BUS 440: Reading: Testing a Servant Leadership Theory Among United States Military Members

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 2, 2008, pp. 14-24

ISSN 1930-806X, editorelj@regent.edu

Testing a Servant Leadership Theory Among

United States Military Members

Matthew P. Earnhardt

Regent University

Servant leadership, first proposed by Greenleaf (1970), is an emergent leadership theory

postulating a leader must serve first. Patterson (2003), building on transformational and previous

servant leadership research, developed a model of servant leading based on the following: (a)

agapao love, (b) humility, (c) altruism, (d) vision, (e) trust, (f) empowerment, and (g) service.

This study tests Patterson’s theory of servant leadership in a military context by investigating the

relationship between the seven constructs in Patterson’s servant leadership model. Multi-rank

and service military members’ perception of servant leaders was assessed using the servant

leadership instrument developed by Dennis and Bocarnea (2005). Patterson’s servant leadership

model was supported by the study. The study pioneers servant leadership research in the military.

Servant Leadership in the Military

Servant leadership, first proposed by Greenleaf (1970), is an emergent leadership theory

postulating that a leader must serve first. As discussed by Yukl (2002) “a servant leader must

attend to the needs of followers and help them become healthier, wiser and more willing to

accept their responsibilities” (p. 424). In other words, a servant leader places the needs of the

followers above the leader’s own personal interests. As an emerging theory, servant leadership

has been the subject of few studies (Farling, Stone, & Winston, 1999; Irving & Longbotham,

2007; Joseph & Winston, 2005; Laub, 1999; Patterson, 2003; Russell, 2001; Russell & Stone,

2002; Stone, Russell, & Patterson, 2004; Winston, 2004). In an effort to address a gap in servant

leadership theory, Patterson, building on the foundation of transformational and previous servant

research, developed a model of servant leading based on the following: (a) agapao love, (b)

humility, (c) altruism, (d) vision, (e) trust, (f) empowerment, and (g) service. Patterson’s servant

EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS 15

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 2, 2008, pp. 14-24

ISSN 1930-806X, editorelj@regent.edu

leadership model still requires testing in varied contexts as only a few studies (Bryant, 2003;

Dillman, 2004; Dingman, 2006; Koshal, 2005; Nelson, 2003; Serrano, 2006) have tested

Patterson’s theory. It is therefore useful to investigate Patterson’s servant leadership model in the

military context. This research was carried out by utilizing Dennis & Bocarnea’s (2005) Servant

Leadership Assessment Instrument to further test Patterson’s assertions.

Literature Review

Servant leadership, as well as transformational leadership, has received significant

attention in the academe in recent years as an alternative leadership theory, particularly with the

focus on the leader-follower relationship being “central to ethical leadership” (Northouse, 2001,

p. 257). Transformational leadership, developed by Burns and servant leadership introduced by

Greenleaf has roots in charismatic leadership (Smith, Montagno, & Kuzmenko, 2004). Servant

leadership emerged from transformational leadership and they are similar in scope, although

transformational leadership’s focus is the primary benefit of the leader, while servant

leadership’s focus is on the benefit of the follower (Farling et al., 1999). This distinction has

been the focus of a study by Parolini (2007) who discovered five major distinctions between

transformational and servant leadership including: (a) focus on the individual or organizational

needs, (b) inclination to lead or serve, (c) allegiance and focus toward individual or organization,

(d) conventional or unconventional approach to influence, and (e) attempt to give or control

freedom through influence and persuasion. As the literature (Farling et al.; Parolini; Stone et al.,

2004; Washington, 2007; Whetstone, 2002) supports a distinction between transformational and

servant leadership, the need arose for a separate model for servant leadership. Patterson (2003)

developed a model of servant leading based on the following: (a) agapao love, (b) humility, (c)

altruism, (d) vision, (e) trust, (f) empowerment, and (g) service discussed below.

Agapao Love

Patterson (2003) originated the idea of agapao love for her model of servant leadership.

As stated by Patterson, “This love is shown by leaders who consider each person as a totalperson-

one with needs, wants and desires” (p. 8). Furthermore, Williams (2004) stated when

speaking of this form of love, that it is “patient, kind, demonstrates humility, respectfulness,

selflessness, forgiveness, honesty, and commitment” (p. 8). Agapao love in practice in an

organization involves the leader gaining influence through service of the employee (Russell &

Stone, 2002) and placing the importance of the employee over the organization (Patterson). As

stated by Gomez (2004) “the servant leader is a person who desires to sacrifice themselves out of

love for others” (p. 148). Finally, Stone et al. (2004) described the servant leader, one who

possesses agapao love, as one who does not hold “a 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” (p. 355).

Humility

Humility, according to Button (2005), is to lower one’s status in relation to another and is

related to one’s own self-awareness. Humility is not about someone who lacks self-esteem, but

EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS 16

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 2, 2008, pp. 14-24

ISSN 1930-806X, editorelj@regent.edu

rather someone who recognizes their own standing and is unassuming and humble (Bower,

1997). Patterson (2003) saw humility as a virtue that rejects self-glorification; further postulating

that a person who possesses humility cannot esteem themselves therefore, maintaining a

diminished self-focus. Kallasvuo (2007) further described humility as one of service to the

organization and a vital quality of a leader. Fairholm and Fairholm (2000) agreed that humility is

a vital part of leadership stating “self-interest plays no part in leadership, except as a

counterpoint to the sense of self-worth that service to others engenders” (p. 105). Humility,

allows leaders to see beyond their own ambitions and recognize the value of the follower to an

organization (Winston, 2003).

Altruism

Altruism is seen by Patterson (2003) as a link between good motives and good behavior.

Karra, Tracey, and Phillips (2006) defined altruism as “a moral value that leads individuals to act

in the interests of others without expectation of reward or positive reinforcement in return” (p.

863). Thompson (2007) further defined altruism as total unselfish concern for others, a form of

self denial. According to Scruton (2007), altruism ranges from performing unselfish acts to

sacrificing one’s life for another, such as “the lioness who dies in defense of her cubs” (p. 39).

Berry and Cartwright (2000) linked altruism and servant leadership by stating that “it seeks a

radical equality of persons by requiring all to be servants for some greater good than the

individual’s ego” (p. 342).

Vision

Patterson (2003) referred to vision as the “idea that the leader looks forward and sees the

person as a viable and worthy person, believes in the future state of each individual, and seeks to

assist each one in reaching that state” (p. 18). In servant leadership, a leader is a designer,

steward, and teacher vested in each individual for the purpose of growing the individual within

the organization (Taylor, 2007). Vision is seen as a way to “inspire others, to motivate action and

to move with hope toward the future” (Farling et al., 1999, p. 53). Though Winston (2003)

disagreed with Patterson’s use of the term vision, he described Patterson’s view when he stated,

“Vision is worked out by the leader finding the various interests and goals of the employee as it

relates to what the follower wants to do and the leader then modifies the organization’s

procedures and methods to fit” (p. 3).

Trust

Fairholm and Fairholm (2000) described trust as essential to an organization and a key

element for the leader and follower to unite around, “If unity is not achieved leadership

degenerates into management and control, power politics and compromise” (p. 102). Gomez

(2004) further stated that servant leaders elicit trust in the follower by “responding to crisis by

owning the problem” (p. 149). Russell (2001) and Story (2002) agreed that integrity and trust

leads to credibility and is essential to servant leadership, while Omoh (2007) stressed mutual

trust between leader and follower. Patterson (2003) viewed trust as a way for the leader to

empower to follower and the organization. Winston (2003) suggested that vision and trust occur

concurrently in Patterson’s model.

EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS 17

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 2, 2008, pp. 14-24

ISSN 1930-806X, editorelj@regent.edu

Empowerment

Russell (2001) viewed empowerment as the essential element of servant leadership and is

a major goal of the leader. Russell and Stone (2002) affirmed that empowerment is achieved

through pulling rather than pushing individuals along. Farling et al. (1999) stated that servant

leader’s values are what empower followers. Patterson (2003) stated that empowerment is

“letting people do their jobs by enabling them to learn, grow and progress and it means allowing

for self direction and freedom to fail; all of this multiplies the followers’ strengths and trust” (p.

24). Patterson further stated that this allows the follower to make their dreams a reality. Winston

(2003) clarified that the freedom is not limitless but is “progressive with the new follower being

empowered in small amounts and allowing the follower to learn and grow to the point of being

capable and willing to handle larger levels of empowerment” (p. 4).

Service

Farling et al. (1999) concluded that service is an essential element to servant leadership

and service is a primary function of leadership. Russell and Stone (2002) and Winston (2003)

further explained that leaders emulate a service model for followers. Patterson’s (2003) model

states that “the servant leader is called to serve and see life as a mission of service, and this

calling to service induces an acceptance of responsibility for others” (p. 25). The servant leader

is commanded to serve their employees and is committed to their well-being. Spears (1995)

commented that “great leaders must first serve others, and that this simple fact is central to his or

her greatness” (p. 3).

Patterson’s Servant Leadership Model

Figure 1 outlines Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership model concepts from agapao love

to service. The model illustrates the role of the leader and how agapao love begins the process,

works through humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, and ends with service. This,

according to Winston (2003), is incomplete as the model only addresses the leader’s relationship

to the follower.

Figure 1. Patterson’s (2003) Servant Leadership Model.

Servant Leadership Model Research Hypotheses

The main purpose of this study is to add to the body of knowledge on servant leadership

by testing the causal relationships of Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership model and validating

Patterson’s constructs of servant leadership in the military context. Based on the literature

review, six research hypotheses (H) were used to explore servant leadership:

Leader’s Empowerment

agapao love

Service

Altruism

Humility Vision

Trust

EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS 18

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 2, 2008, pp. 14-24

ISSN 1930-806X, editorelj@regent.edu

H1: A leader’s agapao love is positively related to his or her humility.

H2: A leader’s agapao love is positively related to his or her altruism.

H3: A leader’s humility and altruism are positively related to his or her vision

for the followers.

H4: A leader’s humility and altruism are positively related to the leader’s trust in

the follower.

H5: A leader’s vision and trust are positively related to his or her empowerment

of the followers.

H6: A leader’s empowerment of the followers is positively related to the leader’s

service to the followers.

Additionally, the following research questions (RQ) were asked concerning the role of

gender, military rank, and military service on the servant leadership concepts. Military rank was

subdivided among the rank structure delineated in Table 4. Finally, military service comprised of

all five military services: (a) Air Force, (b) Navy, (c) Army, (d) Marine Corps, and (e) Coast

Guard.

RQ 1.1: Is there a difference in agapao love by gender?

RQ 1.2: Is there a difference in humility by gender?

RQ 1.3: Is there a difference in altruism by gender?

RQ 1.4: Is there a difference in vision by gender?

RQ 1.5: Is there a difference in trust by gender?

RQ 1.6: Is there a difference in empowerment by gender?

RQ 1.7: Is there a difference in service by gender?

RQ 2.1: Is there a difference in agapao love by rank?

RQ 2.2: Is there a difference in humility by rank?

RQ 2.3: Is there a difference in altruism by rank?

RQ 2.4: Is there a difference in vision by rank?

RQ 2.5: Is there a difference in trust by rank?

RQ 2.6: Is there a difference in empowerment by rank?

RQ 2.7: Is there a difference in service by rank?

RQ 3.1: Is there a difference in agapao love by military service?

RQ 3.2: Is there a difference in humility by military service?

RQ 3.3: Is there a difference in altruism by military service?

RQ 3.4: Is there a difference in vision by military service?

RQ 3.5: Is there a difference in trust by military service?

RQ 3.6: Is there a difference in empowerment by military service?

RQ 3.7: Is there a difference in service by military service?

Method

The methodological approach was quantitative in nature with the main objective being to

investigate Patterson’s servant leadership model and its casual relationships in the military

context. The study was cross-sectional with questionnaires as the primary means of data

collection.

EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS 19

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 2, 2008, pp. 14-24

ISSN 1930-806X, editorelj@regent.edu

Sample

The sample for the research was selected from a Department of Defense facility located

in Colorado comprised of all five military branches. The facility was selected for its breadth of

experience ranging from first time enlistees to senior personnel. The sample size reflects the

composition of the military and is proportionate to the number of service personnel in the

facility. Due to the nature of the facility, Air Force and Navy contingents have greater

representation through the sample size. A total of 200 military members participated in the study

and the ranks and services are delineated in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1

Sample Size by Service

Service n Percent

Air Force 75 37.50

Navy 75 37.50

Army 40 20.00

Marines 5 2.50

Coast Guard 5 2.50

Table 2

Rank by Percentage

Service (n/Percent) E-1-E-3 E-4-E-6 E-7-E-9 Officer

Air Force 25/33.33 35/ 46.67 8/10.67 7/ 9.33

Navy 25/33.33 35/46.67 8/10.67 7/ 9.33

Army 13/32.50 19/47.50 5/12.50 3/ 7.50

Marines 2/40.00 2/40.00 0/ 0.00 1/20.00

Coast Guard 1/20.00 3/60.00 1/20.00 0/ 0.00

Data Collection

Data was collected via a personal distribution method due to the convenience of

distribution and the rapid turnaround in data collection. Confidentiality was assured for all

participants in the research study. The instrument was disseminated to participants via a service

representative and each participant was provided 20 minutes to complete the instrument and

return the survey to the service representative. The representative ensured equal distribution of

the questionnaire along current military demographics outlined in Tables 1 and 2 above.

EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS 20

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 2, 2008, pp. 14-24

ISSN 1930-806X, editorelj@regent.edu

Instrument

The instrument chosen for the current study was Dennis and Bocarnea’s (2005) servant

leadership instrument. The intention of the instrument according to the authors is to have “the

ability to predict or give instrument to the concepts of Patterson’s theory of servant leadership so

that a servant leader can measure his or her effectiveness as a servant leader” (Dennis &

Bocarnea, p. 612). With the permission of the authors, demographic information on the

instrument was modified to reflect information related to the military. The instrument has been

shown to be internally reliable with Alpha reliability coefficients ranging from .89 to .92

(Dennis, 2004) for four factors. Though future research has been suggested by the authors to

strengthen the instrument, Dennis and Bocarnea and Irving (2005) have established the validity

of the instrument.

Results

In order to test the causal relationships between Patterson’s (2003) servant leadership

model (hypotheses H1–H6), simple and multiple regression analyses were run.

Research Hypothesis

Simple regressions tested hypotheses H1, H2, and H6. The results were as follows:

H1 is supported: A leader’s agapao love is positively related to his or her humility [R2= .46, F (1,

199) = 168.96, p = 0.00 < 0.05, = .67]; H2 was supported: A leader’s agapao love is positively

related to his or her altruism [R2= .50, F (1, 199) = 205, p = 0.00 < 0.05, = .71]; H6 was

supported: A leader’s empowerment of the followers is positively related to the leader’s service

to the followers [R2= .20, F (1, 199) = 49.86, p = 0.00 < 0.05, = .45].

Multiple regressions were run to test H3, H4, and H5. The results were as follows: H3: A

leader’s humility and altruism are positively related to his or her vision for the followers [R2=

.33, F (2, 199) = 49.85, p = 0.00 < 0.05; H= .36; p > .05; A = .22, p >.05]; H4: A leader’s

humility and altruism are positively related to the leader’s trust in his followers [R2= .45, F (2,

199) = 80.68, p = 0.00 < 0.05, H = .42 p >.05; A = .32, p > .05]; H5: A leader’s vision and trust

are positively related to his or her empowerment of the followers [R2= .48, F (2, 199) = 91.41, p

= 0.00 < 0.05, V= .35 >.05, T = .45 >.05].

Figure 3 presents the results of the causal relationship shown in Patterson’s (2003)

servant leadership model.

H1: F (1,199) = 168.96, p <.05; R2 = .46, = .67

H2: F (1,199) = 205, p <.05; R2= .50, = .71

H3: F (2,199) = 49.85, p <.05; R2= .336, H = .36, A = .22

H4: F (2,199) = 80.68, p <.05; R2= .45, H = .42, A = .32

H5: F (2,199) = 91.41, p <.05; R2= .48, V = .35, T = .45

H6: F (1,199) = 49.86, p <.05; R2= .20, = .45

EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS 21

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 2, 2008, pp. 14-24

ISSN 1930-806X, editorelj@regent.edu

= .36

= .67

= .22 = .35

= .71 = .42 = .45

= .32 = .45

Figure 3. Graphic representation of the results in the tested servant leadership model.

Research Questions

To answer research questions 1.1-1.7, (RQ1.1- RQ 1.7: Is there a difference in agapao,

humility, altruism, vision, trust, empowerment, or service by gender?), t-tests were conducted on

each of the seven constructs. The results of these tests did not yield significant differences.

Research questions 3.1-3.7 (RQ3.1- RQ 3.7: Is there a difference in agapao, humility, altruism,

vision, trust, empowerment, or service by military service?), conducted by an analysis of

variance (ANOVA) did not yield significant differences, similar to research question one.

Research Questions 2.1-2.7, (RQ2.1- RQ 1.7: Is there a difference in agapao, humility, altruism,

vision, trust, empowerment, or service by rank?), conducted by ANOVA, yielded a significant

difference for only the vision construct (RQ2.4) with F (3,196) = 3.44, p = .01 < .05.

Summary of Results

To summarize the results of the study for the military context, the causal relationships

proposed in Patterson’s servant leadership model (2003) were supported. Furthermore, gender

and military affiliation were not found to determine differences in servant leadership

characteristics. Military rank, however, did have a significant difference for the vision construct.

These findings appear to support the portability of the servant leadership theory and add to the

body of research in the military context.

Discussion

As proposed by Winston (2004), the Patterson model shows “the causal relationships

between the variables in order to build a process model of servant leadership, in moving the

literature one step farther” (p. 602) and this study adds support to Patterson’s (2003) model. This

study validates Patterson’s assertion that the constructs of (a) love, (b) humility, (c) altruism, (d)

vision, (e) trust, (f) empowerment, and (g) service exist within the military context. This study

further postulates that gender, rank, and military service have no effect on the seven constructs,

with the exception of vision and rank. The study is an important addition to servant leadership, as

it adds further validity to Patterson’s model of servant leadership. As discussed by Joseph and

Winston (2005), servant leaders help employees grow through empowering workers, honoring

Empowerment

(a=.87)

Service

(a=.89)

Love =

(a=.86)

Humility

(a=.87)

Altruism

(a=.87)

Vision

(a=.88)

Trust

(a=.87)

EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS 22

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 2, 2008, pp. 14-24

ISSN 1930-806X, editorelj@regent.edu

commitments, and building trust and respect within the workplace. This study adds to the

theoretical framework by enhancing the understanding of servant leadership, although the

study’s intention is not to present servant leadership as the only leadership model available to

organizations.

The present study offers numerous directions for future research. Though the current

study explores servant leadership within the military, a small cross section of the military was

utilized for this current study. Patterson’s (2003) theory would be enhanced through exploring a

larger cross section of the military through the use of different geographical areas and expanded

career fields. Though the current study did ask military officers to participate in the study, the

majority of the officers were junior, with very few participants from the senior officer ranks.

Patterson’s model should be tested in a myriad of organizations and cultures to ensure the

theory’s portability. Finally, alternate servant leadership models should be tested to unify the

understanding of servant leadership.

About the Author

Matthew Earnhardt is working toward a Ph.D. in organizational leadership at Regent

University’s School of Global Leadership & Entrepreneurship. He currently is a signals analyst

for Lockheed Martin Corporation in the Mission Services Division. Additionally, he serves as

adjunct faculty and the Business Simulation Coordinator for the Community College of Aurora

in Colorado.

Email: mattear@regent.edu

References

Berry, A., & Cartwright, S. (2000). Leadership: A critical construction. Leadership &

Organizational Development Journal, 21(7), 342-349.

Bower, M. (1997). Developing leaders in business. McKinsley Quarterly, 4, 4-17.

Bryant, S. (2003). Servant leadership and public managers. Dissertation Abstracts International,

64(02), 634. (Publication No. 3082716)

Button, M. (2005). A monkish kind of virtue? For and against humility. Political Theory, 33,

840-868.

Dennis, R. (2004). Development of the servant leadership assessment instrument.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(05), 1857. (Publication No. 3133544)

Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment

instrument. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25(8), 600-615.

Dillman, S. (2004). Leading in the land of Oz: Cross-cultural study of servant

leadership in Australia. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(06), 2004. (Publication

No. 3136215)

Dingman, W. (2006). Servant leadership’s role in the succession planning process: A case study.

ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. 3243510)

Farling, M., Stone, A., & Winston, B. (1999). Servant leadership: Setting the stage for empirical

research. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6(1/2), 49-72.

Fairholm, M., & Fairholm, G. (2000). Leadership amid the constraints of trust. Leadership &

EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS 23

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 2, 2008, pp. 14-24

ISSN 1930-806X, editorelj@regent.edu

Organization Development Journal, 21(2), 102-109.

Gomez, M. (2004). Great leaders teach exemplary followership and serve as servant leaders.

Journal of American Academy of Business, 4(2), 143-151.

Greenleaf, R.K. 1970. The Servant as Leader. Cambridge, Mass.: Centre for Applied Studies.

Irving, J. (2005). Exploring the relationship between servant leadership and team effectiveness.

Retrieved March 3, 2008 from

http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2005/irving_exploring.pdf

Irving, J., & Longbotham, G. J. (2007). Team effectiveness and six essential servant leadership

themes: A regression model based on items in the Organizational Leadership Assessment.

International Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(2), 98-113.

Joseph, E., & Winston, B. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust and

organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 6-22.

Kallasvuo, O. (2007). Humility. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 16.

Karra, N., Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. (2006). Altruism and agency in the family firm: Exploring

the role of family, kinship and ethnicity. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 30(6),

861-877.

Koshal, J. (2005). Servant leadership theory: Application of the construct of service in the

context of Kenyan leaders and managers. ProQuest Digital Dissertations database.

(Publication No. 3188226)

Laub, J. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant

organizational leadership (SOLA) instrument. Dissertation Abstracts International,

60(02), 308. (Publication No. 9921922)

Nelson, L. (2003). An exploratory study of the application and acceptance of servant leadership

theory among black leaders in South Africa. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(03),

944. (Publication No. 3086676)

Northouse, P. (2001). Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Omoh, D. (2007). Analysis of servant leadership characteristics: A case study of a community

college president. Dissertation Abstracts International. (Publication No. 3262849)

Parolini, J. (2007). Investigating the distinctions between transformational and servant

leadership. ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. 3264263)

Patterson, K. (2003). Servant leadership: A theoretical model. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 64(02), 570. (Publication No. 3082719)

Russell, R. (2001). The role of values in servant leadership. Leadership &

Organizational Development Journal, 22(2), 76-83.

Russell, R., & Stone, A. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes:

Developing a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3),

145-157.

Scrutton, R. (2007). Altruism and selfishness. American Spectator, 40(8), 38-40.

Serrano, M. (2006). Servant leadership: A viable model for the Panamanian context? ProQuest

Digital Dissertations database. (Publication No. 3228983)

Smith, B., Montango, R., & Kuzmenko, T. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership:

content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,

10(4), 80-91.

EMERGING LEADERSHIP JOURNEYS 24

Emerging Leadership Journeys, Vol. 1 Iss. 2, 2008, pp. 14-24

ISSN 1930-806X, editorelj@regent.edu

Spears, L. (Ed.). (1995). Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf’s theory of

servant-leadership influenced today’s top management thinkers. New York, NY: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Stone, A., Russell, R., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership: A

difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4), 349-

361.

Story, M. (2002). A breakfast briefing that unscrambled Auckland’s road-jam:

Leadership is about collaboration and making connections. New Zealand Management,

49(9), 39-50.

Taylor, V. (2007). Leadership for service improvement, part II. Nursing Management, 13(10), p.

32-35.

Thompson, R. (2007). Self-serving altruism: Not an oxymoron. Physician Executive, 33(6), 82-

83.

Washington, R. (2007). Empirical relationships between theories of servant, transformational and

transactional leadership. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1-6.

Whetstone, J. (2002). Personalism and moral leadership: The servant leader with a transforming

vision. Blackwell Publishers, 11(4), 385-392.

Williams, T. (2004). Lead by love. Quality, 43(1), 8.

Winston, B. (2003). Extending Patterson’s servant leadership model: Explaining how leaders

and followers interact in a circular model. Retrieved February 29, 2008 from

http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2003/winston_extending_

patterson.pdf

Winston, B. (2004). Servant leadership at Heritage Bible College: A single-case study.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(7), 600-617.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). New Delhi, India: Pearson Education.

Остання зміна: понеділок 9 травня 2022 13:36 PM

Reading: Testing a Servant Leadership Theory Among United States Military Members

Info

Contact us