1

CIO Servant Leadership in a Dynamic

Environment

A phenomenological study of Chief Information Officers

K.R.Vishwanath
University of Wisconsin, Whitewater

Abstract
Chief Information Officers lead in dynamic conflict - driven environments and are
pulled by opposite forces, one that caters to the organization and employees.
Servant Leadership is now widely accepted as a viable theory. The present study
proposes a phenomenological look at lived servant leadership behaviors by Chief
Information Officers. s. Despite various studies that have focused on leadership
impact on employee commitment and attrition, there is a glaring gap in
understanding whether servant leadership has a singularly salutary effect. The
objective of the study is twofold to enhance the literature on servant leadership
and to explore how servant leadership affects employee commitment and
employee voluntary attrition when CIOs are conflicted in their objectives.
Keywords: Chief Information Officer, lived experience, servant leadership,
employee commitment, employee satisfaction.

Introduction
Chief Information Officers have become strategically important to business organizations
with their reach extending beyond the Information Technology function to all aspects of the
business (Gupta, 1991). The dilemma is do more with a lot less, relentlessly cut costs and deliver
increased output, layoff people or outsource jobs and serve the very same people so they could
become autonomous, self-sufficient and in turn serve others (Martin, 2007). The seminal
question is - how does a Chief Information Officer continue to motivate the Information
Technology workforce in the face of continuous (past, present and future) threat of reductions in
force, downsizing or layoffs?
Chief Information Officers drive investments in information technology, are responsible
for deploying technology and lead the technology innovation effort in most companies. They
play a pivotal role in American business today. Productivity improvements, product and process
innovation, and automation cannot take place without information technology. According to
Stiroh (2001) Information Technology (IT) has been an important economic force for well over
two decades and as a result, the typical Chief Information Officer occupies a strategic place at
the Chiefs table C level direct reports of the CEO (Weiss & Adams, 2011).
High performing firms depend on a world class IT function able to provide efficient and
effective IT services. IT effectiveness operationalizes and facilitates the conversion of business
vision in to a flawlessly executed plan. Additionally, business process innovation is largely a
function of IT. Brynjolfsson & Hitt (2000) conclude IT plays an important role in enabling
business processes and work practices and in productivity improvements stemming from reduced
cost structure. The effect of IT may even be understated. Brynjolfsson & Saunders (2010) assert
IT has an invaluable and intangible impact that goes far beyond productivity improvements. In

4
this environment, IT leadership is critically important and can make the difference between
success and failure for the company (Roepke, Agarwal & Ferratt, 2000).
Whereas the upside potential of IT as an enabler is apparent, the downside risk of IT not
performing cannot be overstated (Sebastian, 2007). IT leadership is imperative to manage the
downside risk associated with lay offs (Reductions In Force) and IT outsourcing (Roepke,
Agarwal & Ferratt, 2000). Chief Information Officers (CIOs) lead in an environment where
followers continuously feel negative pressure in terms of reductions in force, delayering,
downsizing and fundamental job changes. Lay Offs or Reductions In Force (RIF) has been used
as a strategy and a tactic for more than three decades (Gandolfi, 2009). This has particularly
affected the Information Technology staff. As technology advances and enhanced productivity
levels are achieved, Information Technology personnel become victims of their own success.
The consequential impact of the right leadership style can lead to a motivated and high
performing workforce that is autonomous and supercharged to serve others customers, the
organization, leader and their fellow workers. This calls for a leadership style that engenders
trust, facilitates a transparent environment in which followers are aware of the business
challenges and contradictions, and their negative impact on followers (Peppard, 2010).
Despite various scholarly efforts on servant leadership, employee commitment and
employee attrition, there has yet to be an understanding about the salutary effect of servant
leadership on employee commitment and voluntary employee attrition.
The purpose of this study is to continue on the path of establishing an empirical
foundation specifically linking the practice of servant leadership to employee commitment and
voluntary attrition with reference to Chief Information Officers leadership, in light of the

5
competing forces working on them. Chief Information Officers (CIO) are required to cut costs,
be innovative, move jobs overseas yet motivate the IT staff to perform well and give more.

The objectives are to:

1. Capture the lived experiences of CIOs exhibiting servant leadership.
2. Explore the impact of servant leadership on employee commitment.
3. Explore the impact on voluntary employee attrition.

The Rationale for Servant Leadership:

Smits & McLean (2003) promote the notion of situational distinctiveness of Information
Technology that merits the study of Information Technology leadership as a special class of
leadership with its inimitable features. Smits & McLean (2003) emphasize the need for the
Information Technology leader to pay attention to both the technology and the people side of the
business. Studies have shown that putting the followers needs personal and professional growth
ahead of those of the leader engenders trust and trust enhances follower willingness to embrace
leader initiatives (Liden, Wayne, Liao & Meuser, 2014).
Servant Leadership:
Information Technologys role in business is arguably as a catalyst, an enabler, a strategist
and an implementer of innovation and creativity and demands a leadership style that embodies a
strong vision and mission, displays passion, is empowering and fosters team work among other
factors (vonUrffKaufeld, Chari, & Freeme, 2009). Servant Leadership captures the essence of the
characteristics described above rooted in empowerment, people development, display of
humility, being authentic, acting as stewards and providing direction all of which work towards

6
the good of the entire organization (Van Dierendonck, 2011). The gap in the extant literature
however, is the direct link between CIO leadership behavior and positive employee response in
light of conflicting organizational dynamics. The more successful the IT organization is, the less
will be the need for IT employees, thus creating a conflict and a dilemma. Given the situational
uniqueness of Information Technology and the attendant dilemmas (Martin, 2007; Smits &
McLean, 2003), a compelling line of inquiry would be the tangible ways servant leadership
affects Information Technology employees.
The typical CIO is conflicted between the meeting the organizations
objective and serving the needs of the employees. It is particularly
highlighted when the CIO has self-awareness as a steward of the
organization (Reinke, 2004). Despite efforts by several scholars to
comprehensively define the servant leadership characteristics (Spears, 2010;
Russell & Gregory Stone, 2002; Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006), it is operationally
challenging to measure Servant Leadership characteristics.
Servant Leadership characteristics viewed from the followers perspective and
recognizing the leader giving direction in the overall interest of the follower - part is as
important as the servant part of the relationship, are Empowerment, Accountability, Standing
back, Humility, Authenticity, Courage, Interpersonal Acceptance and Stewardship (The 8 - factor
30 - item survey from Van Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2011).

Hence, the following proposition is therefore offered.

Proposition 1:

7
Servant leadership behavior is exhibited utilizing one or more of the following traits:
Empowerment, Accountability, Standing back, Humility, Authenticity, Courage, Interpersonal
Acceptance and Stewardship.
Employee Commitment:
Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthan & May (2004) in their conceptual model establish a
direct relationship between servant leadership and job attitudes. Drury (2004) calls for further
examination of the relationship between servant leadership and organizational commitment.
Joseph & Winston (2005) assert servant leadership has a positive relationship with follower trust
in the leader but stop short of making the connection to employee commitment. Hence, in view
of the gap in the extant literature the next proposition is:
Proposition 2:
Servant leadership will have a positive impact on employee commitment.
Employee Voluntary Attrition:
Leadership research in recent years may be coalescing around the beneficial effects of
employee oriented leadership styles (Jaramillo, Grisaffe, Chonko & Roberts, 2009). Graen,
Liden & Hoel, 1982). However, Jaramillo F, Grisaffe D, Chonko L., & Roberts J. (2009)
maintain there is a lack of empirical evidence directly linking leadership style to employee
turnover intention and point to a gap in the literature. This is even more so in the case of
Information Technology employees. Hence,
Proposition 3:
Servant leadership will have a positive impact on voluntary employee attrition.
Definitions:

8
Servant Leadership: Van Dierendonck & Nuijten (2011) characterize servant leadership in
terms of eight dimensions Empowerment, Accountability, Standing back, Humility,
Authenticity, Courage, Interpersonal acceptance and Stewardship.
Steers (1977) defines employee commitment as the comparative force of an individuals
connection with and involvement in the organization and can be reflected in three factors

Conviction in and acceptance of organizations goals and values

Disposition towards expending sizable effort and a

Resilient aspiration to be within the organization.

Voluntary Employee Attrition is employee turnover initiated by the employee.

Literature Review
Research on a wide variety of leadership paradigms has been carried out for over a
century. Sendjaya, Sarros & Santora (2008) contrasted transformational leadership and authentic
leadership with servant leadership and concluded that while transformational leaderships
principal objective is superior performance, the essential ingredient in servant leadership is the
comprehensive development of the follower with solid moral and ethical development. Many of
the authentic leadership characteristics may be found in servant leadership as well such as, selfawareness, and an emphasis on moral foundations. Kark, Shamir & Chen (2003) maintain that
transformational leadership poses two seemingly contradictory issues on the one hand it
advocates empowerment, on the other it causes dependency on the leader. Thus, transformational
leadership offers two opposite faces. Brown & Bryant (2015) identify a distinct move on the part
of leadership scholars from a leader-follower point of view towards self actualizing leadership
based on trust.

9
The need for a leadership model that is transparent, challenging, pushes the boundaries of
personal achievement through a compelling vision and primarily serving the needs of followers
is paramount (Doraiswamy, 2012). Conventional leadership styles autocratic, leader centered
and uncaring - is being replaced by an ethical, caring and follower centered and holistically
service oriented servant leadership (Spears, 2002). Wong, Davey & Church (2007) postulate that
servant leadership being different from the traditional trait, behavioral, situational and
contingency leadership models is a far-reaching method that concentrates on humility and ethical
conduct, a genuine relationship between leader and follower that creates a work atmosphere that
is uplifting and supportive of the follower. Scholars have offered varying versions of servant
leadership - "Servant Leadership helps awaken, engage and develop followers by means of
humility, authenticity and interpersonal acceptance" (Brown & Bryant, 2015) and "Servant
Leadership is demonstrated by empowering and developing people; by expressing humility,
authenticity, interpersonal acceptance, and stewardship; and by providing direction. A highquality dyadic relationship, trust, and fairness are expected to be the most important mediating
processes to encourage self-actualization, positive job attitudes, performance, and a stronger
organizational focus on sustainability and corporate social responsibility" (Van Dierendonck,
2011)
Servant leadership as an alternative to transformational leadership is widely advocated
and adopted as a contemporary theory of leadership (Russell & Gregory Stone, 2002; Van
Dierendonck, 2011). Empirical evidence to support the link between theory and practice is
increasing (Savage-Austin & Honeycutt, 2011). Bowman & Schindler surveyed 34 Information
Systems managers using the Servant Leadership Questionnaire developed by Johnson (2007) and

10
reported very positive results that point to Information Managers exhibiting servant leadership
behaviors.
Gregory Stone, Russell, & Patterson (2004) declare the organizational impact of servant
leadership as secondary which could indicate a long-term effect of servant leadership.
Servant leadership has a deep moral undertone which speaks to the humanity of the
leader, but may also have a bearing on the entire organization particularly employee commitment
and employee attrition. A distinguishing characteristic of servant leaders is that they look at
taking on the role of a servant as a necessary condition not a sufficient one. Sufficiency is
established by embracing the very nature of a servant (Sendjaya, 2005). Sendjaya & Sorros
(2008) while acknowledging the wide acceptance of servant leadership as a viable leadership
practice call for substantially more than just anecdotal evidence suggesting more rigorous
empirical research needs to be conducted.
Empirical evidence based research in servant leadership is starting to take off in various
environments. Parris & Peachey (2013) maintain that heretofore research activity has been
confined to either conceptual definition of it or development of measurement tools to help
empirical analysis.
Black (2010) established a positive correlation between academic environment
characterized by teacher competence, and student outcomes in terms of learning outcomes and
intellectually taking care of themselves. McCormick (2010) studied servant leadership in a single
construction company but recommended it be studied across the industry. Johnson &
Vishwanath (2011) applying servant leadership to the classroom environment conclude servant
professorship involves creating a challenging academic environment that ensures the served
students achieve their maximum potential.

11
Sendjaya & Pekerti (2010) empirically tested the linkages between servant leadership
behavior and followers trust in their leaders. Findings in this study include servant leadership as
a significant predictor of trust with covenantal relationship, responsible morality and
transforming influence. Linden, Wayne, Zhao & Henderson (2008) demonstrated servant
leadership as a multidimensional construct that goes beyond transformational leadership in
clarifying in-role performance and organizational commitment. Melchar & Bosco (2010)
presented empirically determined results linking servant leadership with business growth through
increased customer loyalty.
Avery (2004) recognizing the difficulty in ascertaining a cause effect relationship
between leadership and performance said: "The very question of whether leadership affects
performance reflects a belief that direct cause- effect relationships can be observed between a
leader and the success of an organization. This assumption is often made but difficult to test. .
Nonetheless, many researchers seek the root of high performance in leadership particularly at the
upper echelons."
This study further takes servant leadership from a purely moral framework to a practical
and useful business setting. The study explores the effect of servant leadership on improved
employee commitment and lower level of employee voluntary attrition. Thus, it enhances the
theory of servant leadership with an empirically based practice component. Following Brown &
Bryant (2015), this study provides an invaluable means of advancing understanding of the
servant leadership construct linking theory to practice. The discussion establishes continuity in
the field and adds to the growing understanding of servant leaderships tangible impact on the
organization as a whole and followers in particular.

12

Theoretical Background:
Recent studies show that leadership scholars increasingly seek a more comprehensive
view of leadership.
Higgs (2003) suggest the need for leadership scholars to give credence to the context of
complexity and advocated a shift from a Weberian analytical model to one that acknowledges
emotional considerations. The focus has altered from solely looking at the leader to a number of
dimensions including, followers, the work atmosphere, culture, emotions, etc. (Avolio,
Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009).
Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber (2009) conclude that leadership is perceived as a
multifarious and evolving dynamic in organizations. Jing & Avery (2011) believe whereas
considerable attention has been paid to leadership and its possible impact on the organization,
there has not been a coherent and agreed upon link established between the two. Jing & Avery
(2011) maintain that while attempts have been made in the past to link leadership and the
organization at large, only a limited number of leadership paradigms visionary and transactional
leadership - have been studied bypassing the role of other perhaps more viable leadership styles.
Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthan & May (2004) propose a conceptual model linking
Authentic leadership to organizational performance as shown in figure below.
Avolio, et al (2004) recognize the limitations of authentic leadership and suggest authentic
leadership is not a sufficient condition to achieve desired organizational results.

13

Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthan & May (2004). Conceptual Servant Leadership Model

Avolio & Gardner (2005) advance the notion of a root construct underlying all positive
leadership paradigms labeling it Authentic Leadership Development. However, one glaring
observation is that authentic leadership focuses too much attention of the leaders self-awareness
and too little on the follower(s).
It is clear from these models that leadership based on ethical, considerate and compassionate
conduct of the leader towards the follower is not only morally advisable but also has an effect on
the organization (Van Dierendonck, 2011).
Patterson (2003) proposed a theoretical model for servant leadership that focused on the behavior
of servant leaders, introducing a set of virtuous characteristics Agape Love,
Altruism, Humility, Vision, Trust, Empowerment that taken together transforms
to service. Subsequent scholarship on servant leadership have in part taken the
Patterson model and improved on it. While adding significantly to the

14
development of the servant leadership construct, the theory does not address the practice of
servant leadership and its concomitant effect on organization.
Sendjaya (2005) called for a more robust, empirically tested and validated concept of servant
leadership in order to develop servant leadership into a viable and strong construct and theory.
Sendjaya (2005) built a multidimensional measurement scale of servant leadership. The
dimensions tested were: Voluntary Subordination, Authentic Self, Covenantal Relationship,
Responsible Morality, Transcendent Spirituality, and Transforming Influence. Van Dierendonck
& Nuijten (2011) identified weaknesses in previous attempts at developing instruments to
measure servant leadership (Laub, 1999; Page & Wong, 2000; Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006;
Sendjaya, Sarros & Santora, 2008) and introduced a new instrument the Servant Leadership
Survey comprising 8 factors covering 30 items. Van Dierendonck & Nuijten (2011) conceptually
interpreted and empirically demonstrated the 8 - factor, 30-item instrument.
The present study is an exploration of how servant leadership behavior is exhibited by Chief
Information Officers and its impact on employee commitment and employee voluntary attrition. ,
The Van Dierendonck & Nuijten (2011) instrument will be used in the in-depth interviews of
CIOs, as it purports to be a more comprehensive instrument. The instrument captures the essence
of other instruments developed by scholars in the past (Laub, 1999; Dennis & Bocarnea, 2005;
Page & Wong, 2000; Sendjaya, Sarros & Santora, 2008). The study is exploratory as the lived
experiences of Chief Information Officers are examined. The eight factors as defined by Van
Dierendonck & Nuijten (2011) are not individually examined. Rather, they serve as a basis for
determining servant leadership behavior.

15
Servant Leadership 8 Factors
Empowerment
Accountability
Standing back
Humility
Authenticity
Courage
Interpersonal acceptance
Stewardship

Servant Leadership
Employee Commitment
Employee Voluntary
Attrition

Interpersonal Acceptance
Stewardship

Methods:
Methodological Approach
This is a Qualitative study designed to explore and understand the lived experience of Chief
Information Officers servant leadership behavior. As such, knowledge claims here pertain to
Social Constructivism. The absence of an accurate definition of servant leadership by its first
proponent in a business setting - Greenleaf - has led to varying connotations of leadership
behavior (Van Dierendonck, 2011). The purpose of this study therefore, is to capture the
intricacies of the lived experience of CIOs and the impact of their behavior.

Research Questions:
A. How do CIOs exhibit servant leadership behavior?
B. How does servant leadership impact employee commitment?
C. How does servant leadership impact employee voluntary attrition?

16
Sample Frame:
CIOs of Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For will be invited to participate in the study.
Multiple sources of data will be accessed - from those responding, including in-depth interviews
and review of documentation (emails, memoranda, policy directives, Human Resources
documentation on employee commitment and attrition, Annual Reports etc.). Fortune Magazine
publishes the list every year. According to Fortune Magazine, To identify the 100 Best
Companies to Work For, each year Fortune partners with Great Place to Work to conduct the
most extensive employee survey in Corporate America. Two Thirds of the survey is based on the
results of the Trust Index Employee Survey, which is sent to a random sample of employees from
each company. This survey asks questions related to employees attitudes about managements
credibility, overall job satisfaction, and camaraderie.
Link between Knowledge Advancement, Research Objectives and Research Questions:
The 8 - factor 30 - item survey from Van Dierendonck & Nuijten (2011) will be subjected to
Content Expert Validation.
Although content validity has been established by Van Dierendonck & Nuijten (2011) from an
European perspective, I propose to invite experts from the International Leadership Association
to assess the servant leadership construct (the 8 factors) for representativeness,
comprehensiveness and clarity (Sendjaya, 2005).
Following Carter & Little (2007) and Freire & Miranda (2014), the desire to advance knowledge
of servant leadership drives the research objectives, which in turn helps focus on specific
research questions. In the present study, understanding practical applications of servant
leadership are crystallized in the research objective of the examination of lived experience of the
CIO? How the CIO exhibits servant leadership in the day-to-day administration of the IT

17
organization becomes a research focus operationalized by a specific research question how
does the CIO display servant leadership characteristics? The 8-factors of servant leadership as
described by Van Dierendonck & Nuijten (2011) will be used as a frame of reference.
Similarly, the drive to get a better understanding of tangible follower outcomes of servant
leadership is a catalyst for research objectives of getting a grasp of the impact of servant
leadership on employee commitment and employee attrition. The research objectives are
operationally looked at in terms of how directionally and materially servant leadership
impacts employee commitment and employee attrition.
The model proposed by Miles & Huberman (1977) will be used to collect data interviews,
documents review, annual reports, reports from the Human Resources organization on employee
engagement, intent to stay in the organization and actual voluntary attrition statistics. The
relationships between Knowledge Advancement, Research Objectives and Research Questions
are encapsulated in the table below.
Link between Knowledge Advancement, Research Objectives and Research Questions:
Knowledge Advancement
1. Knowledge of practical

Research Objectives
1.Lived experience of CIOs.

Research Questions
1. How do CIOs display servant

applications of servant leadership.

2. Knowledge of tangible

2. Impact of servant leadership

leadership characteristics?
2. How does CIO servant leadership

follower outcomes.
3. Knowledge of tangible

on employee commitment.
3. Impact of servant leadership

impact employee commitment?

3. How does CIO servant leadership

follower outcomes.

on employee attrition.

impact employee voluntary attrition?

Data Analysis: The in-depth interviews will be transcribed and subjected to pattern
recognition utilizing text recognition software. Computer Aided Text Analysis will help in
content analysis to classify and categorize servant leadership behaviors particularly with respect

18
to the eight attributes described earlier. It is reasonable to assume that employee reaction will lag
servant leadership behavior. Therefore, linking servant leadership behavior to employee
outcomes employee commitment and employee attrition on a lead lag basis will be an
important part of the analysis.
Classifying and categorizing data, assigning the data within categories, data displays, tabulating
frequencies and sequencing data are important elements that will be followed in analyzing the
data collected (Yin, 2009).
Following Miles & Huberman (1977), the data collected will be analyzed using the following
iterative model:

Data Collection

Data Reduction

Data Display

Conclusions:
Drawing/Verifying

Source: Miles & Huberman (1977) Components of Interactive Model

Validity Tests:
Yin (2009) suggests four tests to determine the quality of empirical social research.
Construct Validity: Whereas Van Dierendonck & Nuijten (2011) have validated the
8 factor- 30-item survey from an European perspective, following Sendjaya
(2005), I propose to invite the International Leadership Association to assess,
the scope, clarity and representativeness of the 8 factors. In order to further

19
solidify the construct all the CIO interviewees will be asked to comment on
them. This will continue through out the study to maintain an on-going and
iterative state of clarity.
Internal Validity: It is imperative in a qualitative study such as the present
one, to make sure the right inferences are drawn and establish a pattern of
inferences. For example, in establishing a causal inference between a
servant leadership trait that leads to a certain employee outcome
commitment and voluntary attrition the criticality of looking at all possible
influences on the outcome variables cannot be overstated. Employee
commitment and employee attrition may have been affected by other
(perhaps extraneous) circumstances. A holistic and comprehensive analysis
of inference patterns is necessary.
In this regard, rival claims of cause - effect inferences will be addressed and
analyzed.
External Validity: To the extent the sample frame consists of the top 100
Fortune Best Companies To Work For, it encompasses CIOs representing
various companies from various industries. The generalizability of the
findings via an established pattern would be forthcoming. However, as the
interviews and inferences are made on a case-by-case basis, applying
patterns of learning in subsequent interviews will give a sound basis for
establishing external validity.
Reliability: The key to establishing reliability is to holistically follow the
same procedure throughout the study. An interview protocol complete with

20
rules (if then) will be framed to minimize, if not eliminate differences in the
application of procedures. All of the interviews will be recorded (with the
permission of the interviewees) and transcribed. Detailed documentation and
operationalization of most if not all steps in the study will greatly enhance
reliability.
Validity Tests: The table below encapsulates the approach to establish validity of the research
study.
Tests

Study Approach

Construct Validity

Multiple sources of evidence will

be used. The International
Leadership Association will be
requested to assess, the scope,
clarity and representativeness of
the 8 factors. Additionally, they
will be tested with all CIO
interviewees. A verification
sequence will be established
throughout the study.
Pattern matching, textual analysis
of interview transcripts,
explanation building and
addressing competing
explanations.
To the extent that multiple CIOs
will be interviewed, replication
logic will be used.
Study database will be developed
using the case study protocol.
Detailed documentation on
operationalization of steps will be
executed.

Internal Validity

External Validity
Reliability

Phase of Study in which approach

occurs
Pre data collection.

Data collection.
Throughout the study
Data Analysis

Research Design
Data Collection

Source: Yin, R. (2009).

Practical Limitations:
This study is a Qualitative Study that explores servant leadership behavior exhibited by CIOs of
the Fortune 100 Best Companies To Work For. There are three limitations to the study. First, the

21
sample is a restrictive one. Future studies should examine a broader sample encompassing both
Best Companies To Work For and otherwise, to get a more comprehensive representation.
Second, given this studys exploratory nature, a more quantitative based study would empirically
solidify the cause effect nature of servant leadership, and employee commitment and voluntary
attrition.
Third, while the sample is comprised of a mixture of fast paced and non fast paced companies, a
direct comparison of CIOs from fast paced industries where speed to market is an important
driver, with CIOs from less fast paced industries, would examine the secular effect of servant
leadership across industry types.

Conclusion:
This Qualitative Study will significantly add to extant literature on servant leadership in an
environment where CIOs face conflicting pressures between organizational objectives and those
of their employees. Further it attempts to link theory to practice adding to the growing body of
empirical evidence that servant leadership is a viable leadership alternative.

22

References:
Avery, G. C. (2004). Understanding leadership: Paradigms and cases. Sage Publications.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the
mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and
behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801-823.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315-338.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research,
and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of
servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300-326.
Bowman, D. D., & Schindler, T. J. (unknown). An Assessment of Servant Leadership
Characteristics for Information Systems Managers. Pages.unidy.edu
Black, G. L. (2010). Correlational Analysis of Servant Leadership and School Climate. Catholic
Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice, 13(4), 437-466.
Brown, S., & Bryant, P. (2015). Getting to know the elephant: A call to advance servant
leadership through construct consensus, empirical evidence and multilevel theoretical
development. Servant Leadership: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 10-35.
Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (2000). Beyond computation: Information technology,
organizational transformation and business performance. The Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 23-48.
Brynjolfsson, E., & Saunders, A. (2010). Wired for innovation: How information technology is
reshaping the economy. Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press.
Carter, S. M., & Little, M. (2007). Justifying Knowledge, Justifying Method, Taking Action:
Epistemologies, Methodologies, and Methods in Qualitative Research. Qualitative
Health Research, 17(10), 1316-1328.

23

Chun, M., & Mooney, J. (2009). CIO roles and responsibilities: Twenty-five years of evolution
and change. Information & Management, 46(6), 323-334.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, S. (2003). Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials.
Sage Publications.
Dennis, R. S., & Bocarnea, M. (2005). Development of the servant leadership assessment
instrument. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(8), 600-615.
Doraiswamy, I. R. (2012). Servant or Leader? Who will stand up please? International Journal
of Business and Social Science, 3(9), 187-182.
Drury, S. (2004). Employee perceptions of servant leadership: Comparisons by level and with
job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Doctoral dissertation, Regent
University).
Ebener D. (2011). Servant Leadership and a Culture of Stewardship. Priest. 67(2): 121.
Freire, E. S., & Miranda, M. J. (2014). The production of knowledge about the building of values
in physical education at school: methods, methodology and epistemology. Physical
Education & Sport Pedagogy, 19(1), 35-47.
Gandolfi, F. (2009). The mean and lean firm: the latest in reductions in force (RIF). Strategy.
Ivey Business Journal.
Gupta Y. (1991). The chief executive officer and the chief information officer: the strategic
partnership. Journal Of Information Technology, (3/4):128.
Higgs, M. (2003). How can we make sense of leadership in the 21st century? Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 24(5), 273-284.
Jaramillo F, Grisaffe D, Chonko L., & Roberts J. (2009). Examining the impact of servant
leadership on salesperson's turnover intention. Journal Of Personal Selling & Sales
Management.
Jing, F. F., & Avery, G. C. (2011). Missing links in understanding the relationship between
leadership and organizational performance. International Business & Economics
Research Journal (IBER), 7(5).
Joseph, E. E., & Winston, B. E. (2005). A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and
organizational trust. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 6-22.
Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:
empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246.

24
Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the servant
organizational leadership assessment (SOLA) instrument (p. 00125). FLORIDA
ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY; 0119.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving
culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Management Journal,
57(5), 1434-1452.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development
of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly,
19(2), 161-177.
Mayer, D.M. (2010). Servant Leadership: Where do we go from here In Dirk van Dierendonck,
D., Patterson, K., (Eds.). (2010). Servant Leadership. Palgrave Macmillan.
Martin, R. (2007). THE CIO DILEMMA. InformationWeek, (1131), 38-42,44.
Melchar, D. E., & Bosco, S. M. (2010). Achieving high organization performance through
servant leadership. The Journal of Business Inquiry, 9(1), 74-88.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1977). Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage Publications.
Page, D., & Wong, T. P. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership. The
human factor in shaping the course of history and development. Lanham, MD: University
Press of America.
Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory
in organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(3), 377-393
Patterson K.A. (2003). Servant leadership: A Theoretical Model. Doctoral Dissertation, UMI No.
3082719, Regent University.
Peppard, J. (2010). Unlocking the performance of the Chief Information Officer (CIO).
California Management Review, 52(4).
Reinke, S. J. (2004). Service Before Self: Towards a Theory of Servant-Leadership. Global
Virtue Ethics Review, 5(3), 30-57.
Roepke, R., Agarwal, R., & Ferrat, T. W. (2000). Aligning the IT human resource with business
vision: The Leadership Initiative at 3M. MIS Quarterly,
24(2), 327 353.
Russell, R. F., & Gregory Stone, A. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes: Developing
a practical model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 23(3), 145-157.

25
Savage-Austin, A. R., & Honeycutt, A. (2011). Servant leadership: A phenomenological study of
practices, experiences, organizational effectiveness, and barriers. Journal of Business &
Economics Research (JBER), 9(1).
Sebastian, M. W. (2007). Information Technology leadership perceptions and employee-centric
organizational culture. (Order No. 3277890, Walden University). ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses, .141-n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304763563?
accountid=35812.
(304763563).
Sendjaya, S. (2005). Development and Validation of the Servant Leadership Behavior Scale.
Monash University.
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership
behavior in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424.
Sendjaya, S., & Pekerti, A. (2010). Servant leadership as antecedent of trust in organizations.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(7), 643-663.
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership
behavior in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424.
Smits, S. J., & McLean, E.R. (2003). A role model of IS leadership. Ninth Americas Conference
on Information Systems. 1273-182.
Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 46-56.
Stiroh, K. J. (2001). The economic impact of information technology. Federal Reserve Bank of
New York, 18.
Spears, L. C. (2002). Tracing the past, present, and future of servant-leadership. Focus on
leadership: Servant-leadership for the twenty-first century, 1-16.
Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring
leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1(1), 25-30.
Stone, A. G., Russell, R. F., & Patterson, K. (2004). Transformational versus servant leadership:
A difference in leader focus. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(4),
349-361.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.
Tongco, M. D. C. (2007). Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany
Research & Applications, 5(1), 147-158.

26

Van Dierendonck, D (2011). Servant Leadership: A Review and Synthesis. Journal of

Management, 37(4),1228-1261
Van Dierendonck, D., & Nuijten, I. (2011). The servant leadership survey: Development and
validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(3),
249-267.
vonUrffKaufeld, N., Chari, V., & Freeme, D. (2009). Critical Success Factors for Effective IT
Leadership. In Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Information
Management and Evaluation (p. 433). Academic Conferences Limited.
Weiss, J. W., & Adams, S. M. (2011). Aspiring and Changing Roles of Technology Leadership:
An Exploratory Study. Engineering Management Journal, 23(3), 13-17.
Wong, P. T., Davey, D., & Church, F. B. (2007). Best practices in servant leadership. Servant
Leadership Research Roundtable, School of Global Leadership and Entrepreneurship,
Regent University.
Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research: Design & Method. Sage Publications.
Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Does servant leadership foster
creativity and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and
prototypicality. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1395-1404.