belief that “we”comes
741 before “me”and that everyone is grounded in the understanding that their role is to
742 serve the purpose of the organization. The company is focused on supporting
743 employees within the organization and creating value for organizational stake-
744 holders. Company leaders also understand the importance of culture and intention-
745 ally strive to develop a conscious culture of trust and caring.
746 Medtronic. An innovator in healthcare products and services, Medtronic puts a
747 strong emphasis on employee inclusion (http://www.medtronic.com/us-en/about/
748 corporate-social-responsibility/diversity-inclusion.html). Management recognizes
749 the importance and value of diversity and recruits a wide cross-section of people
750 from around the world who represent all facets of society. Medtronic leaders believe
751 that inclusion and support of talent are critical for long-term success. Employee
752 engagement is critical to Medtronic’s success, and leaders put forth a concerted effort
753 to support its workforce in delivering exceptional global customer service.
754 Southwest Airlines. One last organization presented as an example that practices
755 Servant Leadership principles is Southwest Airlines (https://www.southwest.com/
756 html/about-southwest/careers/culture.html). The company is generally known for its
757 unique approach to air transportation, compared to other major carriers, and that
758 employees have personal authority to do the “right thing”when it comes to customer
759 service. With respect to company values, employees are to have a servant’s heart,
760 which includes aspects of respect and teamwork. Southwest is also very interested in
761 safety, customer service, and low-cost operations, and the company believes that
762 employees are the path to achieving each.
763 TDI Industries. One example where leaders embrace the concept of team and
764 service to others is TDI Industries (https://www.tdindustries.com/). TDI specializes
Servant Leadership in the Workplace 19

765 in construction and service/maintenance and facilities management. In 2017 the
766 company was ranked as one of the Fortune “Top 100 Best Places to Work”(#44)
767 and has made the list for the past 20 years. TDI is recognized by employees as an
768 organization where leaders care and take necessary action to enable everyone to
769 succeed in their roles. Employees feel that leaders truly serve, as recognized by the
770 Top 100 results.
771 Zappos. One of the world’s largest online shoe and clothing companies is Zappos
772 (https://www.zapposinsights.com/). Its CEO is Tony Hsieh, known for his Servant
773 Leadership style at a company with a billion in sales (US dollars). He uses the same
774 size desk provided to his employees and even sits in the same row in the office with
775 other executives where he is easily accessible. Hsieth is also known for his humility
776 and authenticity as a leader and model of Servant Leadership. According to Lua
777 (2016), Hsieh states the following representing a Servant Leader mindset, “We’re all
778 here for the same reason and no one in this operation is more important than anyone
779 else”(n.p.).
780 Lau (2016) found that this perspective translates to organizational success at
781 Zappos through the heart of a Servant Leader and in the many ways that customers
782 are served. One tenet of Zappos is that it exists to serve customers and will do
783 whatever it takes to please them. This may even include losing a sale. If a customer
784 calls about a product and inventory indicates it does not have the item, the employee
785 tells the customer and does not try to sell them something not wanted. This may not
786 make sense to outsiders or from a traditional business point of view, but results and
787 statistics speak for themselves. Clearly, 75% of sales come from repeat customers,
788 and Zappos’customers are not ordinary; they are raving fans. For example, if a
789 customer calls Zappos because he couldn’tfind the desired product on the Zappos’s
790 website, the customer representative will search the company’s inventory database
791 for a result. If the product is truly unavailable, Zappos will tell the customer without
792 hesitation.
793 International Application of Servant Leadership
794 Globally, Servant Leadership is being practiced in various companies from different
795 business sectors. Some success stories follow:
796 Airbus. An international company founded in 1970 with its home office in
797 France, Airbus is innovative in product design, development, and manufacturing
798 in the aviation and aerospace industry (http://company.airbus.com/company/about-
799 airbus.html). It is the largest such company in Europe (second largest in the world)
800 and has facilities in Asia and the Americas, employing more than 130,000
801 employees globally. Revenue over the past few years has modestly increased, and
802 the outlook should continue this path.
803 The commitment to employees and stakeholders is something proclaimed by
804 CEO Tom Enders (n.d.) who stated, “It is not only what we do, but how we do it, that
805 wins the trust of our colleagues and stakeholders”(para. 4). When it comes to ethical
806 behavior, managers are expected to demonstrate integrity and lead by example.
20 T. Kohntopp and J. McCann

807 Airbus does not advertise that it promotes Servant Leadership. Instead, it enables
808 managers and expects that they practice the theoretical principles. Airbus wants
809 everyone to adopt certain common values that leaders model, like sharing, high-
810 performance effort, collaboration, and cooperation. Exemplary behavior is expected.
811 However, everyone is not expected to be alike, as individuality and diversity are
812 highly stressed. In working with Airbus, Watson (n.d.) states, “Airbus is committed
813 to international cultural differences by creating an environment that allows employee
814 contribution, recognition and growth through the provision of integrated common
815 processes and methods”(p. 2).
816 Bertelsmann. A media, information services, and education corporation,
817 Bertelsmann represents creativity and entrepreneurship in broadcasting, publishing,
818 music, and finance with offices in approximately 50 countries (https://www.
819 bertelsmann.com/company/company-profile/). It has an emerging presence in
820 BRIC (Brasil, Russia, India, and China) managing many promising companies.
821 Bertelsmann is a decentralized organization that has been active for more than a
822 century with a corporate center in Germany. It employs approximately 116 AU12,00
823 employees worldwide. Bertelsmann employees have broad autonomy and flexibility
824 in their jobs and actively participate in works councils and committees. Servant
825 Leadership is paramount to corporate success. Regular open exchange of ideas and
826 suggestions takes place between employees and management, as the corporate
827 culture is epitomized by trust and respect. “Partnership, creativity, entrepreneurial-
828 ism and social responsibility”(n.p.) are basic values at Bertelsmann. A diverse
829 workforce is essential to the corporation, and management exists to serve employees
830 in every capacity. In fact, diversity is the driving force within several Bertelsmann
831 companies as it is considered essential in determining market share and maintaining
832 business relations.
833 Bertelsmann reinforces leadership based on mutual trust and respect as well as the
834 principle of delegation of responsibilities. Employees enjoy autonomy to the greatest
835 extent possible. They receive comprehensive information and participate in
836 decision-making and are essential to financial success. The corporation stresses
837 employee development and strives to provide long-term employment.
838 Marriott International. With headquarters outside of Washington, D.C.,
839 Marriott is indeed a global corporation with more than 6000 properties in over
840 120 countries (https://www.marriott.com/marriott/aboutmarriott.mi). Marriott
841 employees and customers virtually represent almost every country in the world. To
842 remain a leader in the hospitality industry, Marriott stays competitive though exem-
843 plary Servant Leadership. Unlike most company founders, from the beginning in
844 1927 at his Hot Shoppes, J. Willard Marriott put his unique stamp on the business by
845 recognizing the importance of exemplary service and that supporting and serving
846 employees were the paths to satisfying customers. This philosophy was the founda-
847 tion of key values and has been practiced, promoted, and instilled into the company
848 by every Marriott family member leading the company for almost 90 years.
849 At the top of Marriott’s list of core values is “We Put People First: Take care of
850 associates and they will take care of the customers”(n.p.). The people (i.e., associ-
851 ates) first policy strongly reflects on Servant Leadership. This philosophy enables
Servant Leadership in the Workplace 21

852 employee growth and success as part of the basic company culture, no matter in what
853 part of the world. The company’s commitment to diversity is global, and it is
854 embraced as a philosophy, not to just meet regulatory compliance or merely as
855 image enhancement. Marriott works to create opportunities for employees that also
856 enhance community well-being. Impressive employee stories serve as testimonials
857 to the Marriott service philosophy, which reflect Servant Leader principles (see
858 http://stories.marriott.com/).
859 Another Marriott core value is “We Serve Our World: Our ‘spirit to serve’makes
860 our company stronger”(n.p.). The service philosophy of Marriott leadership extends
861 into corporate social responsibility where “Marriott International focuses on five
862 global social issues: poverty alleviation, the environment, community workforce
863 development, the wellbeing of children, and global diversity and inclusion”(n.p.).
864 To maintain attention and resolve in areas like these certainly requires individuals
865 who live daily under the philosophy of Servant Leadership.
866 Servant Leadership Theory in Organizational Context
867 Observations in this chapter synthesize empirical research on Servant Leadership
868 theory across various fields, industries, organizations, and businesses. Scholars
869 exploring Servant Leadership are using theories from other disciplines to build
870 upon existing concepts and to develop models that are uniquely applicable to their
871 field. Servant Leadership appears to be a viable and valuable theory and is worthy of
872 further empirical research within organizations.
873 According to Parris and Peachy (2013):
874 As a viable leadership theory, Servant Leadership can perhaps provide the ethical grounding
875 and leadership framework needed to help address the challenges of the twenty-first century:
876 technological advancements, economic globalization, increased communications, the Inter-
877 net, rising terrorism, environmental degradation, war and violence, disease and starvation,
878 threat of global warming, intensifying gap between the poor and rich worldwide, as well as
879 many other unsolved issues. Servant Leadership contrasts, traditional leader-first paradigms,
880 which applauds Darwinism, individualistic, and capitalist approach to life, implicating that
881 only the strong will survive. (p. 390)
882 Parris and Peachy (2013) further contend that traditional leader-first paradigms
883 are the driving force in most organizations and have resulted in many of the modern
884 business scandals of today from Arthur Anderson to Tyco. However, Servant
885 Leadership is about changing the world and workplace for the better.
22 T. Kohntopp and J. McCann

886 Recommendations for Future Research
887 The aim of this chapter was to provide an understanding of Servant Leadership and a
888 perspective on behaviors germane to the theory. Insight into designing and
889 implementing inclusive practices was also addressed. We posited that the salience
890 of inclusiveness beliefs espoused by Servant Leaders can moderate the effects on
891 inclusive practices. As a result, overall Servant Leadership practices should increase
892 and foster more meaningful inclusive relationships. In additions, Servant Leadership
893 encourages inclusion in a way that addresses the needs of multiple stakeholders,
894 which generates positive expectations for both in-group and out-group members
895 interacting in and benefiting from inclusive work environments (Gotsis and Grimani
896 2016).
897 The relationship between the job demands-resources model and the functions of a
898 Servant Leader may be worthy of future investigation. The demands-resources
899 connection could highlight how a Servant Leader can create an effective working
900 climate and culture within an organization. Experimental studies might be valuable
901 in this regard. A related perspective could consider the functions and performance
902 areas of a Servant Leader and how the organization is ultimately served and possibly
903 the community. Action research and case studies may be viable with this endeavor
904 (Coetzer et al. 2017).
905 In the burgeoning field of entrepreneurship, researchers could explore how to
906 build a servant-led organization, or in the field of organizational change, studies
907 could explore how to implement Servant Leadership in an established organization
908 or during a merger or acquisition. Second, there is a need to investigate the
909 antecedents of Servant Leadership development, such as personal attributes of the
910 leader, background of the leader, and organizational history and trajectory of the
911 business. An area only touched on briefly would entail creating Servant Leaders.
912 Designing a leadership development program based on functions and performance
913 areas mentioned in this study and to test its effectiveness to enhance Servant
914 Leadership attributes would be worth investigation. Third, researchers can examine
915 other outcomes of Servant Leadership, such as voluntarily organizational turnover,
916 succession planning, affective organizational commitment, and employee well-being
917 through generative growth. Fourth, leadership effectiveness must consider followers
918 and the organization context. Therefore, a need exists to develop relevant quantita-
919 tive and quantitative appraisal tools for the organization to determine Servant
920 Leadership readiness. Finally, since Greenleaf (1970)first postulated the theory of
921 Servant Leadership, the world has changed drastically (Kose and Ozturk 2014). In
922 fact, the amount of change in society during the past 50–70 years likely has eclipsed
923 all the prior change since the dawn of humanity. Due to increasing globalization,
924 more international research is needed. The “changing”workforce and the increased
925 interest in human capacity and equality (e.g., race, sex, gender, religion, physical
926 ability), along with many other factors that distinguish people, should also be
927 considered when investigating future applications of Servant Leadership.
Servant Leadership in the Workplace 23

928 Conclusions
929 In today’s global environment where organizations currently operate, leaders who
930 can achieve goals for all constituents are desired. In the eyes of the organization and
931 leadership, it comes down to choosing and implementing the leadership style that
932 will be most effective in achieving its goals. This is not always easy, as the
933 individuals involved generally have a large variety of expectations for the organi-
934 zational environment.
935 Grant (2013) suggests that Servant Leaders are more highly regarded than others
936 by their employees, possess a better self-image, and are also more productive than
937 their counterparts. He postulates that Servant Leaders by their relationships with
938 employees benefit through contacts, information, and insights that allow them to
939 become more effective and productive. Servant Leaders spend a good deal of time
940 helping others through professional activities such as career counseling, suggesting
941 contacts (assisting with opportunities), and recommending new ways of getting tasks
942 accomplished. So, the leader, employee, and organization benefit from this leader-
943 ship style.
944 The model for Servant Leadership, where it has been implemented, has signifi-
945 cant implications for the individual and the organization (Guillaume et al. 2012).
946 According to the Greenleaf Center (2011), more than 20% of the Fortune magazine
947 top 100 companies have sought guidance from the Greenleaf Center for Servant
948 Leadership, including Starbucks, Vanguard Investment Group, and Southwest Air-
949 lines, among many other organizations (Parris and Peachey 2013). In summary,
950 Spears (1995, pp. 1–14) identified and recommended six areas in which managers
951 can practice Servant Leadership. These suggestions are relevant to any organization
952 that sincerely wants to explore adopting Servant Leadership in its operations.
953 1. Adopt Servant Leadership as part of the organization’s philosophy. The idea of
954 the leader as a servant must be the framework for the organization’s mission and
955 vision.
956 2. Incorporate Servant Leadership into the education of the board of directors,
957 leading them to think of trustees or boards as servants. Ask them, “Whom do
958 you serve?”
959 3. Integrate Servant Leadership concepts into community leadership organizations,
960 creating a business that serves the community.
961 4. Use Servant Leadership in experiential education or learning by utilizing service
962 learning in the organization. Service learning combines classroom instruction
963 with meaningful community service.
964 5. Offer Servant Leadership courses for the education and training of management,
965 such as books, films, articles, speakers, and possibly attending a symposium at the
966 Greenleaf Center in Indianapolis.
967 6. Apply Servant Leadership concepts in personal growth training programs.968
24 T. Kohntopp and J. McCann

969 References AU13
970 2016 Social Responsibility Report (2016) Retrieved from https://www.aflac.com/docs/about-aflac/
971 2016-csr-report/aflac-2016-csr-report_final.pdf
972 Airbus (n.d.) About Airbus: what we do. Retrieved November 22, 2017 from http://company.airbus.
973 com/company/about-airbus.html
974 Bal Tastan S, Kalafatoglu Y (2015) An investigation of the moderating effect of work exhaustion on
975 the relationship between perceived servant leadership and organizational commitment. J Econ
976 Adm Sci 20(3):307–328
977 Bampilis T (2012) Industrial revolution. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
978 Barbuto JE, Wheeler DW (2006) Scale development and construct clarification of servant leader-
979 ship. Group Organ Manag 31(3):300–326
980 Bennis WG, Nanus B (1985) Leaders: the strategies for taking charge. Harper and Row, New York
981 Berendt CJ, ChristofiA, Kasibhatla KM, Malindretos J, MaruffiB (2012) Transformational
982 leadership: lessons in management for today. Int Bus Res 5(10):227–232. https://doi.org/
983 10.5539/ibr.v5n10p227
984 Bertelsmann (n.d.) Bertelsmann at a glance –Bertelsmann SE& Co. KGaA. Retrieved November
985 22, 2017 from https://www.bertelsmann.com/company/company-profile/
986 Black D (2017) Characteristics & qualities of a great leader: a quote book filled with truth and
987 wisdom. DanBlackOnLeadership.com
988 Blake R, Mouton JS (1985) The managerial grid III. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston
989 Burke RJ, Koyuncu M, Shtakova MA, Eren D, Çetin H (2014) Hotel star ratings and perceptions of
990 servant leadership and service quality provided by front-line service workers in four- and five-
991 star hotels in Turkey: an exploratory study. Ind Relat Hum Res J 16(3):1–9. https://doi.org/
992 10.4026/1303-2860.2014.0251
993 Carlyle T (1841) On heroes, hero worship and the heroic in history. Adams, Boston
994 Chatbury A, Beaty D, Kriek HS (2011) Servant leadership, trust and implications for the “Base-of-
995 the-Pyramid”segment in South Africa. S Afr J Bus Manag 42(4):57–61
996 Choudhary AI, Akhtar SA, Arshad Z (2013) Impact of transformational and servant leadership on
997 organizational performance: a comparative analysis. J Bus Ethics 116:433–440. https://doi.org/
998 10.1007/s10551-012-1470-8
999 Coetzer MF, Bussin M, Geldenhuys M (2017) The functions of a servant leader. Adm Sci 7(1):5.
1000 http://0-dx.doi.org.library.acaweb.org/10.3390/admsci7010005
1001 Covey SR (2003) Principle-centered leadership. Free Press, New York
1002 Daft RL (2015) The leadership experience, 6th edn. Cengage Learning, Stamford
1003 Deresky H (2002) Global management: strategic and interpersonal. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
1004 River
1005 Deresky H (2014) International management: managing across borders and cultures: text and cases,
1006 8th edn. Pearson, Upper Saddle River
1007 Drucker PF (2008) Management: revised edition of management: tasks, responsibilities, practices.
1008 Harper Collins, New York
1009 DuBrin AJ (2013) Leadership: research, findings, practice, and skill, 7th edn. South-Western,
1010 Mason
1011 Emrich J (n.d.). Servant-leadership: practices in the field: exemplary companies. Servant-Leader
1012 Associates. Retrieved June 6, 2017 from http://www.servant-leaderassociates.com/Servant-
1013 Leader_Associates/Welcome.html
1014 Enders T (n.d.) CEO Airbus: our commitment. Retrieved November 22, 2017 from http://company.
1015 airbus.com/company/ethics-compliance.html
1016 Erkutlu H, Chafra J (2015) Servant leadership and voice behavior in higher education. H U J Educ
1017 30(4):29–41
1018 Fiedler FE (1967) A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill, New York
Servant Leadership in the Workplace 25

1019 Gotsis G, Grimani K (2016) The role of servant leadership in fostering inclusive organizations. J
1020 Manag Dev 35(8):985–1010. Retrieved from https://0-search-proquest-com.library.acaweb.org/
1021 docview/1826444244?accountid=41894
1022 Grant A (2013) Give and take: a revolutionary approach to success. Viking Press, New York
1023 Greenleaf RK (1970) The servant as leader. The Robert K. Greenleaf Center, Indianapolis
1024 Greenleaf RK (1977) Servant leadership. Paulist Press, Mahwah
1025 Greenleaf RK (1991) The servant as leader. Greenleaf Center, Indianapolis
1026 Greenleaf RK (2009) The institution as servant. The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership,
1027 Atlanta. (Original work published in 1972)
1028 Greenleaf RK, Frick DM, Spears LC (1996) On becoming a servant leader. Jossey-Bass, San
1029 Francisco
1030 Guillaume O, Honeycutt A, Cleveland CS (2012) Servant leadership trends impact 21st century
1031 business. J Bus Soc Res 2(5):1–7
1032 Hemphill JK, Coons AE (1957) Development of the Leader Behavior Development Questionnaire
1033 (LBDQ). In: Stogdill RM, Coons AE (eds) Leader behavior: its description and measurement.
1034 Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Columbus
1035 Hersey P, Blanchard KH (1982) Management of organizational behavior: utilizing human
1036 resources, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
1037 Heskeet J (2013) Why isn’t servant leadership more prevalent? Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.
1038 forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/05/01/why-isnt-servant-leadership-more-preva
1039 lent/#be5d9eb3ac68
1040 Hess ED (2013) Servant leadership: a path to high performance. Retrieved from https://www.
1041 washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/servant-leadership-a-path-to-high-performance/
1042 2013/04/26/435e58b2-a7b8-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_story.html?utm_term=.bec6cb8c3803
1043 Hesse H (1956) The journey to the east. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York
1044 House RJ (1971) A path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Adm Sci Q 16:321–338
1045 Huckabee S (2008) The relationship of servant leadership to other leadership theories. Res Educ
1046 Econ Inf Syst. Retrieved from http://www.pmi.org/Knowledge-enter/~/media/PDF/Surveys/
1047 KThompson%20Dissertation.ashx
1048 Irving JA, Longbotham GJ (2007) Team effectiveness and six essential servant leadership themes: a
1049 regression model based on items in the Organizational Leadership Assessment. Int J Leadersh
1050 Stud 2(2):98–113
1051 Jacobs GA (2006) Servant leadership and follower commitment. In the proceedings of the 2006
1052 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable, from https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publica
1053 tions/sl_proceedings/2006/jacobs.pdf
1054 Jones D (2012a) Servant leadership’s impact on profit, employee satisfaction and empowerment
1055 within the framework for a participative culture in business. Bus Stud J 4(1):35–49
1056 Jones D (2012b) Does servant leadership lead to greater customer focus and employee satisfaction?
1057 Bus Stud J 4(2):22–33
1058 Jones GR, George JM (2015) Essentials of contemporary management, 6th edn. McGraw-Hill,
1059 New York
1060 Khan V, Hafeez MH, Rizvi SMH, Hasnain A, Mariam A (2012) Relationship of leadership styles,
1061 employees’commitment and organization performance. Eur J Econ Financ Adm Sci
1062 49:133–143
1063 Khurana R (2002) The curse of the superstar CEO. Harv Bus Rev 80(9):60–66
1064 Kose MA, Ozturk EO (2014) A world of change: taking stock of the past half century. Financ Dev 5
1065 (3):6–11. Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/09/pdf/kose.pdf
1066 Krog C, Govender K (2015) Servant leadership and project management: examining the effects of
1067 leadership style on project success. In: Rouco JCD (ed) 11th European conference on manage-
1068 ment, leadership, and governance: ECMLG2015. Academic Conferences and Publishing Ltd,
1069 Redhook, p 201
1070 Lau E (2016) How to build a culture of servant leadership in your organization. Retrieved from
1071 https://leaderonomics.com/business/build-servant-leadership-culture
26 T. Kohntopp and J. McCann

1072 Laub J (1999) Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant organizational
1073 leadership (SOLA) instrument. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 02 308 (UMI
1074 No. 9921922)
1075 Laub J (2004) Defining servant leadership: a recommended typology for servant leadership studies.
1076 Servant Leadership Roundtable –August 2004. Retrieved from http://www.strandtheory.org/
1077 images/Laub_-_Defining_Servant_Leadership.pdf
1078 Letter from our chairman and chief executive officer (2017) Retrieved from http://investor.
1079 containerstore.com/about/letter-from-our-chairman-and-chief-executive-officer/default.aspx
1080 Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Zhao H, Herderson D (2008) Servant leadership: development of a multi-
1081 dimensional measures and multilevel assessment. Leadersh Q 19(2):161–177. https://doi.org/
1082 10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006
1083 Maden D, GöztaşA, Topsümer F (2014) Effects of service standards communication and servant
1084 leadership on strategic competence and customer orientation. Paper presented at the 3rd
1085 Multidisciplinary Academic Conference on Economics, Management, Marketing and Tourism
1086 (2014), Prague
1087 Marriott International (n.d.) Marriot corporate business information. Retrieved on November
1088 22, 2017 from https://www.marriott.com/marriott/aboutmarriott.mi
1089 Maxwell JC (2008) Leadership gold: lessons learned from a lifetime of leading. Thomas Nelson,
1090 Nashville
1091 Mayer DB, Bardes M, Piccolo RF (2008) Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs? An
1092 organizational justice perspective. Eur J Work Organ Psy 17(2):180–197
1093 McCann JT, Graves D, Cox L (2014) Servant leadership, employee satisfaction, and organizational
1094 performance in rural community hospitals. Int J Bus Manag 9(10):28–38
1095 Melchar DE, Bosco SM (2010) Achieving high organization performance through servant leader-
1096 ship. J Bus Inq 9(1):74–88
1097 Melrose K (1995) Making the grass greener on your side: a CEO’s journey to leading by serving.
1098 Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco
1099 Mischel W, Shoda Y, Mendoza-Denton R (2002) Situation-behavior profiles as a locus of consis-
1100 tency in personality. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 11:50–54
1101 Murray A (2010) The Wall Street Journal essential guide to management: lasting lessons from the
1102 best leadership minds of our time. Harper-Collins, New York
1103 Obiwuru TC (2011) Effects of leadership style on organizational performance: a survey of selected
1104 small-scale enterprises in Ikosi-Ketu council development area of Lagos state, Nigeria. Austrian
1105 J Bus Manag Res 1(7):100–111
1106 Page D, Wong PTP (2000) A conceptual framework for measuring servant-leadership. In:
1107 Adjibolosoo S (ed) The human factor in shaping the course of history and development.
1108 University Press of America, Lanham
1109 Parris DL, Peachey JW (2013) A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in
1110 organizational contexts. J Bus Ethics 113(3):377–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-
1111 1322-6
1112 Patterson K (2003) Servant leadership: a theoretical model. Dissertation Abstracts International,
1113 64 02 570 (UMI No. 3082719)
1114 Politis J (2013) The relationship between team performance, authentic and servant leadership. In:
1115 Semmelrock-Picej M (ed) Proceedings of the European conference on management, leadership
1116 & governance. Academic Conferences Ltd., Redhook, pp 237–244
1117 Rai R, Prakash A (2016) How do servant leaders ignite absorptive capacity? The role of epistemic
1118 motivation and organizational support. J Work Organ Psychol 32:123–134
1119 Reed LL, Vidaver-Cohen D, Colwell SR (2011) A new scale to measure executive servant
1120 leadership: development, analysis, and implications for research. J Bus Ethics 101(3):415–434
1121 Roberts G (2017) Servant leadership across cultures. Unpublished manuscript, Regent University,
1122 Virginia Beach
1123 SanFacon G, Spears LC (2010) Servant-leaders. Leadersh Excell 27(2):17
Servant Leadership in the Workplace 27

1124 Scruggs-Garber JM (2009) Attitudes towards collaboration and servant leadership. J Interprof Care
1125 23(4):331–340
1126 Sendjaya S, Sarros JC, Santora JC (2008) Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in
1127 organisations. J Manag Stud 45(2):402–424
1128 Shirin AV (2014) Is servant leadership inherently Christian? J Relig Bus Ethics 3(1):1–25
1129 Steiner JF, Steiner GA (2012) Business, government, and society: a managerial perspective, text and
1130 cases, 13th edn. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York
1131 Stogdill RM (1948) Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of the literature. J Psychol
1132 25:35–71
1133 Tang G, Kwan HK, Zhang D, Zhu Z (2016) Work–family effects of servant leadership: the roles of
1134 emotional exhaustion and personal learning. J Bus Ethics 137:285–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/
1135 s10551-015-2559-7
1136 Tannenbaum R, Schmidt WH (1958) How to choose a leadership pattern. Harv Bus Rev 36:95–101
1137 Taylor S, Pearse N, Louw L (2013) Development of a philosophy and practice of servant leadership
1138 through service opportunity. In: Semmelrock-Picej M (ed) Proceedings of the European con-
1139 ference on management, leadership & governance. Academic Conferences Ltd., Redhook, pp
1140 283–289
1141 Tenney M (2014) Serve to be great: leadership lessons from a prison, a monastery, and a boardroom.
1142 Wiley, Hoboken
1143 The four principles of conscious capitalism (n.d.) Retrieved June 7, 2017 from https://www.
1144 consciouscapitalism.org/
1145 Top 100 Best Places to Work (2017) Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/best-companies/list
1146 Vroom VH, Jago AG (1988) The new leadership: managing participation in organizations. Prentice
1147 Hall, Upper Saddle River
1148 Wagner R, Hartner JK (2006) 12: the elements of great managing. Gallup, Washington, DC
1149 Watson S (n.d.) Leadership development at Airbus. Emerald Management First. Retrieved
1150 November 22, 2017 from http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/learning/management_
1151 thinking/articles/pdf/airbus.pdf
1152 Williams RL (2017) Richard L. Williams, Jr., joins Aflac as Executive Vice President, Chief
1153 Distribution Officer. Retrieved from: https://www.aflac.com/about-aflac/newsroom/press-
1154 release-story.aspx?rid=865
1155 Zappos (n.d.) Zappos insights. Retrieved November 22, 2017 from https://www.zapposinsights.
1156 com/
1157 Zhang H, Kwan HK, Everett AM, Jian Z (2012) Servant leadership, organizational identification,
1158 and work-to-family enrichment: the moderating role of work climate for sharing family con-
1159 cerns. Hum Resour Manag 51(5):747–768
1160 Zohar D (1997) Rewiring the corporate brain: using the new science to rethink how we structure and
1161 lead organizations. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco
28 T. Kohntopp and J. McCann

Index Terms:
Altruistic healing (AH) 8
American Family Life Insurance Company (Aflac) 18–19
Emotional healing (EH) 6, 8
Leadership
and management 2–3
behavior theories 3–4
contingency 4
relational 4
servant leadership
See Servant leadership (SL)
traits 3
Organizational Leadership Assessment (OLA) 6, 10
Organizational stewardship (OS) 8
Persuasive mapping (PM) 8
Servant leadership (SL) 4, 22, 24
Aflac 18
Airbus 20–21
altruistic healing 8
and organizational commitment 13
and transformational leadership 13
aspects of 14
attitudes and beliefs 9
beliefs 8
Bertelsmann 21
Container Store 19
definition 7, 12
emotional healing 6, 8
employee satisfaction and organizational profits 9
institutions 16–18
international perspective of 11–15
in workplace 15–16
leader-follower relationship 5
leadership styles 10
Marriott International 21–22
Medtronic 19
OLA 6

organizational productivity 5
organizational stewardship 8
outcomes of 23
person’s ability and capacity 9
persuasive mapping 8
philosophical perspective of 11
psychological empowerment and psychological safety 15
qualities of 5
religious groups 11
\“servant as leader\”model 5
skills 7, 15
Southwest Airlines 19
supervisor/organization trust relationship 14
TDI Industries 19–20
team effectiveness 10
wisdom 8
Zappos 20
Transformational leadership 13
Wisdom (W) 8

Author Queries
Chapter No.: 11-1 449423_0_En
Query Refs. Details Required Author's response
AU1 If you are using material from other
works please make sure that you have
obtained the necessary permission
from the copyright holders and that
references to the original publications
are included.
AU2 The index terms are available at the
end of the proof (pdf version) which
is downloadable under the chapter
link. Please review the index terms
and make any changes if required.
The corrections can be sent as com-
ments via the online corrections or
can be marked in pdf and sent as an
attachment.
AU3 Please be aware that your name and
affiliation and if applicable those of
you co-author(s) will be published as
presented in this proof. If you want to
make any changes, please correct the
details now. Note that corrections
after publication will no longer be
possible.
AU4 Keywords are required. Please pro-
vide.
AU5 Please provide Abstract.
AU6 Please check if edit to sentence
starting “Understanding leadership,
what...”is okay.
AU7 Please provide details of Bowers and
Seashore (1966), Greenleaf and
Spears (2002), Linden et al. (2014),
Greenleaf Center (2011), and Spears
(1995) in the reference list.
AU8 Please check if edit to sentence
starting “Greenleaf modeled
Servant...”is okay.
AU9 Please check if edit to sentence
starting “Laub’s key variables...”
is okay.

AU10 Pl eas e ch e ck s ent enc e sta rti ng
“Servant Leaders acted...”for com-
pleteness.
AU11 Please check sentence starting
“However, Aflac, a...”for complete-
ness.
AU12 Please clarify if the value "116,00"
here should be changed to "11,600 or
116,000".
AU13 Please cite Airbus (n.d.), Bertelsmann
(n.d.), Deresky (2014), Marriott
International (n.d.), Top 100 Best
Places to Work (2017), and Zappos
(n.d.) in the text.
Note:
If you are using material from other works please make sure that you have obtained the necessary
permission from the copyright holders and that references to the original publications are included.