Leadership & Organization Development Journal Transformational versus servant leadership: a difference in leader focus A. Gregory Stone, Robert F. Russell, Kathleen Patterson, Article information: To cite this document: A. Gregory Stone, Robert F. Russell, Kathleen Patterson, (2004) "Transformational versus servant leadership: a difference in leader focus", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 Issue: 4, pp.349-361, doi: 10.1108/01437730410538671 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730410538671 Downloaded on: 30 April 2017, At: 23:31 (PT) References: this document contains references to 55 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 54155 times since 2006* Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2004),"Transformational leadership and shared values: the building blocks of trust", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 Iss 6 pp. 588-607 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940410551507 (2004),"Linking emotional intelligence abilities and transformational leadership styles", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 Iss 7 pp. 554-564 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730410561440

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:512076 [] For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download. The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Transformational Transformational versus servant versus servant leadership: a difference in leader leadership focus A. Gregory Stone 349 Graduate School of Business, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA Received March 2003 Robert F. Russell Revised June 2003 Department of Business Administration, Emory and Henry College, Emory, Accepted November 2003 Virginia, USA, and Kathleen Patterson School of Leadership Studies, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA

Keywords Leadership, Transformational leadership, Influence Abstract This article examines transformational leadership and servant leadership to determine what similarities and differences exist between the two leadership concepts. The authors posit that the primary difference between transformational leadership and servant leadership is the focus of the leader. The transformational leader’s focus is directed toward the organization, and his or her behavior builds follower commitment toward organizational objectives, while the servant leader’s focus is on the followers, and the achievement of organizational objectives is a subordinate outcome. The extent to which the leader is able to shift the primary focus of leadership from the organization to the follower is the distinguishing factor in classifying leaders as either transformational or servant leaders. This article also looks at the next stage of developmental issues in servant leadership, such as the challenges facing empirical investigation and measurement, and the changes that are occurring in current thinking about the servant leadership approach. Ultimately, the case is made that although different, both transformational leadership and servant leadership offer the conceptual framework for dynamic leadership.

Transformational versus servant leadership – a difference in leader focus Transformational leadership, initiated by James MacGregor Burns (1978) and Bernard M. Bass (1985a), has become a very popular concept in recent years. Both researchers and practitioners have gravitated to the theory and have employed it in a variety of

Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) organizational settings. Similarly, the concept of servant leadership, which Robert Greenleaf (1977) formulated in the modern era, has received substantial attention in the contemporary leadership field. A cursory glimpse of transformational leadership and servant leadership leaves the perception that the concepts are rather similar. In fact, some individuals question whether there is any real difference between the concepts. This article first examines the theoretical framework, characteristics, and focus of both transformational leadership and servant leadership to determine what similarities and differences exist between the two leadership concepts. Thereafter, the article

differentiates the concepts along the dimension of leader focus. The primary premise of The Leadership & Organization the article is that transformational leaders tend to focus more on organizational Development Journal Vol. 25 No. 4, 2004 objectives while servant leaders focus more on the people who are their followers. This pp. 349-361 tendency of the servant leader to focus on followers appears to be the primary factor q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0143-7739 that distinguishes servant leadership from transformational leadership. Otherwise, DOI 10.1108/01437730410538671 LODJ there are many similarities between the two leadership concepts. A clear 25,4 understanding of both frameworks helps to reveal the many similarities and the aforementioned distinction.

Transformational leadership Bass and Avolio (Bass, 1985a; Bass and Avolio, 1990) developed Burns’ (1978) ideas and 350 posited the formal concept of transformational leadership. Their work built not only upon the contribution of Burns but also those made by Bennis and Nanus (1985), Tichy and Devanna (1986), and others. Bass (1990b) specified that transformational leadership: “occurs when leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, when they generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and when they stir their employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group” (p. 21). Bass (1990a) stipulates that this transcending beyond self-interest is for the “group, organization, or society” (p. 53). In essence, transformational leadership is a process of building commitment to organizational objectives and then empowering followers to accomplish those objectives (Yukl, 1998). The result, at least in theory, is enhanced follower performance (Burns, 1998; Yukl, 1998). Burns (1978) considered leaders to be either transformational or transactional, while others view leadership as a continuum with transactional leadership at one end and transformational leadership at the other. Bass (1990a) said that transactional leadership occurs when leaders “exchange promises of rewards and benefits to subordinates for the subordinates’ fulfillment of agreements with the leader” (p. 53). The transactional leader, according to Daft (2002), recognizes followers’ needs and then defines the exchange process for meeting those needs. Both the leader and the follower benefit from the exchange transaction. Transactional leadership is based on bureaucratic authority, focuses on task completion, and relies on rewards and punishments (Tracey and Hinkin, 1998). Transformational leadership differs substantially from transactional leadership. It is concerned more about progress and development. Furthermore, transformational leadership enhances the effects of transactional leadership on followers (Bass, 1985b, 1990a). Transformational leaders transform the personal values of followers to support the vision and goals of the organization by fostering an environment where relationships can be formed and by establishing a climate of trust in which visions can be shared (Bass, 1985a). Avolio et al. (1991) established four primary behaviors that constitute Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) transformational leadership: (1) Idealized influence (or charismatic influence). (2) Inspirational motivation. (3) Intellectual stimulation. (4) Individualized consideration. The following discussion summarizes these areas and identifies the characteristics that accompany each of them.

Idealized influence Idealized influence is the charismatic element of transformational leadership in which leaders become role models who are admired, respected, and emulated by followers (Avolio and Bass, 2002; Bass, 1998; Bass and Avolio, 1994). Consequently, followers Transformational demonstrate a high degree of trust in such leaders (Bass, 1990b; Jung and Avolio, 2000). versus servant Idealized influence in leadership also involves integrity in the form of ethical and moral conduct (Tracey and Hinkin, 1998). leadership The development of a shared vision is an integral component of the idealized, transformational leader’s role (Jung and Avolio, 2000). It helps others to look at the futuristic state, while inspiring acceptance through the alignment of personal values 351 and interests to the collective interests of the group’s purposes (Avolio and Bass, 2002; Bass, 1990b, 1998; Jung and Avolio, 2000). Transformational leaders are also willing to take and share risks with followers (Avolio and Bass, 2002; Bass, 1998).

Inspirational motivation Transformational leaders inspire and motivate others by “providing meaning and challenge to their followers’ work” (Avolio and Bass, 2002, p. 2). The spirit of the team is “aroused” while “enthusiasm and optimism are displayed” (Bass, 1998, p. 5). The transformational leader builds relationships with followers through interactive communication, which forms a cultural bond between the two participants and leads to a shifting of values by both parties toward common ground. The leader inspires followers to see the attractive future state, while communicating expectations and demonstrating a commitment to goals and a shared vision. Idealized influence and inspirational motivation are usually combined to form charismatic-inspirational leadership (Bass, 1998).

Intellectual stimulation Transformational leaders stimulate their followers’ efforts “to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways” (Avolio and Bass, 2002, p. 2). Followers’ mistakes are not publicly criticized and creativity is openly encouraged. Transformational leaders solicit their followers’ ideas and creative solutions to problems, thereby including followers in problem solving. The intellectually stimulating leader encourages followers to try new approaches but emphasizes rationality (Bass, 1990b).

Individualized consideration The transformational leader disburses personal attention to followers based on the

Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) individual follower’s needs for achievement and growth (Avolio and Bass, 2002). To do this, the leader acts as a mentor or coach, developing followers in a supportive climate to “higher levels of potential” (Bass, 1998, p. 6). The considerate leader recognizes and demonstrates acceptance of the followers’ individual differences in terms of needs and desires. By doing this, the transformational leader fosters two-way communication through effective listening (Avolio and Bass, 2002; Bass, 1998). The leader develops followers by delegating tasks and then unobtrusively monitoring those tasks – checking to see if additional support or direction is needed. The net effect of individualized consideration and other transformational leadership behaviors is empowerment of followers (Behling and McFillen, 1996). Ultimately, transformational leaders can develop a very powerful influence over followers. For example, several research studies have documented the power of transformational leadership in establishing value congruency and trust (Jung and LODJ Avolio, 2000; Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1996; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Shamir, 1995). 25,4 Followers respect and trust transformational leaders, so they conform their values to those of the leaders and yield power to them. In summary, the transformational leader articulates the vision in a clear and appealing manner, explains how to attain the vision, acts confidently and optimistically, expresses confidence in the followers, emphasizes values with 352 symbolic actions, leads by example, and empowers followers to achieve the vision (Yukl, 2002). Table I summarizes the four primary or functional areas of transformational leadership and identifies the attributes that, according to the literature, accompany these primary characteristics.

Servant leadership Robert K. Greenleaf (1904-1990) is credited with initiating the servant leadership concept among modern organizational theorists (Spears, 1995, 1996). In Greenleaf’s (1969, 1977) opinion, leadership must primarily meet the needs of others. The focus of servant leadership is on others rather than upon self and on understanding of the role of the leader as a servant (Greenleaf, 1977). Self-interest should not motivate servant leadership; rather, it should ascend to a higher plane of motivation (Greenleaf, 1977; Pollard, 1996). The servant leader’s primary objective is to serve and meet the needs of others, which optimally should be the prime motivation for leadership (Russell and Stone, 2002). Servant leaders develop people, helping them to strive and flourish (McMinn, 2001). Servant leaders provide vision, gain credibility and trust from followers, and influence others (Farling et al., 1999). While servant leadership is an increasingly popular concept, throughout much of its history the concept has been systematically undefined and lacking in empirical support (Farling et al., 1999). In an attempt to give cohesion to the development of a theory, Russell and Stone (2002) established a practical model for servant leadership. They also identified functional and accompanying attributes of servant leadership (see Table II). The attributes identified by Russell and Stone provide a reasonable basis for comparing servant leadership with transformational leadership.

Functional attributes Accompanying attributes

(1) Idealized influence/charisma Vision

Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) Trust Respect Risk-sharing Integrity Modeling (2) Inspirational motivation Commitment to goals Communication Enthusiasm (3) Intellectual stimulation Rationality Problem solving (4) Individualized consideration Personal attention Table I. Mentoring Transformational Listening leadership attributes Empowerment Transformational Functional attributes Accompanying attributes versus servant Vision Communication leadership Honesty, integrity Credibility Trust Competence Service Stewardship Modeling Visibility 353 Pioneering Influence Persuasion Appreciation of others Listening Encouragement Table II. Empowerment Teaching Servant leadership Delegation attributes

Comparative review of transformational and servant leadership To help the reader see the similarities and differences between transformational leadership and servant leadership, all of the elements referenced thus far are comparatively reviewed in Table III.

Similarities and differences At this point, one may ask what is the real difference, if any, between transformational leadership and servant leadership? Is servant leadership just a subset of transformational leadership or vice versa? Are transformational leadership and servant leadership the same theory, except for their use of different names?

Transformational leadership attributes Servant leadership attributes

Idealized (charismatic) influence Influence Vision Vision Trust Trust Respect Credibility and competence Risk-sharing Delegation Integrity Honesty and integrity Modeling Modeling and visibility Service Inspirational motivation Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) Commitment to goals Stewardship Communication Communication Enthusiasm Intellectual stimulation Rationality Persuasion Problem solving Pioneering Individualized consideration Appreciation of others Personal attention Encouragement Mentoring Teaching Listening Listening Empowerment Empowerment Table III. Note: Functional attributes in italic print – accompanying attributes in regular print Comparison of attributes LODJ The side-by-side comparison in Table III reveals that transformational leadership and 25,4 servant leadership have relatively analogous characteristics. Perhaps this is because both transformational and servant leadership are attempts to define and explain people-oriented leadership styles. According to both concepts, their leadership frameworks incorporate: . influence; 354 . vision; . trust; . respect or credibility; . risk-sharing or delegation; . integrity; and . modeling. Both transformational leadership and servant leadership emphasize the importance of appreciating and valuing people, listening, mentoring or teaching, and empowering followers. In fact, the theories are probably most similar in their emphasis upon individualized consideration and appreciation of followers. Nevertheless, transformational leadership and servant leadership do have points of variation. There is a much greater emphasis upon service to followers in the servant leadership paradigm. Furthermore, while both transformational leaders and servant leaders are influential, servant leaders gain influence in a nontraditional manner that derives from servanthood itself (Russell and Stone, 2002). In so doing, they allow extraordinary freedom for followers to exercise their own abilities. They also place a much higher degree of trust in their followers than would be the case in any leadership style that required the leader to be somewhat directive.

The difference In response to the questions about whether there are any real differences between transformational leadership and servant leadership, our position is that the concepts hold many similarities, and they are complementary theories in many respects. Nonetheless, they ultimately form a distinctly separate theoretical framework of leadership because of one primary difference. The principal difference between transformational leadership and servant leadership is the focus of the leader. While

Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) transformational leaders and servant leaders both show concern for their followers, the overriding focus of the servant leader is upon service to their followers. The transformational leader has a greater concern for getting followers to engage in and support organizational objectives. The extent to which the leader is able to shift the primary focus of his or her leadership from the organization to the follower is the distinguishing factor in determining whether the leader may be a transformational or servant leader. Furthermore, we proffer that this primary distinction influences other characteristics and outcomes, giving rise to secondary differences between the concepts.

Leader focus With transformational leadership, the leader’s focus is directed toward the organization, and his or her behavior builds follower commitment toward the organizational objectives through empowering followers to accomplish those Transformational objectives (Yukl, 1998). While transactional leaders focus on exchange relations with versus servant followers, transformational leaders inspire followers to higher levels of performance for the sake of the organization (Burns, 1998; Yukl, 1998). The very definition of leadership transformational leadership states the building of commitment to the organizational objectives (Yukl, 1998). The primary focus is on the organization, with follower development and empowerment secondary to accomplishing the organizational 355 objectives. The result, nonetheless, is enhanced follower performance (Burns, 1998; Yukl, 1998). In contrast, the servant leader is one who focuses on his or her followers. Servant leaders do not have particular affinity for the abstract corporation or organization; rather, they value the people who constitute the organization. This is not an emotional endeavor but rather an unconditional concern for the well-being of those who form the entity. This relational context is where the servant leader actually leads. Harvey (2001) states that: ...chasing profits is peripheral; the real point of business is to serve as one of the institutions through which society develops and exercises the capacity for constructive action (pp. 38-39). The servant leader does not serve with a primary focus on results; rather the servant leader focuses on service itself. Lubin (2001) proffers that the servant leader’s first responsibilities are relationships and people, and those relationships take precedence over the task and product. Servant leaders trust their followers to undertake actions that are in the best interest of the organization, even though the leaders do not primarily focus on organizational objectives. According to Bass (2000), servant leadership is “close to the transformational components of inspiration and individualized consideration” (p. 33). However, the stress of servant leadership is upon the leader’s aim to serve. This desire to serve people supersedes organizational objectives. Servant leadership is a belief that organizational goals will be achieved on a long-term basis only by first facilitating the growth, development, and general well-being of the individuals who comprise the organization. Conversely, Bass states that transformational leaders strive to align their own and others’ interests with the good of the group, organization, or society. The primary aim is organizational conformance and performance more than it is service to and facilitation of followers. Harvey (2001) contends that the servant leader’s primary objective is the workers and their growth, then the customer base, and finally the Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) organizational bottom line.

Historical context The differences identified heretofore between transformational leadership and servant leadership are logical extensions of some of the primary themes in the leadership literature. Various research studies dating back to the middle part of the twentieth century have identified a task or production dimension and a people or relationship dimension to leadership. The Ohio State University leadership studies (Stogdill and Coons, 1957) identified two primary elements of leadership: (1) Initiating structure, which deals with task behavior. (2) Consideration for workers, which concerns relationships. LODJ Studies at the University of Michigan (Likert, 1961, 1967) focused on similar concepts. 25,4 These studies examined the production orientation and employee orientation of leaders. They determined that the most effective leaders incorporate both dimensions but pay the most attention to employees. Blake and Mouton (1964) developed their well-known Leadership Gridw based on contrasting the two dimensions of: 356 (1) Concern for people. (2) Concern for production – again highlighting the dichotomy between task and relationship responsibilities in leadership. Although leadership research in the late 1970s began to concentrate less on a situational perspective and more on organizational performance (Behling and McFillen, 1996; Contee-Borders, 2002; Hunt, 1991), the task (production) and relationship (people) dimensions of leadership have continued in some of the contemporary leadership literature (Bass, 1990a). Transformational leadership and servant leadership are both high-order evolutions in leadership paradigms. Both theoretical frameworks emphasize a high concern for people and for production. However, transformational leadership incorporates a greater emphasis upon production because the leader has a stronger focus on organizational objectives. On the other hand, servant leadership involves a higher concern for people because the primary focus of the leader is upon his or her followers. Transformational leadership and servant leadership are not antithetical, nor is either paradigm inherently superior to the other. Rather, transformational leadership and servant leadership are similar, complementary but distinctly different concepts. The observable differences between transformational leadership and servant leadership are certainly logical in light of some of the primary themes that have pervaded the leadership field. The differences between the theories in practice may be a function of both the organizational context in which the leaders operate and the personal values of the leaders.

The emergence of influence and motivation Another area of emerging distinction between transformational leaders and servant leaders is that of follower influence and motivation resulting from the focus of the

Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) leader. Anecdotal evidence suggests that transformational leaders rely more on their charismatic attributes to influence followers, whereas servant leaders significantly influence followers through service itself. The motive of the servant leader’s influence is not to direct others but rather to motivate and facilitate service and stewardship by the followers themselves. It is a humble means for affecting follower behavior. Servant leaders rely upon service to establish the purposes for meaningful work and to provide needed resources. It is a characteristically unique method for stimulating and influencing the behavior of others. Transformational leaders rely upon their charismatic abilities. Bass (1960) and Etzioni (1961) identified charisma as a form of personal power. Instead of focusing on service as a means to motivation, transformational leaders rely more on their charismatic, enthusiastic nature to garner influence and motivate followers. They seek to get followers to commit to various organizational goals and facilitate organizational Transformational objectives. Bass (1990b) said: versus servant Attaining charisma in the eyes of one’s employees is central to succeeding as a leadership transformational leader. Charismatic leaders have great power and influence ...[they] inspire and excite employees with the idea that they may be able to accomplish great things (p. 21). In essence, transformational leaders develop a type of influence derived from their 357 expertise, strength of relationships, and charismatic abilities. Servant leaders, however, derive influence from service itself. They develop relationships where followers are encouraged to follow their lead of service. McKenna (1989) notes that servant-power is a category of influence outside the traditional kinds of power. Real servanthood is a leadership style that relies upon the influence of self-giving without self-glory.

Risks of manipulation and corruption Because leaders garner power, all forms of leadership carry with them the possibility for manipulation and corruption. This negative side of leadership is potentially problematic for persons aspiring to either transformational or servant leadership. The sources of influence and motivation inherent in the two leadership concepts carry with them certain distinct possibilities for manipulation. In transformational leadership, personal power in the form of charisma can be very influential upon followers. In fact, the strength of the leader’s charisma may determine his or her overall effectiveness. Strongly charismatic leaders can develop loyal, enthusiastic followers who may tend to overlook negative traits in their leaders. Consequently, if the leaders’ motives or ethical standards are poor, they can manipulate their loyal constituency. Conger (1990) argued that there can be a dark side to leadership. For example, leaders who are driven to accomplish their visions may ignore problems and misrepresent the realism of their visions. Clements and Washbush (1999) specifically assailed transformational leadership models for having overlooked potentially negative issues in leader-follower dynamics. Similarly, Kets de Vries (1993) cited personality problems that can lead to poor leader-follower relationships. For example, some leaders have narcissistic tendencies – they thrive on power and enjoy manipulation. Some followers have dependent dispositions and form strong

Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) connections to leaders who satisfy their dependency needs (Kets de Vries, 1989). Such imperfect human tendencies can lead to problems among charismatic leaders and their followers. History is replete with examples of political, religious, business, and other charismatic leaders who have manipulated their followers. Charisma may have allowed them to ascend to leadership positions, but they ultimately used their charisma in oppressive ways. Of course, such leaders whose standards are poor really function outside the genre of the ideal transformational leadership paradigm. Since servant leaders do not rely on charisma, the risk of manipulation in this form of leadership comes from a different source. Servant leaders rely upon service, and in so doing, they endear the followers to the leaders in reciprocal relationships. Cialdini (2001) identified reciprocation as a primary means by which to influence people. According to the principle of reciprocation, when you do something for another person they are psychologically obliged to return the favor. Optimally, servant leaders have LODJ motives that have the best interest of others in mind. Therefore, they should develop a 25,4 positive form of reciprocation whereby they encourage followers to respond not by serving the leader but by serving others. Of course, this law of reciprocity can potentially be used negatively. Persons who seek to be servant leaders, but have poor motives, can take advantage of others by inducing them to return acts of service. Such self-centered service can rapidly 358 degenerate into a form of manipulation that can be more subtly coercive than overt exploitive behavior. However, those who use service for manipulative purposes abdicate the real responsibility of genuine servant leadership. Clearly, both transformational leadership and servant leadership, like other leadership models, have potentially negative aspects. Yet the benefits of the two concepts far outweigh their negative sides. Additional investigation and field studies into the role influence and motivation play in transformational and servant leadership will further distinguish the characteristics of the concepts.

Research on servant leadership There is a long line of research focusing on transformational leadership. However, academic research on servant leadership is still in its infancy. Thus far, the research on servant leadership has focused mostly on the comparison of the servant leadership concept to other leadership methods and the identification of specific characteristics of servant leadership (see Farling et al., 1999; Giampetro-Meyer et al., 1998; Laub, 1999; Russell, 2000; Tice, 1996). Farling et al. (1999) presented a concept of leadership based on the variables of vision, influence, credibility, trust, and service – characteristics of servant leadership frequently noted in the popular press. They concluded that servant leaders find the source of their values in a spiritual base. Furthermore, they argued that empowering followers allows the servant leader to act on his or her embedded values. James Laub (1999) studied servant leadership in an attempt to define specific characteristics of the servant leadership concept through a written, measurable instrument. His research validates the idea of values as the basis for servant leadership. However, he qualified his conclusions by stating that additional empirical research is necessary to fully understand the relationship between values and servant leadership. Similarly, Horsman (2001) studied the idea of servant leadership as an emerging model of leadership and identified a relationship between servant leadership

Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) and the personal aspects of spirit. Russell (2000, 2001) focused on understanding the values and attributes of servant leaders. He hypothesized that servant leaders possess different personal values than non-servant leaders, and these personal values are tied to the attributes of leadership. His research provided evidence of a relationship between values and leadership; however, the results indicated the need for additional empirical studies to further examine and validate the link. Academic work in the field of servant leadership is growing. Since the concept continues to gain attention in practice, we can expect to see additional research in the area. Further academic studies will help us understand what leaders are willing to do to establish sustainable success and long-term productivity using servant leadership. The ability to clearly distinguish servant leadership from transformational leadership opens the door for clear definitions, constructs, and instrumentation. Conclusion Transformational The overviews of transformational leadership and servant leadership contained herein versus servant reveal many basic similarities between the two leadership theories. Both transformational leaders and servant leaders are visionaries, generate high levels of leadership trust, serve as role models, show consideration for others, delegate responsibilities, empower followers, teach, communicate, listen, and influence followers. Certainly, transformational leadership and servant leadership are not antithetical theories. 359 Rather, they are complementary ideologies because they both describe excellent forms of leadership. Nonetheless, there are significant points of variation in the concepts. Most importantly, transformational leaders tend to focus more on organizational objectives while servant leaders focus more on the people who are their followers. The world has become more complicated, and dynamic times require dynamic, driven leaders (Williams, 1998). Both transformational leadership and servant leadership offer the conceptual framework for dynamic leadership. While transformational leadership has been well researched, and has become popular in practice, servant leadership theory needs further support. Nonetheless, servant leadership offers great opportunities for leaders. Like transformational leadership, servant leadership can bring about real change in organizations, albeit through different means. When followers recognize that their leaders truly follow the ideals of servant leadership, then the followers are apparently more likely to become servants themselves, which decreases customer churn and increases long-term profitability and success (Braham, 1999). Overall, both servant leadership and transformational leadership offer valid, yet distinct paradigms for contemporary leadership in all types of organizations.

References Avolio, B.J. and Bass, B.M. (2002), Developing Potential across a Full Range of Leadership Cases on Transactional and Transformational Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Avolio, B., Waldman, D. and Yammarino, F. (1991), “Leading in the 1990s: the four Is of transformational leadership”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 9-16. Bass, B.M. (1960), Leadership, Psychology, and Organizational Behavior, Harper, New York, NY. Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) Bass, B.M. (1985a), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, The Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M. (1985b), “Leadership: good, better, best”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 26-40. Bass, B.M. (1990a), Bass and Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications, 3rd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY. Bass, B.M. (1990b), “From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 19-31. Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Bass, B.M. (2000), “The future of leadership in learning organizations”, Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 18-40. LODJ Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990), Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Consulting 25,4 Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, CA. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994), “Introduction”, in Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (Eds), Improving Organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Behling, O. and McFillen, J.M. (1996), “A syncretical model of charismatic/transformational 360 leadership”, Group and Organizational Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 163-91. Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge, HarperCollins, New York, NY. Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964), The Managerial Grid, Gulf Publishing, Houston, TX. Braham, J. (1999), “The spiritual side”, Industry Week, Vol. 248 No. 3, pp. 48-56. Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, NY. Burns, J.M. (1998), “Transactional and transforming leadership”, in Hickman, G.R. (Ed.), Leading Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 133-4. Cialdini, R.B. (2001), Influence: Science and Practice, Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA. Clements, C. and Washbush, J.B. (1999), “The two faces of leadership: considering the dark side of leader-follower dynamics”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 146-8. Conger, J.A. (1990), “The dark side of leadership”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 44-55. Contee-Borders, A.K. (2002), “A case study defining servant leadership in the workplace”, Digital Dissertations, 3069348. Daft, R.L. (2002), The Leadership Experience, South-Western, Mason, OH. Etzioni, A. (1961), A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations, Free Press, New York, NY. Farling, M.L., Stone, A.G. and Winston, B.E. (1999), “Servant leadership: setting the stage for empirical research”, The Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 6 No. 1/2, pp. 49-72. Giampetro-Meyer, A., Brown, T., Browne, S.J. and Kubasek, N. (1998), “Do we really want more leaders in business?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 15, pp. 1727-36. Greenleaf, R.K. (1969), “Leadership and the individual: the Dartmouth lectures”, in Frick, D.M. and Spears, L.C. (Eds), On Becoming a Servant Leader, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA, pp. 284-338. Greenleaf, R.K. (1977), Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness, Paulist Press, New York, NY. Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) Harvey, M. (2001), “The hidden force: a critique of normative approaches to business leadership”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 36-48. Horsman, J.H. (2001), “Perspectives of servant leadership and spirit in organizations”, Dissertation Abstracts Online, 8936785. Hunt, J.G. (1991), Leadership: A New Synthesis, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Jung, D.I. and Avolio, B.J. (2000), “Opening the black box: an experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 949-64. Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1989), Prisoners of Leadership, Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1993), Leaders, Fools and Imposters: Essays on the Psychology of Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Kirkpatrick, S. and Locke, E. (1996), “Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic Transformational leadership components on performance and attitudes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 36-51. versus servant Laub, J.A. (1999), “Assessing the servant organization: development of the servant organizational leadership leadership assessment (SOLA) instrument”, Dissertations Abstracts Online, 9921922. Likert, R. (1961), New Patterns of Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Likert, R. (1967), The Human Organization: Its Management and Value, McGraw-Hill, New York, 361 NY. Lubin, K.A. (2001), “Visionary leader behaviors and their congruency with servant leadership characteristics”, Dissertation Abstracts Online, 3022943. McKenna, D.L. (1989), Power to Follow, Grace to Lead: Strategy for the Future of Christian Leadership, Word Publishing, Dallas, TX. McMinn, T.F. (2001), “The conceptualization and perception of biblical servant leadership in the southern Baptist convention”, Digital Dissertations, 3007038. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S. and Bommer, W.H. (1996), “Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 259-98. Pollard, C.W. (1996), The Soul of the Firm, HarperBusiness and Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI. Russell, R.F. (2000), “Exploring the values and attributes of servant leaders”, Doctoral dissertation, 5359435. Russell, R.F. (2001), “The role of values in servant leadership”, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 76-83. Russell, R.F. and Stone, A.G. (2002), “A review of servant leadership attributes: developing a practical model”, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 145-57. Shamir, B. (1995), “Social distance and charisma: theoretical notes and an exploratory study”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-47. Spears, L. (1995), “Servant-leadership and the Greenleaf legacy”, in Spears, L. (Ed.), Reflections on Leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s Theory of Servant-leadership Influenced Today’s Top Management Thinkers, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, pp. 1-14. Spears, L. (1996), “Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant-leadership”, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 33-5.

Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) Stogdill, R.M. and Coons, A.E. (Eds.) (1957), Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement, The Ohio State University Bureau of Business Research, Columbus, OH. Tice, L. (1996), “Traits of limitless leaders”, Association Management, Vol. 48, p. 16. Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A. (1986), The Transformational Leader: The Key to Global Competitiveness, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Tracey, J.B. and Hinkin, T.R. (1998), “Transformational leadership or effective managerial practices?”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 23, pp. 220-36. Williams, L.E. (1998), Servants of the People: The 1960s Legacy of African-American Leadership, St Martin’s Press, New York, NY. Yukl, G. (1998), Leadership in Organizations, 4th ed., Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. Yukl, G. (2002), Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ. This article has been cited by:

1. Reynaldo G. Rivera, David Santos, Manuel Martín-Fernández. 2017. Spanish validation of the Servant Leadership Short Scale for young adults and adolescents / Validación de la Escala de Liderazgo de Servicio Versión Abreviada en español para jóvenes adultos y adolescentes. Revista de Psicología Social 32:2, 395-423. [CrossRef] 2. L. Booth, S. Henwood, P.K. Miller. 2017. Leadership and the everyday practice of Consultant Radiographers in the UK: Transformational ideals and the generation of self-efficacy. Radiography 23:2, 125-129. [CrossRef] 3. PearseNoel James Noel James Pearse [email protected] Rhodes Business School, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa . 2017. Service of followers as a leadership competency: a social exchange perspective. Journal of Management Development 36:3, 361-375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 4. SousaMilton Milton Sousa [email protected] van DierendonckDirk Dirk van Dierendonck [email protected] Finance Center, Nova School of Business and Economics, Lisbon, Portugal Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands . 2017. Servant leaders as underestimators: theoretical and practical implications. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 38:2, 270-283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 5. WilliamsWallace Alexander Jr Wallace Alexander Williams Jr Wallace Alexander Williams Jr is an Assistant Professor in the College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Texas A&M University – Commerce, where he teaches Organizational Behavior and Human Resources. His primarily research interests include leadership and management history. He earned his PhD in Management from The University of Mississippi (Oxford) and his Bachelor of Arts from Morehouse College (Atlanta, GA). Additionally, he has extensive experience as both a social entrepreneur and a business professional. BrandonRandolph-Seng Randolph-Seng Brandon [email protected] Brandon Randolph-Seng is an Assistant Professor of Management in the College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Texas A&M University – Commerce. He received his PhD from Texas Tech University. His research interests include the social and cognitive factors involved in leadership, groups and entrepreneurship. HayekMario Mario Hayek [email protected] Mario Hayek is an Assistant Professor in the College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Texas A&M University – Commerce. He obtained a PhD in Management from the University of Mississippi. His research interests include management history, entrepreneurial cognition, social responsibility and ethics. He has been teaching entrepreneurship and strategic management at the undergraduate and graduate levels for over 13 years. In addition, he has acquired over 15 years of experience as an international entrepreneur. HadenStephanie Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) Pane Stephanie Pane Haden [email protected] Stephanie Pane Haden is an Associate Professor of Management in the College of Business and Entrepreneurship at Texas A&M University – Commerce. She obtained a PhD in Management from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Her research interests include management history, leadership and motivation, green management, and corporate social responsibility. She teaches courses in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management. Her work has appeared in various outlets such as Management Decision, Sloan Management Review, the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, and the Journal of Management History. AtincGuclu Guclu Atinc [email protected] Guclu Atinc is an Assistant Professor of Management at Texas A&M University – Commerce. He received his DBA from Louisiana Tech University. His current research interests are in the area of upper echelons and boards of directors in young entrepreneurial firms and on the impact of environment in strategic decision making along with research methods in strategic management. His research appeared in journals like Organizational Research Methods, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies and Journal of Managerial Issues among others. Department of Marketing and Management, Texas A&M University – Commerce, Commerce, Texas, USA . 2017. Servant leadership and followership creativity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 38:2, 178-193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 6. Sut I. Wong. 2017. Influencing upward: subordinates’ responses to leaders’ (un)awareness of their empowerment expectations. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 3, 1-31. [CrossRef] 7. Salas-VallinaAndrés Andrés Salas-Vallina [email protected] López-CabralesÁlvaro Álvaro López- Cabrales [email protected] AlegreJoaquin Joaquin Alegre [email protected] FernándezRafael Rafael Fernández [email protected] Department of Business Management, Facultat d’Economia, Universitat de Valencia, Valencia, Spain and Department of Business Management, Universidad Catolica de Valencia San Vicente Martir, Valencia, Spain Department of Business Management, University Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain Department of Management, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain Department of Business Management, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain . 2017. On the road to happiness at work (HAW). Personnel Review 46:2, 314-338. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 8. Michiel Coetzer, Mark Bussin, Madelyn Geldenhuys. 2017. The Functions of a Servant Leader. Administrative Sciences 7:1, 5. [CrossRef] 9. DuttaSumedha Sumedha Dutta [email protected] Sumedha Dutta is Assistant Professor at the Department of Management, Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies, Delhi, India. She is presently working as an Assistant Professor with Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies, Delhi. She is a Research Scholar at University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi. She is pursuing her doctoral work in the area of servant leadership and positive psychology. Her keen research areas include organization behaviour and human resource management. She has 10 papers published in national and international journals and conference proceedings to her credit. KhatriPuja Puja Khatri [email protected] Puja Khatri is Professor at the University School of Management, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi, India. She is currently working as a Professor at University School of Management Studies, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi. She has her PhD degree in Organizational Behaviour and Higher Education. Also, she is a trained and a Certified Behaviour Analyst with specialization in Psychometric Profiling. In her rich 17 years of experience in teaching, research and consultancy, she has published more than 90 research papers and articles in journals and conferences of national and international repute. Department of Management, Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies, Delhi, India University School of Management, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi, India . 2017. Servant leadership and positive organizational behaviour: the road ahead to reduce employees’ turnover Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) intentions. On the Horizon 25:1, 60-82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 10. Qian Ling, Fang Liu, Xiaoyi Wu. 2017. Servant Versus Authentic Leadership. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 58:1, 53-68. [CrossRef] 11. Jon Welty Peachey, Laura Burton. 2017. Servant Leadership in Sport for Development and Peace: A Way Forward. Quest 69:1, 125-139. [CrossRef] 12. Ingmar van Meerkerk, Jurian Edelenbos. 2017. Facilitating conditions for boundary-spanning behaviour in governance networks. Public Management Review 1. [CrossRef] 13. Marc H. Anderson, Peter Y. T. Sun. 2017. Reviewing Leadership Styles: Overlaps and the Need for a New ‘Full-Range’ Theory. International Journal of Management Reviews 19:1, 76-96. [CrossRef] 14. Andrew Li, Kelly Davis McCauley, Jonathan A. Shaffer. 2017. The influence of leadership behavior on employee work-family outcomes: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review . [CrossRef] 15. Julia E. Hoch, William H. Bommer, James H. Dulebohn, Dongyuan Wu. 2016. Do Ethical, Authentic, and Servant Leadership Explain Variance Above and Beyond Transformational Leadership? A Meta- Analysis. Journal of Management 014920631666546. [CrossRef] 16. Mitchell J. Neubert, Emily M. Hunter, Remy C. Tolentino. 2016. A servant leader and their stakeholders: When does organizational structure enhance a leader's influence?. The Leadership Quarterly 27:6, 896-910. [CrossRef] 17. Marcel F. van Assen. 2016. Exploring the impact of higher management’s leadership styles on Lean management. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1-30. [CrossRef] 18. Zeljka Vidic, Damon Burton, Gregory South, Anthony M. Pickering, Amanda Start. 2016. Emotional and Motivational Correlates of Leadership Styles: A Comprehensive Framework for Understanding Effective Leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies 10:3, 22-40. [CrossRef] 19. Lynelle Coxen, Leoni van der Vaart, Marius W. Stander. 2016. Authentic leadership and organisational citizenship behaviour in the public health care sector: The role of workplace trust. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 42:1. . [CrossRef] 20. Winifrida Malingumu, Jeroen Stouten, Martin Euwema, Emmanuel Babyegeya. 2016. Servant Leadership, Organisational Citizenship Behavior and Creativity: The Mediating Role of Team-Member Exchange. Psychologica Belgica 56:4, 1-15. [CrossRef] 21. Mojtaba Vaismoradi, Pauline Griffiths, Hannele Turunen, Sue Jordan. 2016. Transformational leadership in nursing and medication safety education: a discussion paper. Journal of Nursing Management 24:7, 970-980. [CrossRef] 22. Otero-NeiraCarmen Carmen Otero-Neira Carmen Otero-Neira is an Associate Professor of Marketing in the Economics and Business School at the University of Vigo. She holds a PhD in Business Administration from this University. Dr Otero-Neira’s current research interest includes services marketing and sales management. She has published in journals such us Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Journal of Strategic Marketing, International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing or International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management (forthcoming) among others. Varela-NeiraConcepción Concepción Varela-Neira Concepción Varela-Neira is an Associate Professor in Marketing at the University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain). Her current research interests include distribution channels, sales management, and service failures and perceptions of justice in the services markets. She has Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) presented papers at various academic meetings and conferences. Her recent articles have been published in the Journal of Service Management, The Service Industries Journal, International Journal of Bank Marketing, and Journal of Financial Services Marketing, among other journals. BandeBelén Belén Bande Belén Bande is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the University of Santiago de Compostela, in Spain. She holds a Bachelor of Law and a Bachelor of Business Administration from the ICADE University (Madrid, Spain). She received her PhD in Business Administration from the University of Santiago de Compostela. Her research interests include sales management, consumer behavior, and new product development. She has published on these topics in a variety of journals, such as Journal of Organizational Behavior, Food Quality and Preference, Industrial Marketing Management, Psychology and Marketing, Technovation, European Journal of Marketing, International Journal of Emerging Markets, Creativity and Innovation Management and Global Business and Economics Review. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, University of Vigo, Vigo, Spain Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, University of Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, Spain . 2016. Supervisory servant leadership and employee’s work role performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 37:7, 860-881. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 23. Guiyao Tang, Ho Kwong Kwan, Deyuan Zhang, Zhou Zhu. 2016. Work–Family Effects of Servant Leadership: The Roles of Emotional Exhaustion and Personal Learning. Journal of Business Ethics 137:2, 285-297. [CrossRef] 24. Kayla N. Walters, Dalia L. Diab. 2016. Humble Leadership: Implications for Psychological Safety and Follower Engagement. Journal of Leadership Studies 10:2, 7-18. [CrossRef] 25. John E. Barbuto, Ryan K. Gottfredson. 2016. Human Capital, the Millennial's Reign, and the Need For Servant Leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies 10:2, 59-63. [CrossRef] 26. Brenda Griffin, Philip A. Bushby, Emily McCobb, Sara C. White, Y. Karla Rigdon-Brestle, Leslie D. Appel, Kathleen V. Makolinski, Christine L. Wilford, Mark W. Bohling, Susan M. Eddlestone, Kelly A. Farrell, Nancy Ferguson, Kelly Harrison, Lisa M. Howe, Natalie M. Isaza, Julie K. Levy, Andrea Looney, Michael R. Moyer, Sheilah Ann Robertson, Kathy Tyson. 2016. The Association of Shelter Veterinarians’ 2016 Veterinary Medical Care Guidelines for Spay-Neuter Programs. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 249:2, 165-188. [CrossRef] 27. Hugo Asencio. 2016. Leadership, trust, and job satisfaction in the public sector: A study of US federal employees. International Review of Public Administration 21:3, 250-267. [CrossRef] 28. Vaneet Kashyap, Santosh Rangnekar. 2016. Servant leadership, employer brand perception, trust in leaders and turnover intentions: a sequential mediation model. Review of Managerial Science 10:3, 437-461. [CrossRef] 29. GARY SCHWARZ, ALEXANDER NEWMAN, BRIAN COOPER, NATHAN EVA. 2016. SERVANT LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWER JOB PERFORMANCE: THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF PUBLIC SERVICE MOTIVATION. Public Administration . [CrossRef] 30. Rebecca VanMeter, Lawrence B. Chonko, Douglas B. Grisaffe, Emily A. Goad. 2016. In search of clarity on servant leadership: domain specification and reconceptualization. AMS Review 6:1-2, 59-78. [CrossRef] 31. Kyoung Yong Kim, Robert Eisenberger, Kibok Baik. 2016. Perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment: Moderating influence of perceived organizational competence. Journal of Organizational Behavior 37:4, 558-583. [CrossRef] 32. Sang-Kyu Hwang. 2016. The Effects of Servant Leadership on Organizational Identification and Innovative Behavior. Journal of the Korea Safety Management and Science 18:1, 191-201. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) 33. Rusliza Yahaya Sultan Idris University of Education, Perak, Malaysia Fawzy Ebrahim Applied Research Center, Nova Southeastern University, Orlando, Florida, USA . 2016. Leadership styles and organizational commitment: literature review. Journal of Management Development 35:2, 190-216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 34. Dirk van Dierendonck Milton Sousa Finding Meaning in Highly Uncertain Situations: Servant Leadership during Change 403-424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF] 35. Dave Bouckenooghe, Bulent Menguç. 2016. Understanding the dynamics between supervisor-follower social capital, work engagement, and employees' creative work involvement. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration . [CrossRef] 36. Sandra Gutierrez-Wirsching Division of International Business & Technology Studies, Texas A&M International University, Laredo, Texas, USA Jacqueline Mayfield Division of International Business & Technology Studies, Texas A&M International University, Laredo, Texas, USA Milton Mayfield Division of International Business & Technology Studies, Texas A&M International University, Laredo, Texas, USA Wei Wang Division of International Business & Technology Studies, Texas A&M International University, Laredo, Texas, USA . 2015. Motivating language as a mediator between servant leadership and employee outcomes. Management Research Review 38:12, 1234-1250. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 37. Martha A. van der Wal, Fedde Scheele, Johanna Schönrock-Adema, A. Debbie C. Jaarsma, Janke Cohen- Schotanus. 2015. Leadership in the clinical workplace: what residents report to observe and supervisors report to display: an exploratory questionnaire study. BMC Medical Education 15:1. . [CrossRef] 38. W. Kohle Paul, Colleen Fitzpatrick. 2015. Advising as Servant Leadership: Investigating Student Satisfaction. NACADA Journal 35:2, 28-35. [CrossRef] 39. Nancy Gard McGehee, Whitney Knollenberg, Amy Komorowski. 2015. The central role of leadership in rural tourism development: a theoretical framework and case studies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 23:8-9, 1277-1297. [CrossRef] 40. Munevver Olcum Cetin, F. Sehkar Fayda Kinik. 2015. An Analysis of Academic Leadership Behavior from the Perspective of Transformational Leadership. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 207, 519-527. [CrossRef] 41. A. Newman, G. Schwarz, B. Cooper, S. Sendjaya. 2015. How Servant Leadership Influences Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Roles of LMX, Empowerment, and Proactive Personality. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef] 42. Jon Aarum Andersen Örebro University Business School, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden . 2015. Barking up the wrong tree. On the fallacies of the transformational leadership theory. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 36:6, 765-777. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 43. Bruce Winston School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, USA Dail Fields School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, USA . 2015. Seeking and measuring the essential behaviors of servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 36:4, 413-434. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 44. Khakhlong Chettha, Julsuwan Suwat, Somprach Kanokorn, Khangpheng Samrit. 2015. Development of program for enhancing the ideal desirable characteristic of basic school administrators. Educational Research and Reviews 10:10, 1458-1467. [CrossRef] 45. Fernando Jaramillo, Belén Bande, Jose Varela. 2015. Servant leadership and ethics: a dyadic examination of supervisor behaviors and salesperson perceptions. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 35:2, 108-124. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) 46. Dirk van Dierendonck, Kathleen Patterson. 2015. Compassionate Love as a Cornerstone of Servant Leadership: An Integration of Previous Theorizing and Research. Journal of Business Ethics 128:1, 119-131. [CrossRef] 47. Alfred Wong, Ying Liu, Dean Tjosvold. 2015. Service leadership for adaptive selling and effective customer service teams. Industrial Marketing Management 46, 122-131. [CrossRef] 48. Meltem Akbulut, Fatma Nevra Seggie, Bengü Börkan. 2015. Faculty member perceptions of department head leadership effectiveness at a state university in Turkey. International Journal of Leadership in Education 1-24. [CrossRef] 49. Li Ma, Anne S. Tsui. 2015. Traditional Chinese philosophies and contemporary leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 26:1, 13-24. [CrossRef] 50. Carole Orchard, Margot RykhoffCollaborative Leadership within Interprofessional Practice 71-94. [CrossRef] 51. Satinder DhimanGandhi: A Values-Based Leader Par Excellence 93-116. [CrossRef] 52. Robert Emmerling, Basak Canboy, Ricard Serlavos, Joan Manuel Batista-FoguetLeadership Education: Theory and Practice 655-663. [CrossRef] 53. Bradley Johnson, Myriam Abi Hayla, Peter J Jewesson, Carolyn Byrne, Mohamed El-Tawil, Mohamud A. Verjee. 2015. Core Interprofessional Education (IPE) health competencies: The process of adaptation and implementation for a local environment. Journal of Local and Global Health Science 2015:1, 3. [CrossRef] 54. Daniel T.L. Shek, Xiang Li. 2015. Nurturing students to be caring service leaders. International Journal on Disability and Human Development 14:4. . [CrossRef] 55. Nam Yong Jo, Kun Chang Lee, Dae Sung Lee, Minhee Hahn. 2015. Empirical analysis of roles of perceived leadership styles and trust on team members’ creativity: Evidence from Korean ICT companies. Computers in Human Behavior 42, 149-156. [CrossRef] 56. Daniel T.L. Shek, Li Lin. 2015. Core beliefs in the service leadership model proposed by the Hong Kong Institute of Service Leadership and Management. International Journal on Disability and Human Development 14:3. . [CrossRef] 57. Hiroko MAEDA, Yasuo YAMAGUCHI, Shunichi TAKESHITA. 2015. Leadership Behaviors Expected by Volunteer Student Coaches in Sports Clubs: A Case Study Using SL Theory Model. Journal of Japan Society of Sports Industry 25:2, 2_217-2_229. [CrossRef] 58. Daniel T.L. Shek, Li Lin. 2015. Leadership and mentorship: service leaders as mentors of the followers. International Journal on Disability and Human Development 14:4. . [CrossRef] 59. Dirk De Clercq, Dave Bouckenooghe, Usman Raja, Ganna Matsyborska. 2014. Unpacking the Goal Congruence–Organizational Deviance Relationship: The Roles of Work Engagement and Emotional Intelligence. Journal of Business Ethics 124:4, 695-711. [CrossRef] 60. Naeimeh Elkhani Department of Information System, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Skudai, Malaysia Sheida Soltani Department of Information System, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Skudai, Malaysia Mohammad Nazir Ahmad Department of Information System, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Skudai, Malaysia . 2014. The effects of transformational leadership and ERP system self-efficacy on ERP system usage. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 27:6, 759-785. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 61. Mustafa Koyuncu Faculty of Tourism, Canakkale Onsekizmart University, Canakkale, Turkey Ronald J. Burke Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, Canada Marina Astakhova Department of Management and Marketing, University of Texas, Tyler, Texas, USA Duygu Eren Faculty of Tourism,

Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) Nevsehir University, Nevsehir, Turkey Hayrullah Cetin Faculty of Tourism, Nevsehir University, Nevsehir, Turkey . 2014. Servant leadership and perceptions of service quality provided by front-line service workers in hotels in Turkey. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 26:7, 1083-1099. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 62. William I. Norton Jr Department of Management, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia, USA Monique L. Ueltschy Murfield Department of Marketing and Logistics, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia, USA Melissa S. Baucus Department of Management, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA . 2014. Leader emergence: the development of a theoretical framework. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 35:6, 513-529. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 63. Colette Hoption. 2014. Learning and Developing Followership. Journal of Leadership Education 13:3, 129-137. [CrossRef] 64. Barbara Van Winkle, Stuart Allen, Douglas DeVore, Bruce Winston. 2014. The Relationship Between the Servant Leadership Behaviors of Immediate Supervisors and Followers’ Perceptions of Being Empowered in the Context of Small Business. Journal of Leadership Education 13:3, 70-82. [CrossRef] 65. Nam-Hee Ye, Ha-Young Min. 2014. The Structural Relationship between Director's Servant Leadership, Teacher's Empowerment and Organizational Cynicism Affecting on Teacher's Organizational Commitment at Kindergartens and Child Care Centers. Korean Journal of Child Studies 35:3, 119-135. [CrossRef] 66. Dirk De Clercq, Dave Bouckenooghe, Usman Raja, Ganna Matsyborska. 2014. Servant Leadership and Work Engagement: The Contingency Effects of Leader-Follower Social Capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly 25:2, 183-212. [CrossRef] 67. Dirk van Dierendonck, Daan Stam, Pieter Boersma, Ninotchka de Windt, Jorrit Alkema. 2014. Same difference? Exploring the differential mechanisms linking servant leadership and transformational leadership to follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 25:3, 544-562. [CrossRef] 68. Robert E. Overstreet, Benjamin T. Hazen, Joseph B. Skipper, Joe B. Hanna. 2014. Bridging the Gap Between Strategy and Performance: Using Leadership Style to Enable Structural Elements. Journal of Business Logistics n/a-n/a. [CrossRef] 69. Hannes Zacher, Liane K. Pearce, David Rooney, Bernard McKenna. 2014. Leaders’ Personal Wisdom and Leader–Member Exchange Quality: The Role of Individualized Consideration. Journal of Business Ethics 121:2, 171-187. [CrossRef] 70. Dr Harald Pechlaner, Dr Metin Kozak, Mr Michael Volgger Pietro Beritelli Associate Professor, IMP- HSG, University of St Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland Thomas Bieger Professor, IMP-HSG, University of St Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland . 2014. From destination governance to destination leadership – defining and exploring the significance with the help of a systemic perspective. Tourism Review 69:1, 25-46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 71. Frankie J. Weinberg, William B. Locander. 2014. Advancing workplace spiritual development: A dyadic mentoring approach. The Leadership Quarterly 25:2, 391-408. [CrossRef] 72. Simon C.H. Chan Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Wai-ming Mak Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong . 2014. The impact of servant leadership and subordinates' organizational tenure on trust in leader and attitudes. Personnel Review 43:2, 272-287. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 73. Tamar Shultz. 2014. Evaluating Moral Issues in Motivation Theories: Lessons from Marketing and Advertising Practices. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 26:1, 1-20. [CrossRef] Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) 74. Ani Wahyu Rachmawati, Donald C. Lantu. 2014. Servant Leadership Theory Development & Measurement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 115, 387-393. [CrossRef] 75. Armin Pircher Verdorfer, Claudia Peus. 2014. The Measurement of Servant Leadership. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie A&O 58:1, 1-16. [CrossRef] 76. Wei-Ling Tchong. 2014. A review of Catholic school leadership in Taiwan. International Journal of Research Studies in Management 3:1. . [CrossRef] 77. Lim Jin-Seop. 2013. A Study on the Self-Sufficiency Performance of the Middle-Old Aged: an Analysis of Interaction Effect of Individual Factors and Local self-support center’s Factors. Korea Social Policy Review 20:4, 37-75. [CrossRef] 78. 송송송, 송송송. 2013. Relationship between Leadership and Followership of Hotel F&B Organization. FoodService Industry Journal 9:3, 93-102. [CrossRef] 79. Long-Zeng Wu, Eliza Ching-Yick Tse, Pingping Fu, Ho Kwong Kwan, Jun Liu. 2013. The Impact of Servant Leadership on Hotel Employees’ “Servant Behavior”. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 54:4, 383-395. [CrossRef] 80. Benjamin G. Voyer ESCP Europe, London, UK and Institute of Social Psychology, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK Bryan McIntosh Richmond University, London, UK and Division of Women's Health, School of Medicine, King's College, London, UK . 2013. The psychological consequences of power on self-perception: implications for leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 34:7, 639-660. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 81. Nathan EvaDepartment of Management, Monash University, Caulfield, Australia Sen SendjayaDepartment of Management, Monash University, Caulfield, Australia. 2013. Creating future leaders: an examination of youth leadership development in Australia. Education + Training 55:6, 584-598. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 82. Joyce K.H. NgaTaylor's Business School, Taylor's University, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia Soo Wai Mun (Nadiah Soo)Taylor's Business School, Taylor's University, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. 2013. The perception of undergraduate students towards accountants and the role of accountants in driving organizational change. Education + Training 55:6, 500-519. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 83. Peter Y.T. Sun. 2013. The servant identity: Influences on the cognition and behavior of servant leaders. The Leadership Quarterly 24:4, 544-557. [CrossRef] 84. Ali Iftikhar Choudhary, Syed Azeem Akhtar, Arshad Zaheer. 2013. Impact of Transformational and Servant Leadership on Organizational Performance: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 116:2, 433-440. [CrossRef] 85. Bozena Poksinska, Dag Swartling, Erik Drotz. 2013. The daily work of Lean leaders – lessons from manufacturing and healthcare. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 24:7-8, 886-898. [CrossRef] 86. Laura Burton, Jon Welty Peachey. 2013. The Call for Servant Leadership in Intercollegiate Athletics. Quest 65:3, 354-371. [CrossRef] 87. Ji-Eun Lee, Barbara A. Almanza, SooCheong (Shawn) Jang, Douglas C. Nelson, Richard F. Ghiselli. 2013. Does transformational leadership style influence employees’ attitudes toward food safety practices?. International Journal of Hospitality Management 33, 282-293. [CrossRef] 88. 송송송, Lee Hwan-Beom. 2013. The Moderating Effect of Servant Leadership on Relationship between Job Stress and Customer Orientation: In Case of Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs. Korean Journal of Local Government & Administration Studies 27:2, 65-90. [CrossRef] Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) 89. Angus J. DuffSchool of Human Resource Management, York University, Toronto, Canada. 2013. Performance management coaching: servant leadership and gender implications. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 34:3, 204-221. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 90. Robin Stanley Snell, Zhang Yi, Almaz M.K. Chak. 2013. Representational predicaments for employees: their impact on perceptions of supervisors' individualized consideration and on employee job satisfaction. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24:8, 1646-1670. [CrossRef] 91. Ho Sun Lee, 송송송, 송송송, 송송송, 송송송. 2013. 송송송 송송송송 송송송송송송송 송송송 송송: 송송송 송송송송송송 송송송송 송송송송. Korean Review of Organizational Studies 10:1, 203-234. [CrossRef] 92. Beverly Alimo-MetcalfeA Critical Review of Leadership Theory 13-47. [CrossRef] 93. Denise Linda Parris, Jon Welty Peachey. 2012. Building a legacy of volunteers through servant leadership: A cause-related sporting event. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 23:2, 259-276. [CrossRef] 94. Lena Zander, Audra I. Mockaitis, Christina L. Butler. 2012. Leading global teams. Journal of World Business 47:4, 592-603. [CrossRef] 95. Haina Zhang, Ho Kwong Kwan, André M. Everett, Zhaoquan Jian. 2012. Servant leadership, organizational identification, and work-to-family enrichment: The moderating role of work climate for sharing family concerns. Human Resource Management 51:5, 747-767. [CrossRef] 96. Andrea Bobbio, Dirk Van Dierendonck, Anna Maria Manganelli. 2012. Servant leadership in Italy and its relation to organizational variables. Leadership 8:3, 229-243. [CrossRef] 97. Donald P. Moynihan, Bradley E. Wright, Sanjay K. Pandey. 2012. Working Within Constraints: Can Transformational Leaders Alter the Experience of Red Tape?. International Public Management Journal 15:3, 315-336. [CrossRef] 98. Trae Stewart. 2012. Classroom teacher leadership: service-learning for teacher sense of efficacy and servant leadership development. School Leadership & Management 32:3, 233-259. [CrossRef] 99. Jen-te Yang. 2012. Effects of ownership change on organizational settings and strategies in a Taiwanese hotel chain. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31:2, 428-441. [CrossRef] 100. Michel DionUniversité de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada. 2012. Are ethical theories relevant for ethical leadership?. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 33:1, 4-24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 101. Donghong Ding, Haiyan Lu, Yi Song, Qing Lu. 2012. Relationship of Servant Leadership and Employee Loyalty: The Mediating Role of Employee Satisfaction. iBusiness 04:03, 208-215. [CrossRef] 102. Han-Jin Hwan. 2011. Impact of the Intermediate of Empowerment on the Relationship between Servant Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association 11:9, 302-314. [CrossRef] 103. Dirk van Dierendonck, Inge Nuijten. 2011. The Servant Leadership Survey: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure. Journal of Business and Psychology 26:3, 249-267. [CrossRef] 104. Dirk van Dierendonck. 2011. Servant Leadership: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of Management 37:4, 1228-1261. [CrossRef] 105. Zeljka Vidic, Damon Burton. 2011. Developing Effective Leaders: Motivational Correlates of Leadership Styles. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 23:3, 277-291. [CrossRef] 106. Lora L. Reed, Deborah Vidaver-Cohen, Scott R. Colwell. 2011. A New Scale to Measure Executive Servant Leadership: Development, Analysis, and Implications for Research. Journal of Business Ethics 101:3, 415-434. [CrossRef] 107. Michaéla C. Schippers, René Hogenes. 2011. Energy Management of People in Organizations: A Review Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) and Research Agenda. Journal of Business and Psychology 26:2, 193-203. [CrossRef] 108. Sen Sendjaya, Brian Cooper. 2011. Servant Leadership Behaviour Scale: A hierarchical model and test of construct validity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 20:3, 416-436. [CrossRef] 109. Nicholas Clarke. 2011. An integrated conceptual model of respect in leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 22:2, 316-327. [CrossRef] 110. Inbal Nahum-Shani, Anit Somech. 2011. Leadership, OCB and individual differences: Idiocentrism and allocentrism as moderators of the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and OCB. The Leadership Quarterly 22:2, 353-366. [CrossRef] 111. Billy Brocato, Jonatan Jelen, Thomas Schmidt, Stuart Gold. 2011. Leadership conceptual ambiguities. Journal of Leadership Studies 5:1, 35-50. [CrossRef] 112. Sherry K. SchneiderDepartment of Psychology, University of West Florida, Pensacola, Florida, USA Winnette M. GeorgePoint Fortin, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies. 2011. Servant leadership versus transformational leadership in voluntary service organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 32:1, 60-77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 113. Nicola M. Pless, Thomas Maak. 2011. Responsible Leadership: Pathways to the Future. Journal of Business Ethics 98:S1, 3-13. [CrossRef] 114. Sen SendjayaDepartment of Management, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia Andre PekertiUniversity of Queensland Business School, UQ St Lucia, St Lucia, Australia. 2010. Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 31:7, 643-663. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 115. Judi Brownell. 2010. Leadership in the Service of Hospitality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 51:3, 363-378. [CrossRef] 116. Yusuf Cerit. 2010. The effects of servant leadership on teachers’ organizational commitment in primary schools in Turkey. International Journal of Leadership in Education 13:3, 301-317. [CrossRef] 117. 송송송. 2010. A Mediating Effect of Psychological Empowerment on the Relationship between Top Executives' Servant Leadership Level Perceived by Social Workers and Organizational Citizenship Behavior(OCB). Korean Journal of Social Welfare 62:2, 307-328. [CrossRef] 118. Bill R. Brocato, Jonatan Jelen, Thomas Schmidt, Stuart GoldA Postmodern Resolution to Leadership Conceptual Ambiguities 356-373. [CrossRef] 119. Jian-ming YaoComprehensive Correspondence Analyses between Logistics Service Concrete Modes and Three Series of Decision Drives 1-4. [CrossRef] 120. G. Lenssen, S. Tyson, S. Pickard and D. BevanBoleslaw RokBased at the Business Ethics Centre, Kozminski University, Warsaw, Poland. 2009. Ethical context of the participative leadership model: taking people into account. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 9:4, 461-472. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 121. Jeanine ParoliniJeanine Parolini Consulting, Chanhassen, Minnesota, USA Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA Kathleen PattersonSchool of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA Bruce WinstonSchool of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA. 2009. Distinguishing between transformational and servant leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 30:3, 274-291. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT) 122. Lee,Kyu-Yong, 송송송. 2009. The Relationships between Servant Leadership and Service Quality : The Mediating effects of Psychological Empowerment. Journal of Korea Service Management Society 10:1, 67-91. [CrossRef] 123. Jon Aarum AndersenLilllehammer University College, Lillehammer, Norway. 2009. When a servant‐ leader comes knocking …. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 30:1, 4-15. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 124. Sen Sendjaya, James C. Sarros, Joseph C. Santora. 2008. Defining and Measuring Servant Leadership Behaviour in Organizations. Journal of Management Studies 45:2, 402-424. [CrossRef] 125. Debra Jackson. 2008. Servant Leadership in Nursing: A framework for developing sustainable research capacity in nursing. Collegian 15:1, 27-33. [CrossRef] 126. Ann Marie RyanHow May I Help You? Editing as Service 27-38. [CrossRef] 127. Insuk Lee, 송송송, 송송송. 2007. A Study on the Effect of Catholic Church's Servant Leadership on Members' Attitude. The Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 20:4, 375-393. [CrossRef] 128. Erwin RauschDean ElmutiLumpkin College of Business and Applied Sciences, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, USA William MinnisLumpkin College of Business and Applied Sciences, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, USA Michael AbebeLumpkin College of Business and Applied Sciences, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, USA. 2005. Does education have a role in developing leadership skills?. Management Decision 43:7/8, 1018-1031. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 129. Jonatan Jelen, Billy Brocato, Thomas M. Schmidt, Stuart S. GoldIn Search of a Star Trek Affective State 42-59. [CrossRef] 130. Nathan S. Hartman, Thomas A. ConklinEthics and Leadership 873-891. [CrossRef] 131. Geraldine Torrisi-Steele“But We've Got No Power”: 42-54. [CrossRef] 132. Ben TranThe Origin of Servant Leadership: 31-63. [CrossRef] 133. Nathan S. Hartman, Thomas A. ConklinEthics and Leadership 182-200. [CrossRef] 134. Wallace A. Williams Jr., Christopher Thomas, Anthony P. Ammeter, Mario Hayek, Milorad M. NovicevicAccountability to a Servant Leader and OCB 1-23. [CrossRef] 135. Sharmila Jayasingam, Mahfooz A. AnsariLeading in a Knowledge Era 2038-2055. [CrossRef] 136. Claudio PousaMeasuring Servant Leadership 211-242. [CrossRef] 137. Ben TranThe Origin of Servant Leadership 262-294. [CrossRef] 138. Sharmila Jayasingham, Mahfooz A. AnsariLeading in a Knowledge Era 28-45. [CrossRef] 139. Kristen M. BowersServant Leadership Practices in a Volunteer-Led Organization 71-91. [CrossRef] 140. John Kilroy, Corné L. Bekker, Mihai C. Bocarnea, Bruce E. WinstonSeven Scales to Measure the Seven Beatitudes in Leaders 164-187. [CrossRef] 141. Chan Kyun Park, Doo Hun Lim, Boreum JuTransformational Leadership and Teacher Engagement in an International Context 22-42. [CrossRef] 142. Raj Selladurai, Shawn CarraherLead like the Greatest Leader! 350-355. [CrossRef] Downloaded by CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY At 23:31 30 April 2017 (PT)